Status vs. source
Status list that disagrees with the source documents
A status-list and source-document mismatch is where the maintenance-tracking output, the AD, life-limited part, or component status the records are summarized into, does not agree with the source documents underneath it. It concerns lessors and acquisition teams pricing an asset, airlines reconciling tracking, and the operator preparing for an audit. The review reconciles each status line to its source evidence, isolates where they diverge, and characterizes whether the error is in the list, the source, or the data behind both. You receive a line-by-line reconciliation, a register of mismatches by type, and the corrections each requires.
When this review is needed
- Diligence relies on a status list whose numbers cannot be matched to the records.
- An AD or life-limited line on the list disagrees with the accomplishment or release evidence.
- A tracking migration produced a status that no longer ties to the source documents.
- An audit is approaching and the operator needs the status list reconciled to source before it is reviewed.
The problem
Decisions are made from the status list, because it is the readable summary, while the source documents that justify it are large and rarely re-checked. The list states an AD as complied, a part with life remaining, or a check as current, and that line is trusted until something forces the source to be opened. A tracking error, a missed entry, or a migration that dropped data can leave the summary confidently wrong while the records say otherwise.
What gets reviewed
- Each material status line, by AD, life-limited part, component, and check
- The source document that should justify each line, traced and compared
- The direction and size of each divergence between the list and the source
- Whether the error sits in the list, the source entry, or the data feeding both
- Status produced by a tracking migration and whether the source survived it
- Recurring items where a wrong interval or last-done propagates future error
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Send a representative, redacted record set and we will scope the review.
What gets validated
- Each status line resolves to a source document that supports the value shown
- AD status on the list matches the accomplishment evidence and method of compliance
- Life-limited-part life remaining on the list matches the release and accumulation records
- Component status reconciles with the installation and release paperwork
- Time-since-new and cycles-since-new are consistent between the list and the logbooks
- Recurring-item last-done and interval on the list match the governing source
Evidence normally required
- The current maintenance-tracking status list and its export
- AD and SB accomplishment records and compliance evidence
- Life-limited-part release certificates and accumulation records
- Component installation and release paperwork
- Airframe, engine, and APU logbooks or their digital equivalents
Common discrepancies
- An AD shown as complied on the list with no accomplishment evidence in the source
- A life-limited part whose list life remaining disagrees with the release records
- A recurring item with a last-done or interval on the list that the source contradicts
- Time-and-cycle totals that differ between the list and the logbooks
- Status carried by a migration whose source documents were never transferred
What is at stake
A status list that overstates compliance can carry an asset into a deal or an audit on a position the records do not support, and the correction lands as a finding, a grounding item, or a price adjustment. A list that understates can force unnecessary work. Either way, a status nobody can tie to source is a liability that grows the longer the divergence goes unreconciled.
Move from findings to resolution
Sequence the fixes and the documentation that closes each finding.
How the work runs
Select the lines that matter
Identify the AD, life-limited, component, and recurring lines that drive value and risk for the asset.
Trace each line to source
Match every selected status value to the accomplishment, release, or accumulation evidence that should justify it.
Classify the mismatches
Record each divergence by type, direction, and whether the error sits in the list, the source, or the data.
Specify the corrections
State what each mismatch requires to resolve and which party owns the fix and the corrected baseline.
What the buyer receives
- A line-by-line reconciliation tying each status value to its source document
- A mismatch register classifying each divergence by type and by where the error lies
- The correction each mismatch requires, in the list, the source, or the underlying data
Who uses the output
- Asset and acquisition teams pricing the asset against a status they can trust
- Records teams correcting the list or recovering the source it should rest on
- Continuing-airworthiness staff and operators preparing for an audit
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This is the reconciliation that underpins every other records review, because a status list is only as good as the source beneath it. It runs inside an acquisition review, a lease-return audit, or an audit-readiness check, and its output feeds the discrepancy register and the corrected baseline the next party works from.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Which status lines are decisive depends on the type, since engine life-limited part structure, landing-gear overhaul cycles, and the modification baseline change what drives value and risk. The reconciliation is weighted toward the lines that matter for the specific aircraft rather than treating every line as equal.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
AD applicability and acceptable compliance evidence differ between the FAA and EASA systems, so a status line is reconciled against the source the governing authority expects. Where an asset is changing authorities, the list is re-tested against the receiving authority's requirements rather than assumed to carry across.
Regulatory limits
The review reconciles the status list to the source records and identifies and classifies each mismatch. It does not generate an authoritative status on the operator's behalf, certify compliance, replace the tracking system, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Operating or maintaining the customer's maintenance-tracking system
- Issuing an authoritative compliance or airworthiness status
- Any airworthiness determination or regulatory approval
Specific to this review
- Decisions are routinely made from the status list while the source documents under it go unchecked, which is exactly where the mismatch hides.
- Each mismatch is classified by where the error lives, in the list, the source, or the shared data, because that determines the correction.
- A tracking migration is a frequent origin of mismatch, since status can survive a migration that the supporting source documents did not.
- A wrong last-done or interval on a recurring item propagates forward, so one error in the list can corrupt a string of future due dates.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Records an owner or operator must keep, including total time in service, current status of life-limited parts, and AD compliance.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA guidance on making and keeping maintenance records and acceptable recordkeeping practices.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Should the status list or the source documents be trusted when they disagree?
Neither by default. The review traces each line to its source, then determines whether the list, the source entry, or the shared data is wrong, because the correction differs depending on where the error actually is.
Why do status lists drift from the source in the first place?
Common causes are a manual tracking error, an accomplishment never entered, and a system migration that moved the status forward without carrying the supporting documents, so the summary becomes confident while the source no longer backs it.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.