Flight controls records
A350 flight control software and FCRM configuration evidence
This review is for lessors, airlines, avionics suppliers that need to defend Software load record during A350 redelivery or pre-purchase configuration review. It compares the status claim with Flight-control computer software status and FCRM configuration report, Software load record, Configuration control report, release entries, and configuration or task-control records where supplied. The output shows which lines are supported, which need retrieval, and which require specialist disposition before acceptance.
When this review is needed
- The file contains a closed status line but the buyer cannot see the source record behind it.
- Aircraft, engine, component, or software configuration has changed since the last accepted status report.
- The review team needs an exception list before lease return, import, shop release, or sale close.
The problem
The hard part is not finding documents, it is deciding whether the right document supports the exact claim. Dates, serials, revisions, measured values, and release references are checked at the level needed for acceptance.
What gets reviewed
- Match each PRIM and SEC software standard to the aircraft configuration report supplied for the MSN.
- Review FCRM status evidence against the redelivery configuration matrix.
- Check task cards for the actual software load or configuration action performed.
- The review notes that confirm maintenance releases identify the aircraft, system, date, and applicable work package.
- Flag any status line that relies only on an avionics summary export.
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
- Pass when the software standard, FCRM status, and task-card closure agree by aircraft and date.
- Fail when the aircraft configuration report lists a different standard than the AD status sheet.
- Pass when maintenance release wording supports the specific system configuration claimed.
- Fail when a software load record is present but lacks the aircraft effectivity link.
Evidence normally required
- aircraft software configuration report
- PRIM and SEC standard listing
- FCRM status evidence
- maintenance task cards
- avionics release records
- redelivery configuration matrix
Common discrepancies
- FCRM evidence stored in engineering files but absent from the records data room.
- PRIM and SEC standards shown as current in one export and mixed in another.
- Task-card closure without an attached configuration report.
- Redelivery matrix using short system labels that do not identify the affected computer standard.
What is at stake
Unresolved evidence can become a lease exception, audit finding, import question, or shop-release delay. The exposure is highest when missing records are discovered after leverage or access to the prior records owner has changed.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Frame 2025 A350
The review notes that confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any flight-control computer software status is treated as sufficient.
Trace Sec Software
Walk the named evidence from index entry to source artifact and mark where the trail supports, conflicts with, or fails to answer the page-specific question.
Sort Evidence Review
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Control Configuration
Deliver the exception list, evidence map, and owner sequence in a form that can move directly into remediation, submittal cleanup, or transaction negotiation.
What the buyer receives
- Flight-control computer software status evidence matrix
- Open discrepancy register grouped by aircraft, engine, component, or location
- Source-record request list with exact missing pages
- Acceptance notes for lines that are supported by the delivered file
Who uses the output
- Avionics records analyst uses the register to decide which lines can be accepted or escalated.
- Configuration engineer uses the evidence map to request missing technical records.
- Asset manager uses the closure plan for transaction, audit, or delivery decisions.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
AD 2025-25-12 (Amendment 39-23220, effective January 13, 2026) applies to A350-941 and -1041 airplanes and requires installing FCGS primary computer PRIM P14.1.3 and secondary computer SEC S14.1.2 software standards while prohibiting earlier standards, addressing loss of an outboard aileron after hydraulic fluid contaminated a flight control remote module, superseding AD 2025-13-12. The evidence set centers on aircraft software configuration report, PRIM and SEC standard listing, FCRM status evidence, and maintenance task cards. The likely weak points are a configuration record showing a software level that the AD prohibits, a software upload done at line maintenance without an updated config/8130 trail, and the superseded 2025-13-12 actions left unreconciled after this AD. Handoff: avionics records analyst, A350 redelivery or pre-purchase configuration review, A350 flight control software and FCRM configuration evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA references are used as evidence context for recordkeeping and compliance support. The review does not treat one authority's record format as automatic acceptance by another authority or by a counterparty.
Regulatory limits
The output supports records and transaction decisions. It does not make an airworthiness determination, issue a release to service, grant credit, or bind any authority, authorized person, operator, or counterparty.
What this review does not cover
- Creation of missing maintenance records
- Regulatory filings submitted for the owner or operator
- Legal interpretation of lease or purchase terms
Specific to this review
- For this review, software AD evidence is usually a configuration-control problem rather than a paper certificate problem.
- A recurring records trap is that the strongest file ties aircraft effectivity, computer standard, load date, and maintenance release into one trace.
- A lease return can fail on ambiguous avionics status even when no physical part record is missing.
- The scope uses the 2025 A350 Prim Sec question as the control point, so the review stays tied to A350 redelivery or pre-purchase configuration review and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Flight-control computer software status and follows Software Fcrm Evidence Review references until every exception has a source location and a reason code.
- The finding logic separates missing paperwork, conflicting status, stale revision data, and unsupported disposition because each class closes through a different owner.
- The timing matters for Avionics records analyst: the output is useful only if the unresolved items are visible before acceptance, submittal, handback, or negotiation pressure fixes the sequence.
- The boundary control keeps Flight Control Configuration Controls questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Flight-control computer software status evidence matrix; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
- The source discipline is stricter on this page than on a general audit because the claim being tested is Verify flight-control software standards and FCRM status against the A350 PRIM/SEC AD..
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this records review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to 2025 a350 prim sec and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block a350 redelivery or pre-purchase configuration review or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is flight-control computer software status, the current status source, and any index or matrix that tells reviewers where the supporting artifact should live. Missing inputs are logged as findings rather than filled with assumptions.
Who decides whether an open item is acceptable?
The review explains what the evidence supports and gives avionics records analyst a closure path. Acceptance remains with the buyer, operator, authority, delegated engineer, or authorized person responsible for the underlying airworthiness or certification decision.
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.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.