Post-migration assurance
Task-card source reconciliation for airlines after a system move
After an airline moves maintenance records into a new M&E system or completes a scanning program, the closed task-card set needs to be proven again: card images must exist, be legible, and link to the right work orders and aircraft. This reconciliation samples closed packages across fleets and check types and confirms the electronic record still leads to the signed card. Records and continuing-airworthiness teams run it once migration cutover stabilizes, before an authority audit or fleet transaction tests the data. It closes with a fleet-level defect summary and a card-level fix list.
When this review is needed
- An M&E system cutover mapped historical work orders into a new data model and card links have not been spot-proven.
- A bulk scanning program converted paper packages and the vendor's quality sampling was volume-based, with no card-level check.
- The authority has scheduled a records audit and the team cannot yet demonstrate retrieval from the new system.
- Aircraft in the fleet are entering lease returns and lessors will request cards through the new repository.
The problem
System migrations map data models, and task cards sit at the awkward junction of structured records and scanned paper. A work order migrates cleanly while its card images stay behind under the legacy document key; a scanning batch gets attached to the wrong tail because two aircraft shared a hangar visit; a signature that was crisp on paper becomes an unreadable gray band at the vendor's default resolution. Line maintenance keeps producing new records on top, so the historical break stays buried under fresh, healthy data.
What gets reviewed
- Sampled closed work orders resolved from the new system to their full card image sets
- Image legibility graded, with attention to signatures, stamps, and handwritten measurements
- Aircraft, work-order, and card associations verified against pre-migration identifiers
- Scanning batch integrity checked where paper packages were digitized
- Legacy-system references in migrated records tested for whether they still resolve
- Retrieval workflow timed and documented as audit evidence
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 sampled work order in the new system opens its complete card set, including non-routines it spawned
- Signature and stamp regions on sampled images are readable at the stored resolution
- Card counts per package match the pre-migration package inventory or the paper archive
- No sampled card is attached to the wrong aircraft, engine, or work order
- Records flagged as migrated actually left the legacy store rather than existing only as pointers to it
Evidence normally required
- Access to the new M&E or document system and, where possible, the legacy system
- Migration mapping specifications and cutover reconciliation reports
- Scanning vendor batch logs and quality-control records
- Closed work-order lists per aircraft for the sampling frame
- The paper archive location index for legibility escalations
Common discrepancies
- Work orders whose card images remained in the legacy document store with no forward link
- Signature blocks illegible at the stored scan resolution although the paper original is clear
- Cards from a shared hangar visit indexed to the sister aircraft's tail number
- Non-routine cards migrated as standalone documents, severed from the routine card that raised them
What is at stake
A card the system cannot produce is, for audit purposes, a card that does not exist. Retrieval failures during an authority audit convert instantly into findings against the continuing-airworthiness records system, and the same failures during a lease return convert into disputed redelivery items. Rebuilding a broken link two years after cutover, when the legacy system license has lapsed, can be impossible.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Frame the sample
Stratify closed work orders by fleet, check type, and migration batch, weighting aircraft with upcoming transactions.
Pull and grade
Retrieve each sampled package through the new system and grade completeness, legibility, and association.
Trace the failures
For each defect, identify whether the fix is a relink, a rescan, or recovery from the paper archive.
Report and prioritize
Deliver the defect list sequenced by audit and transaction exposure.
What the buyer receives
- A fleet-level summary of card retrieval integrity by aircraft and check type
- A card-level defect list with the specific fix for each: relink, rescan, or recover from paper
- An audit-ready note describing the sampling method and results
- A residual-risk statement for records that cannot be repaired
Who uses the output
- Records and document-control teams executing the relink and rescan work
- CAMO and quality leadership answering authority questions about the migration
- Fleet and lease-management staff preparing aircraft for upcoming redeliveries
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This reconciliation is the acceptance test the migration project rarely includes. It runs after cutover and before the records face an external consumer, and its defect list becomes the punch list that finally closes the migration. Aircraft heading into lease returns get priority sampling so the fix effort lands where a counterparty will look first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Retention duties frame the exercise. Under 14 CFR 91.417 and the operator rules, certain records must remain producible for defined periods or until superseded, and EASA continuing-airworthiness requirements expect the CAMO to keep maintenance evidence retrievable for its fleet. A migration that technically preserved data but broke retrieval can still leave the operator unable to meet either regime's expectation on demand.
Regulatory limits
The work verifies that records exist, are legible, and are correctly associated. It does not re-release maintenance, does not certify the M&E system, and does not judge whether the underlying work satisfied approved data. Airworthiness responsibility stays with the operator and its CAMO.
What this review does not cover
- Executing rescans or system relinks, which the operator's teams perform from the defect list
- Auditing the historical maintenance itself for technical adequacy
- Validating unrelated M&E modules such as inventory or reliability data
Specific to this review
- Scanning vendors sample for page count and skew, so an entire batch can pass vendor QC while every signature in it is below legibility threshold.
- The highest-risk period is the first eighteen months after cutover: legacy access still exists but is decaying, and that window is when broken links are cheap to repair.
- Shared hangar visits are a systematic mis-association source because scanning crews batch by physical location, and physical location mixes tails.
- Authorities increasingly test records systems by asking for a specific card live during the audit, which makes timed retrieval evidence worth producing in advance.
- Non-routine cards suffer migration damage more often than routine cards because they were created outside the planned card set and attached late in the package lifecycle.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Our migration vendor ran a reconciliation report at cutover. Is this redundant?
Cutover reconciliation typically counts records and checks key fields. It does not open card images, read signatures, or confirm a work order produces its complete package on demand. This review tests the record the way an auditor or lessor will, which is a different question from whether row counts matched.
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.