Program transition
Bridging-check documentation review
A bridging-check documentation review confirms that the bridging analysis and work package used to move an aircraft between maintenance programs are recorded, justified, and carried into the next due check. It is used during an operator transition or a program change. It checks how each task was mapped from the outgoing program to the receiving program, which bridging tasks were generated, and that the analysis behind each mapping is retrievable. You receive a task-mapping record, the unresolved or unsupported mappings, and the evidence needed to close each one.
When this review is needed
- An aircraft has moved or is moving between maintenance programs and the bridging needs confirming.
- A buyer wants the bridging analysis behind a recent transition verified before relying on the program.
- A bridging check has been performed and the lessor needs the work package tied to its analysis.
- An interval mismatch between two programs created bridging tasks whose basis is unclear.
The problem
Moving between programs means reconciling two sets of tasks with different intervals and thresholds, and the bridging analysis that does this is detailed and easy to under-record. A task can be mapped with no rationale, a shorter interval in the receiving program can leave a task already overdue at transfer, and a bridging task can be generated without a clear basis. A transition that reads as complete can rest on a bridging analysis that no one can reproduce.
What gets reviewed
- The bridging analysis mapping each outgoing task to the receiving program
- Tasks where interval or threshold differences required adjustment
- Bridging tasks generated to cover gaps between the two programs
- The first due check on the receiving program and the tasks it carries
- The rationale recorded for each mapping decision
- Tasks left open or deferred through the transition
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 outgoing task is mapped to the receiving program with a recorded rationale
- Interval and threshold differences are reconciled rather than left to drift
- Bridging tasks generated to cover gaps carry a stated basis
- No task is overdue at transfer without being captured and addressed
- The first due check reflects the bridging outcome accurately
Evidence normally required
- The outgoing and receiving maintenance programs
- The bridging analysis and its supporting rationale
- The bridging work package and its accomplishment records
- The status of each task at the point of transfer
- The first due check work scope on the receiving program
Common discrepancies
- A task mapped to the receiving program with no rationale recorded
- A shorter receiving interval that left a task overdue at transfer
- A bridging task generated with no clear basis behind it
- A mapping that the records cannot reproduce or defend
- A deferred task that the bridging never converted to a tracked item
What is at stake
An undocumented bridging leaves the receiving operator unable to defend why a task sits where it does, and an under-recorded mismatch can put a task overdue from the moment of transfer. Reconstructing the bridging logic after the aircraft is operating on the new program is far harder than confirming it at the time of the move.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Set both programs side by side
Lay the outgoing and receiving programs together with their intervals and thresholds so each task can be traced across the move.
Follow each mapping
Check that every outgoing task is mapped to the receiving program with a recorded, reproducible rationale.
Reconcile interval mismatches
Find tasks where a shorter receiving interval left an item overdue at transfer and confirm each was captured and addressed.
Confirm the first due check
Verify the bridging tasks carry a stated basis and that the first due check on the receiving program reflects the outcome.
What the buyer receives
- A task-mapping record showing each task, its destination, and its rationale
- A list of unresolved or unsupported mappings and overdue-at-transfer tasks
- A recommended closure path for each gap with the rationale to capture
Who uses the output
- Maintenance planning defending the receiving program build
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming nothing fell into the gap
- Acquisition and transition teams confirming a recent bridging holds up
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review supports an operator transition or a program change by confirming the bridging is recorded and defensible. It builds on the program records review and feeds the first due check planning on the receiving program.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A bridging accepted under one authority does not automatically carry to another. Where the transition crosses authorities, the review identifies mappings and bridging tasks whose basis the receiving authority will need to confirm.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms that the bridging documentation is complete, consistent, and traceable to its analysis. It does not perform the bridging analysis, approve the receiving program, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the bridging analysis itself
- Approval of the receiving maintenance program
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- Bridging reconciles two programs with different intervals, so the highest-risk output is a task that is already overdue at the moment of transfer.
- A bridging analysis is only useful if it can be reproduced; a mapping with no recorded rationale cannot be defended after the move.
- Bridging tasks generated to cover a gap need their own basis, because they exist in neither the outgoing nor the receiving program by default.
Sources
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.
International Civil Aviation Organization. International standards for aircraft operation, including maintenance program and recordkeeping expectations.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between bridging and a normal program review?
A program review checks one program against its sources. A bridging review checks the analysis that mapped one program onto another during a transition, including the tasks created to cover the differences between them.
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.