Defect closure
Non-routine closure records review in the CAMO source file
This review reads a non-routine register against the continuing-airworthiness file to confirm each closed defect actually has a closure behind it. It is run for CAMO managers and quality leads after heavy checks, ahead of airworthiness reviews, or when defect-closure discipline is in doubt. Every sampled non-routine is traced from the raising entry to the disposition that resolved it, the corrective action performed, and the data or engineering support that action relied on. Closures the file cannot substantiate are reported item by item with what is missing.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check generated hundreds of non-routines and the register shows all of them closed.
- A repeat defect suggests an earlier closure that never actually corrected the condition.
- An airworthiness review or authority audit will trace sampled defects end to end.
- Non-routines were transferred between packages or deferred, and the closure trail crosses documents.
The problem
Non-routines are born messy: raised on the spot, written fast, dispositioned by whoever the finding lands on, and closed under the same schedule pressure that produced them. The register imposes tidy statuses on that reality. Each closed line summarizes a chain of card, disposition, action, and sign-off that the file may or may not hold intact, and the register never tells you which.
What gets reviewed
- Sampled non-routines from the register across selected checks and events
- The raising record: what was found, where, and against which routine task
- Disposition for each item, whether rectify, defer, transfer, or accept, with its authority
- Corrective-action evidence: the work record, parts used, and release for rectified items
- Approved data or engineering support where the disposition required it
- Deferred and transferred items followed to their eventual closure point
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 closure links a raising entry, a disposition, and a completed corrective action with sign-off
- Dispositions carrying engineering or approved-data requirements have that support in the file
- Parts replaced during rectification trace to release documents in the component file
- Deferrals were made within the operator's permitted framework and closed inside their limits
- Repeat findings at the same location were assessed against the earlier closure rather than treated as new
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine register or NRC log for the events under review
- The raised non-routine cards and their associated routine tasks
- Disposition records, engineering responses, and deferral approvals
- Corrective-action work records and releases
- Follow-on package references where items transferred
Common discrepancies
- Register lines closed by administrative tidy-up at check exit, with no corrective action attached
- Dispositions requiring engineering support closed on a verbal response never reduced to record
- Rectifications consuming parts with no corresponding release in the component file
- Deferred items whose limit passed while the deferral record still shows them open
What is at stake
A defect closed without evidence of correction is indistinguishable, on paper, from a defect still present in the structure or system, and reviewers treat it that way. At worst the aircraft carries the condition forward while the record says otherwise, and at best the operator funds an inspection to re-establish what a complete record would have shown.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Sample the register
Select closed non-routines across checks and disposition types, including every repeat finding identified.
Rebuild each closure chain
Trace raising entry, disposition, corrective action, parts, and sign-off through the documents that should connect them.
Test the dispositions
Confirm engineering support, deferral authority, and data references behind each disposition that required them.
Report broken chains
State the missing link for each failed item and recommend retrieval, inspection consideration, or engineering assessment.
What the buyer receives
- An item-level exception list stating the missing link in each broken closure chain
- A closure-integrity profile by check, disposition type, and closing team
- A follow-up route per exception: retrieval, inspection recommendation, or engineering assessment
Who uses the output
- CAMO managers proving defect-closure integrity for reviews and audits
- Quality teams targeting the checks and stations where closure discipline slipped
- Records teams preparing defect histories for lease returns and sales
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Non-routine review closes the loop the task-card review opens: routine cards generate the findings, and this review confirms the findings were actually resolved. It draws on the repair, release-document, and program reviews wherever a disposition leaned on approved data, a replacement part, or a deferral framework, which makes it a natural final pass over a CAMO file program.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Defect rectification is maintenance under 14 CFR Part 43, recorded to the standards AC 43-9C describes and retained under 91.417. In the EASA system, Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 places defect control and its records with the CAMO, including deferral management. The review follows whichever framework governed each event, and it flags deferrals that would satisfy one system's rules while breaching the other's, a live issue on transferred aircraft.
Regulatory limits
The review assesses closure evidence in the file. It does not disposition defects, does not authorize or extend deferrals, does not direct inspections, and makes no determination about the aircraft's current condition or airworthiness.
What this review does not cover
- Physical inspection to confirm any defect's present state
- Engineering disposition of items found unresolved
- Changes to the operator's deferral or MEL procedures
Specific to this review
- Non-routine closure chains cross more documents than any other record type, from raising card through disposition, action card, release, and register, so they break at the seams between systems rather than inside any one of them.
- Check-exit register tidy-ups are a known failure pattern: items get closed to zero the count, on the assumption the paper will be married up later.
- Repeat findings are the review's most valuable signal, because they test whether an earlier closure was real using evidence from the aircraft itself.
- Transferred items are the likeliest to be lost entirely; each transfer is a chance for both packages to believe the other one owns the item.
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
We already audit non-routine closure in our quality system. What does this add?
Internal audit typically samples current processes against procedures. This review runs backward through the accumulated file, including checks performed by organizations you no longer use, and it tests the record's ability to prove closure to an outside reader, which is a different standard than procedural conformance.
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.