Work-package evidence
Closed task-card evidence review across the continuing-airworthiness file
This review samples the closed task cards standing behind a continuing-airworthiness record set and tests whether each card evidences the work it claims. It is run for CAMO managers and quality teams after heavy checks, before airworthiness reviews, or when a work package's closure has been questioned. Cards are checked for complete sign-offs, correct data references at the revision in force, recorded measurements where the task demands them, and agreement with the work-package certification. Cards that cannot evidence their closure are listed by package and task.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check has closed and the package is about to become the permanent record of that work.
- An MRO transition means future packages will be built differently, and the outgoing standard needs a baseline.
- Quality escapes have raised doubt about closure discipline on past packages.
- An airworthiness review or counterparty audit will pull cards at random and read them cold.
The problem
A task card is written to guide work and signed to close it, under hangar time pressure, by people whose job is the aircraft rather than the archive. Multiplied over a heavy check, small omissions add up to a package where dozens of cards lack a stamp, a measurement, or the data revision they were worked to. The package certifies as complete anyway, and the defects wait in the file for whoever reads it next.
What gets reviewed
- Sampled closed cards across selected work packages in the CAMO file
- Mechanic and inspector sign-offs, including RII items, against each card's certification requirements
- Maintenance-data references on each card against the revision in force at accomplishment
- Recorded values such as torques, measurements, and test results where the card requires them
- Card-to-package integrity: card lists, certification statements, and any cards worked but absent
- Deferred and transferred items, traced to where they were actually closed
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
- Every required sign-off block on sampled cards is completed under an appropriate authorization
- Data references cite the document and revision current on the accomplishment date
- Required measurement and test-value fields hold values within stated limits, or carry a disposition
- The package card list reconciles with the cards physically or digitally present
- Items deferred out of the package appear in the deferral record and were closed downstream
Evidence normally required
- Closed work packages selected for review, with card lists and certifications
- The individual task cards, paper or scanned
- Authorization records sufficient to read stamps and signatures
- Maintenance-data revision history for the accomplishment period
- Deferral logs and follow-on package references
Common discrepancies
- RII steps stamped by a single signatory where independent inspection was required
- Cards worked to a data revision superseded weeks before the check began
- Measurement fields left blank on cards whose task exists to capture that measurement
- Cards listed in the package index that no archive, paper or digital, can produce
What is at stake
A card that cannot evidence its closure invites the worst interpretation: that the work was not done, or not done to data. One such card can unravel confidence in the package around it, and at a redelivery or audit the burden of proof lands on the operator, years after the hangar crew dispersed.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Select packages and strata
Choose work packages and stratify the card sample by check phase, trade, and performing team.
Read each card cold
Check sign-offs, RII independence, data references, and required values the way an external reviewer would.
Reconcile cards to packages
Verify card lists, certifications, and deferral trails so the package holds together as a single record.
Profile and route defects
Report exceptions by card and package, with the defect class and the realistic cure for each.
What the buyer receives
- A card-level exception list grouped by package, with the defect stated for each card
- A closure-quality profile by package, check, and performing organization
- A remediation path per defect class: retrieval, attestation, or re-performance assessment
Who uses the output
- CAMO and quality managers evidencing closure discipline to auditors
- Records teams deciding which packages can support an airworthiness review sample
- Maintenance leadership feeding findings back into hangar closure practice
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task cards are the ground truth the higher-level reviews rest on: AD closures cite them, program compliance assumes them, and non-routines branch off them. Card-level review therefore runs deepest and samples hardest; its defect rates calibrate how much trust the AD, program, and non-routine reviews can place in card references they do not individually open.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
14 CFR Part 43 sets the content and signature requirements for maintenance records, with AC 43-9C giving the FAA's guidance on adequate entries and 91.417 governing retention. EASA-environment packages close under Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 with certifying-staff and CAMO record duties. Cards from a mixed history are read against the regime they were closed under, since sign-off conventions differ enough to create false findings otherwise.
Regulatory limits
The review evaluates cards as records. It does not re-certify work, does not judge the technical quality of the maintenance performed, and does not determine airworthiness for the aircraft or any item worked.
What this review does not cover
- Re-inspection or re-performance of the tasks themselves
- Investigation of individual certifying staff beyond reading authorizations
- Review of open, in-work packages
Specific to this review
- Sampling has to be stratified by check and by crew, because closure defects are cultural: they cluster where a particular team's habits ran.
- The final days of a heavy check produce a disproportionate share of card defects, closed in the push to get the aircraft back to the line.
- A blank measurement field is worse than a marginal value, because a value can be dispositioned while a blank can only be explained.
- Digital card systems shift the defect mix rather than eliminating it: sign-offs become complete by construction while data-revision and value-entry errors persist.
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
The check was years ago and the MRO's staff have moved on. Is a review still worthwhile?
Yes, because the record is what survives and what will be read. The review establishes what the cards can prove today, and for defects that cannot be cured by retrieval it frames the attestation or engineering assessment that can stand in, which is better settled now than during a transaction.
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.