Component AD position
Airworthiness Directive status review against a component-history source file
This review proves a serialized component's AD status list against the history file behind it: installed-part data, removal and installation records, release certificates, shop findings, and the serial-number trail. It is run for operators, lessors, and MRO teams when a component's trace is being assembled or challenged. Each AD line is followed to the accomplishment record that justifies its state, and lines that cannot be followed become exceptions. The component records lead receives a source-keyed exception list to build the component trace support file from.
When this review is needed
- A component's AD status was inherited from a prior operator and has never been re-proven against source records.
- A buyer, lessor, or auditor has challenged specific AD closures on a high-value serialized part.
- A shop visit changed the component's configuration and the status list may not reflect the applicable directives anymore.
- A part is being prepared for sale or exchange and the trace package must stand on its own.
The problem
AD status lists for components are usually maintained in a tracking system that records the conclusion and discards the path to it. Years later the list says closed, the directive demands evidence of the accomplishing task, and the record that would show it sits in a prior operator's archive or a shop's work-order system. The person defending the status did not create it and cannot say, without this review, which lines will survive scrutiny.
What gets reviewed
- Each AD line on the status list matched to its accomplishment record, method of compliance, and date
- Applicability confirmed against the component's part number, serial number, and modification state
- Superseded and revised directives checked so the list reflects the current directive structure
- Recurring AD intervals traced to the operating history that drives their next-due calculation
- Terminating actions verified against the configuration change records that would prove them
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
- Closed lines carry accomplishment evidence naming this serial number, the task performed, and who performed it
- Not-applicable determinations rest on documented part or configuration data rather than assumption
- Method of compliance recorded matches an option the directive actually permits
- Recurring items show a next-due figure consistent with the utilization history in the file
- No line cites a directive revision that has since been superseded in a way that changes the requirement
Evidence normally required
- The component's current AD status list from the tracking system
- Removal and installation records across the part's installation history
- Release certificates and shop-visit findings for each maintenance event
- Serial-number history and configuration or modification records
- The applicable directives at their current revision
Common discrepancies
- Closures recorded at fleet level with no record naming this component's serial number
- A not-applicable call based on part number alone when the directive keys on serial range
- Recurring directives whose next-due dates ignore a gap in the utilization history
- A terminating action claimed without the modification record that would demonstrate it
What is at stake
An AD closure that cannot be evidenced gets treated as open, and an open AD on a serialized component can ground its installation, kill an exchange deal, or force repetition of an expensive task that was probably already done. One indefensible line also invites the reviewer to distrust the rest of the list, expanding a narrow question into a full re-verification.
How the work runs
Fix the directive baseline
Establish the currently applicable directives for this part number, serial number, and configuration.
Walk the status list
Follow every line to its accomplishment record, applicability basis, or terminating action.
Test the recurring items
Recompute next-due positions from the utilization history and compare with the list.
Issue the exception file
Deliver line-level exceptions, the defensibility summary, and the retrieval plan.
What the buyer receives
- A line-by-line exception list against the AD status, keyed to the missing or conflicting source record
- A defensibility summary separating proven closures from asserted ones
- A retrieval plan naming the likely holder of each absent accomplishment record
Who uses the output
- Component records leads assembling the trace support file
- Maintenance and quality leadership deciding what to fix before an audit or transaction
- Asset managers pricing a part or negotiating an exchange with a known defect list
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The AD position is usually the first thing a reviewer tests in a component trace, because directives carry regulatory force under 14 CFR 39 and its EASA counterpart. This review front-loads that test, and its exception list drives the retrieval and reconstruction work that the wider component-history effort then completes.
Start with a single asset
Confirm release certificates and component traceability are complete.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A component that has lived under both FAA and EASA oversight may carry directives from both systems, and the two authorities occasionally act on the same unsafe condition with different requirements or timelines. The review reads each line against the directive system that actually applied at the time, which matters most for parts imported mid-life.
Regulatory limits
The review establishes what the records support. It does not determine airworthiness, does not accomplish or close directives, and does not substitute for the operator's or CAMO's own AD management obligations under its approvals.
What this review does not cover
Specific to this review
- Fleet-level AD sign-offs are the classic component trap: the fleet record proves the campaign, never the serial number.
- Directive applicability can turn on serial ranges and modification states that only the component's own history file resolves.
- A superseding AD can reopen an item the old list showed closed, so status lists age even when the part sits on a shelf.
- Utilization gaps in a part's history silently corrupt every recurring-item next-due figure downstream of the gap.
- Reviewers weight AD evidence above almost everything else in a trace, so exceptions here move price and schedule more than equal-sized gaps elsewhere.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
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.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
The tracking system shows all ADs closed. Isn't that enough?
A tracking system records conclusions. Directives require evidence of accomplishment, and a reviewer or authority will ask for the record behind the entry. This review finds out in advance which entries have one.
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.