Work-package diligence
Reviewing closed task cards in a transaction data room
Closed task cards are where an aircraft's maintenance claims either hold or fail, and this review reads the cards a seller has uploaded rather than the check summaries built on top of them. A records reviewer samples closed work packages for sign-offs, references to approved data, and agreement with the status lists posted in the room. The work runs inside the pre-purchase or pre-lease window while Q&A remains open. Findings arrive as folder-referenced exceptions the acquisition team can act on.
When this review is needed
- A recent heavy check anchors the asset's value and only its certificate of release has been uploaded.
- Status lists cite work packages whose card sets are absent or only partially scanned.
- An earlier review found sign-off gaps and the buyer wants the sample widened before exceptions close.
- Redelivery conditions reference completed tasks that need card-level proof.
The problem
Check summaries compress thousands of cards into one line, and data rooms usually deliver the summary first and the cards late or never. Sets that do arrive come scanned out of order, split across folders, and mixed with superseded revisions. Nobody on the deal team has time to read them all, so the question becomes which cards to pull and what a defensible sample looks like.
What gets reviewed
- Work packages selected for sampling by value, recency, and relevance to the status claims
- Card sign-offs checked for certifying authority, date, and completeness at each stage
- References on the cards traced to the approved data revision in force at accomplishment
- AD and SB cards matched to the compliance status posted in the room
- Package completeness assessed against the check's routine card index
- Missing or illegible cards logged with their package and folder location
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 sampled card carries the sign-offs the accomplishing organization's procedures require
- Data references on the cards cite revisions valid on the accomplishment date
- Any card feeding an AD compliance line exists and states the accomplishment method
- The card count in each sampled package reconciles with its index or tally sheet
- Dates and station stamps on the cards agree with the check dates the summary claims
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- Card sets uploaded without the non-routine cards their routine cards spawned
- A signature block completed for inspection but blank for the certifying release
- Cards citing a manual revision issued after the work was done, evidence of backfilled paperwork
- Packages whose scan skips card ranges, leaving compliance lines resting on absent pages
What is at stake
A card with a missing certifying signature or a reference to unapproved data can undo the compliance credit an entire check was given. Discovered after closing, these defects surface at the next lease return or audit, where the current owner holds them without recourse to the seller.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Select the sample
Weight the pull toward AD-related cards, high-value tasks, and the packages the price depends on.
Read the cards
Check sign-offs, data references, dates, and stamps on every sampled card against the accomplishing organization's conventions.
Cross-check the claims
Confirm AD and SB status lines and check summaries agree with what the sampled cards show.
Report with locations
File exceptions by package, card number, and folder path so the seller can respond precisely.
What the buyer receives
- A sampling report stating what was pulled, why, and what each card showed
- Exception entries with package, card number, and folder path for the diligence schedule
- A card-availability map showing which claimed packages are actually in the room
Who uses the output
- Acquisition engineers grading how much weight the check history can carry
- Transaction managers converting card defects into exception schedule items
- Records teams planning post-closing retrieval of the packages that never arrived
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Card sampling is the depth pass of a data-room review: the status and summary reviews decide where to dig, and this work digs. Its results calibrate the whole diligence, because clean samples let the team rely on summaries elsewhere, while dirty samples argue for widening scope before the exception schedule is agreed.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA record requirements under 14 CFR 43.9 and the guidance in AC 43-9C shape what a compliant card entry looks like for US-maintained aircraft, while EASA Part-145 organizations follow their exposition and Part-M record rules. Cards from a mixed maintenance history show different sign-off conventions, and the review reads each against the regime it was executed under.
Regulatory limits
Sampling establishes documentary support, nothing more. The review does not recertify work, judge the physical quality of maintenance performed, approve data, or make any airworthiness determination reserved to certificated persons and authorities.
What this review does not cover
- Reading every card in every package rather than a defensible sample
- Physical verification that the carded work was performed
- Chasing the accomplishing MRO for records the seller has not obtained
Specific to this review
- Targeting beats volume: cards tied to AD compliance and high-value tasks return more findings per hour than random pulls.
- Scanned card sets often omit the reverse sides where continuation entries and second signatures live, a defect invisible in the folder index.
- A missing non-routine card is a double finding, because it breaks both package completeness and the defect-closure trail.
- Checks scanned years after the event tend to produce packages with revision mismatches, since the scan gathered whatever paper survived.
- A check release certificate covers the package as a whole, yet single cards carry the AD and SB claims, so one absent card can matter more than the certificate that summarizes it.
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
How big a card sample is defensible?
Size matters less than selection. A pull weighted toward AD compliance cards, high-value tasks, and the checks the price rests on gives the deal team more protection than a larger random sample, and the sampling report states the basis so the coverage can be defended later.
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.