Non-routine findings
Non-routine records verified against the engine-module source file
This review follows every non-routine raised during an engine visit from the condition that opened it to the evidence that closed it. Records leads and lessors commission it when a file must show that defects found at disassembly were dispositioned with authority and cleared with proof. Each register line is matched to its findings source, its disposition basis, and the corrective work or part movement that resolved it. Register lines that close without that chain come back as exceptions.
When this review is needed
- Shop findings ran long on a heavy visit and the register needs proving before the file supports a transaction.
- A counterparty's reviewer asked for disposition evidence behind sampled non-routines and the answers were slow.
- The engine changed shops mid-visit and the register spans two organizations' paperwork.
- Use-as-is and repair dispositions from the visit will carry into the next lease and need their approval basis on file.
The problem
The non-routine register is the honest record of what the shop actually found, which makes it the record most likely to be incomplete at close-out. Dispositions get made in engineering systems that never print to the package, replacement parts get fitted under cards that do not cite the originating defect, and the register line ends up reading closed on the strength of a signature alone.
What gets reviewed
- The register reconciled against the findings report in both directions: findings without NRs and NRs without findings
- Disposition entries traced to their engineering authority or approved-data basis
- Repair dispositions matched to the repair records and any resulting inspection obligations
- Replace dispositions matched to removal records and release certificates for incoming parts
- Use-as-is decisions checked for documented justification and any limits imposed
- Open or transferred items confirmed as carried into the deferral or program records
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 register line has an origin in the findings evidence and a stated disposition path
- Closure signatures are backed by corrective evidence, never standing alone
- Parts installed to clear a non-routine carry releases matching the register's part and serial references
- Dispositions that impose recurring inspections appear in the maintenance program output
- No condition described in the findings report is absent from the register
Evidence normally required
- The complete non-routine register for the visit
- Shop findings and inspection reports from disassembly onward
- Disposition records, engineering orders, or approved-data references cited on closures
- Release certificates and fitment records for parts changed under non-routines
- Deferral logs and program records for items carried open
Common discrepancies
- Register lines signed closed while the cited disposition document is absent from the package
- A findings-report condition with no register line, usually from a mid-visit reporting handoff
- Recurring-inspection obligations created by a repair disposition and never passed to the program
- Replacement hardware fitted against a non-routine whose release paperwork names a different serial
What is at stake
A non-routine closed without its disposition is indistinguishable from a defect that was ignored. At the next transfer each such line invites the conservative reading, and where the disposition was use-as-is or a limit-setting repair, the missing basis can force reinspection or restrict how the next operator can run the hardware.
How the work runs
Reconcile the register
Match register lines against findings evidence in both directions to establish the true defect population.
Trace dispositions
Pull the authority and data basis behind each disposition, flagging closures that rest on a signature alone.
Verify corrective evidence
Match repairs, replacements, and inspections to their records, releases, and program entries.
Schedule the carry-overs
Document surviving obligations and route them to program and deferral owners.
What the buyer receives
- A dispositioned-versus-supported matrix across the full register
- An exception list for the trace file, each entry citing the broken link in the chain
- A carry-over schedule for obligations that must survive into program and deferral records
Who uses the output
- Engine records leads closing the visit file
- Lessor and buyer teams sampling defect history during diligence
- CAMO engineers inheriting inspection obligations created at the visit
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Non-routines connect the findings evidence to the build and release records: they explain why the engine came out of the shop configured the way it did. This review usually runs alongside the task-card review, since closures execute through cards, and its carry-over schedule feeds directly into the program and deferred-maintenance reviews.
Start with a single asset
Confirm release certificates and component traceability are complete.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Dispositions under FAA oversight rest on approved or acceptable data under 14 CFR Part 43, with AC 43-9C shaping record content. EASA Part-145 findings and their rectification are governed by Regulation 1321/2014, and its expectations on deferred rectification differ enough from FAA practice that dual-registry files need each carried item checked against both conventions.
Regulatory limits
The review evaluates documentary support for dispositions already made. It does not make or remake engineering dispositions, approve repairs, or determine whether the engine is airworthy; those judgments remain with the certificated organizations that made them.
What this review does not cover
- Independent engineering assessment of use-as-is decisions
- Physical verification of repaired or replaced hardware
- Warranty pursuit for defects found at the visit
Specific to this review
- Registers spanning a shop handoff mid-visit are the highest-risk population, because each organization assumes the other captured the open items.
- Use-as-is dispositions age badly in files: the justification lives in an engineering system that is rarely exported into the package at release.
- A non-routine count that looks low for the workscope is itself a finding, since heavy workscopes without findings usually mean unreported conditions rather than clean hardware.
- The cheapest moment to recover a missing disposition is before the visit invoice is settled; leverage drops sharply afterward.
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 release certificate covers the whole visit. Doesn't that close the non-routines?
The release states that work performed was carried out per the cited data. It does not demonstrate that every found condition entered the register, or that each disposition's basis is in the file. Counterparty reviewers read the register precisely because the release cannot answer those questions.
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.