The cards behind the status
Task-card evidence in the import and export records package
Closed task cards are the proof behind every check the export package claims, and this review reads them the way an importing authority will. It samples cards from the recent heavy and base checks, confirms sign-offs, RII certifications, and approved-data references, and checks the delivered set for completeness against each work-order index. It is performed during import, export, or registry-change preparation, in time to retrieve or correct cards before the filing. What the transition lead gets is an exception register naming each defective or missing card and where the fix sits.
When this review is needed
- The importing authority has signaled it will sample task cards from the last heavy check.
- Check compliance in the export application rests on work packages nobody has opened since check exit.
- Card sets were digitized by a third party and the scan quality and completeness were never confirmed.
- The maintenance provider that ran the last check is unlikely to respond quickly once the aircraft has left its hangar.
The problem
A closed work package can hold thousands of cards, and the defects hide in ones and twos: a step without a stamp, an RII item certified by someone missing from the authorization roster, a card referencing superseded data, a scan that cut off the final page. None of this is visible from the status summary the transaction runs on, and the team only learns which cards matter when an inspector picks them.
What gets reviewed
- Card sampling across the recent heavy, base, and significant line checks, weighted toward RII and airworthiness-limitation tasks
- Sign-off completeness on sampled cards, including every step, the final certification, and duplicate-inspection stamps
- Approved-data references on cards, checked against the revisions in effect at sign-off
- Completeness of each delivered card set against the corresponding work-order index
- Legibility and page completeness of scanned cards
- Consistency of card dates and aircraft hours with the check dates recorded in the logbooks
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 card listed on a sampled work-order index is present and complete in the delivered set
- Sampled cards show a certification for each required step, with RII items stamped by an authorized person
- Stamp or signature identities on sampled cards resolve against the personnel authorization records provided
- Data references on sampled cards correspond to a revision that was current when the work was signed
- Hours and dates on cards agree with the logbook entries closing the same check
Evidence normally required
- Closed work packages for the checks inside the sampling window, with their card indexes
- Personnel authorization or stamp-control records from the maintenance providers involved
- Logbook entries and release-to-service certificates for the same checks
- The check compliance section of the draft export or import package
- Approved-data revision history where available, for the references being verified
Common discrepancies
- Cards with completed work but no final certifying signature or stamp
- An index listing cards that never made it into the scanned package
- RII steps certified by a stamp absent from the authorization roster supplied
- Scans that are truncated, out of order, or too degraded to show the sign-off block
What is at stake
When an inspector pulls a card that fails, sampling widens. One missing stamp becomes a request for the full work package, the export or import timeline stretches while the maintenance provider searches its archive, and a card that genuinely cannot be produced can force re-inspection or re-performance of the task at the worst possible point in the transfer.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Build the sampling frame
List the checks in scope, pull their work-order indexes, and weight the sample toward RII and limitation tasks.
Examine the cards
Work each sampled card for sign-offs, stamp validity, data references, and scan integrity.
Close the completeness loop
Reconcile every delivered set against its index and log the absences.
Hand over the register
Deliver defects and retrieval routes ranked by how likely an inspector is to reach them.
What the buyer receives
- An exception register identifying each failed card by work order, card number, and defect
- A completeness statement per work package, index against delivered set
- A retrieval plan pointing each missing or defective card to the party holding the original
Who uses the output
- Transition leads deciding whether the filing can proceed on the current card sets
- Records staff chasing originals from maintenance providers while relationships are still live
- Importing-side technical teams preparing for the authority's sampling visit
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Cards sit one level below the program status review: the status says which checks were done, the cards prove how. Findings here feed the same transfer exception register, and unresolved card gaps often convert into deferral, re-inspection, or authority-negotiation items handled elsewhere in the package workflow.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under 14 CFR Part 43 and AC 43-9C the emphasis falls on the content and signature of each maintenance record entry, while EASA-regulated packages built under Regulation 1321/2014 revolve around the certificate of release to service and the organization's procedures. A registry change between the two systems shifts what inspectors look for on the very same cards, and the sampling here follows the destination's habits.
Regulatory limits
The review assesses documentary evidence only. It does not judge the quality of the maintenance performed, does not certify or re-certify any task, and does not predict or replace an authority's acceptance decision. Maintenance performance and release responsibilities remain with the approved organizations that did the work.
What this review does not cover
- Physical verification that tasks were performed as documented
- Review of open or in-progress work packages
- Contractual claims against maintenance providers for defective documentation
Specific to this review
- Authority sampling almost always starts with the most recent heavy check and the RII items inside it, so effort concentrated there pays off fastest.
- Most missing cards turn out to be scanning omissions rather than lost originals, which is why retrieval is attempted before any escalation.
- The window for cheap fixes closes when the aircraft leaves the maintenance provider's network; after redelivery, a card correction that took a phone call now takes a formal records request.
- A single failed card rarely blocks a transfer by itself; the damage comes from the widened sampling it triggers.
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 large a sample is enough before an export filing?
It depends on how deep the destination authority tends to go and how the first sample performs. A clean initial sample across the heavy-check RII items supports a lighter touch elsewhere; early failures argue for widening before the authority does it for you.
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.