Structural history at transition
Repair and alteration approval review in the lease-transition records file
Repairs accumulate over a lease, and each one in the file must stand on data that was approved for it. This review reads the repair map in a lease-transition records file against the delivered source package and asks one question of every entry: where is the approved data and the disposition that closed it. It runs before acceptance, ideally before the redelivery check starts generating fresh structural findings of its own. Entries backed by structural repair manual references, FAA Form 337s, or engineering approvals are indexed; entries without them go on the exception list with a recovery lead.
When this review is needed
- The redelivery check is opening panels and the incoming operator wants the existing repair history reconciled before new findings pile on top.
- Dent-and-buff records exist as a chart with no supporting dispositions and acceptance is weeks away.
- A repair embodied under a previous operator references engineering data the transition folders do not contain.
- The lease requires repair records with approved data at return and the file has only ever been spot-checked.
The problem
A repair exists three times: on the airframe, on the dent-and-buff chart, and in the paperwork that authorized it. Over a lease these three drift apart, because the chart is updated at checks, the paperwork is filed by whoever ran the check, and the structure keeps the truth to itself. By transition, the chart shows entries the folders cannot explain and the folders hold repairs the chart never gained.
What gets reviewed
- The repair map or dent-and-buff chart reconciled against repair records in the transition folders
- Each repair's approval basis identified: SRM within limits, engineering approval, or field approval
- Dispositions checked for damage that was evaluated and left in service
- Recurring-inspection requirements arising from repairs traced into the maintenance program records
- Major versus minor classification sampled against the documentation each classification requires
- Entries already raised in acceptance correspondence cross-checked so open queries carry the right evidence
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 mapped repair resolves to a record naming its location, extent, and approval basis
- SRM-based repairs cite the manual revision in force at embodiment and stay within its limits
- Engineering-approved repairs include the approval document with this aircraft's effectivity on its face
- Damage dispositions state who evaluated the finding and under what data it remained in service
- Any repair that imposes a repetitive inspection appears in the program records with the correct interval
Evidence normally required
- The repair map, dent-and-buff chart, or structural repair listing as delivered
- Transition folders containing repair records, FAA Form 337s, and engineering approvals
- Heavy-check work packages from the lease term, where repairs usually originate
- The open-item tracker and any acceptance queries touching structure
Common discrepancies
- A chart entry with no corresponding repair record anywhere in the delivered package
- A repair described as within SRM limits with measurements the cited SRM section does not actually cover
- Approved data referenced by number and absent from the file, held by a previous operator's engineering group
- A repetitive inspection born from a repair that the current maintenance program never picked up
What is at stake
An acceptance team that cannot see approved data behind a repair treats it as an unapproved alteration until shown otherwise, and the burden of proof sits with the delivering side. Resolution paths all cost something: recover the data, re-substantiate through engineering, or open the area for inspection during a check that is already full. Structural queries also age worse than most, since the data holders scatter as operators and shops change.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Reconcile the map
Compare the chart, the repair files, and the check packages so the three sources describe one history.
Verify the basis
Identify each repair's approval path and confirm the cited data covers the repair as recorded.
Follow the obligations
Trace repair-driven inspections and dispositions into the program and defect records.
Issue the register
Deliver the indexed register and the exception list, each gap paired with its likely data holder.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list distinguishing undocumented repairs, unapproved data, and missing dispositions
- An indexed repair register linking each supportable entry to its evidence
- A recovery plan naming the engineering source or shop likely to hold each missing approval
Who uses the output
- Transition leads sequencing structural queries before the redelivery check compounds them
- CAMO and engineering staff confirming which repairs impose obligations the receiving program must carry
- Asset managers weighing rework cost against negotiation on marginal entries
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The repair strand pairs naturally with the non-routine review, because most repairs enter the record as non-routine findings first. It runs before the redelivery check where scheduling allows, so historical structural queries are settled before fresh findings from opened panels join the discussion.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA-context repairs classify as major or minor under 14 CFR 43, with major repairs documented on FAA Form 337 and supported by approved data. EASA-context repairs rely on design data approved through the Part-21 system, embodied and recorded under Regulation (EU) 1321/2014. A transition across regimes raises classification questions, since work documented to one system's conventions must still be readable by reviewers trained on the other's.
Regulatory limits
No repair data is approved or disapproved by this work, and no repair is classified on the aircraft's behalf. The review identifies what the file contains and what it lacks; airworthiness determinations and approvals stay with the certificate holders, the operator, and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Nondestructive testing or any physical examination of structure
- Creation of new repair substantiation or engineering dispositions
- Approval decisions on repair classification
Specific to this review
- Dent-and-buff charts are maintained by different hands than the repair files, and the divergence between them is often the largest single source of exceptions.
- Old in-service dispositions are the riskiest entries: the evaluation was real, and the paper that proves it never left the evaluating operator.
- Repairs found during the redelivery check itself are the incoming operator's cleanest leverage, so clearing the historical map first keeps the two populations from mixing.
- A repair record that omits its SRM revision can sometimes be rebuilt from the check package date, which fixes which revision was in force.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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
Can the review clear a repair that has no paperwork at all?
No, and it does not pretend to. What it can do is bound the problem: locate the repair's origin check, name the likely data holder, and state exactly what recovery would need to produce. Clearing the entry then takes recovered data or new engineering work, which sits outside this scope.
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.