Check packages at return
Task-card sign-off and evidence review in the lease-transition records file
Task cards are where maintenance is actually signed for, and a closed work package is only as good as the cards inside it. This review opens the closed task-card sets delivered in a lease-transition records file and verifies that each sampled card carries its sign-offs, its references, and its recorded results. Cards with missing certifications, unresolvable stamps, or references to data the package does not contain are written into an exception list. The transition lead gets that list along with a card-level index for the packages that stand.
When this review is needed
- Acceptance sampling of a heavy-check package found unsigned steps and the rest of the lease's packages now need the same look.
- Work packages were closed under end-of-check time pressure and never quality-reviewed afterward.
- The lease requires task-level evidence at return and the file has only package-level certificates of release to service.
- A mid-lease operator change split packages across two document systems and cards are missing from both.
The problem
Work packages close at the end of a check, under commercial pressure, with the release signed on top of hundreds of cards completed by dozens of hands. Card-level defects created that week are invisible until someone opens the closed package and reads. Transition is usually the first time anyone does, and the reader is the counterparty's inspector.
What gets reviewed
- Closed work packages inventoried against the check's planned card list, so removed or lost cards surface
- Sign-off completeness on each sampled card: mechanic, inspector, and any required independent inspection
- References on cards resolved: the data revision worked to, the measurement recorded, the part fitted
- Continuation sheets and attachments confirmed present where cards point to them
- Package-level release certifications reconciled with the card population they certify
- Cards under existing acceptance query folded into one exception set
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 in a sampled package is accounted for: closed, transferred to another package, or formally cancelled
- Certification blocks are signed and dated by an identifiable stamp or signature at each required step
- Required independent inspections show the second signature the step demanded
- Recorded measurements fall inside the limits the referenced data prescribes
- The release to service for the package postdates the last card closure inside it
Evidence normally required
- Closed task-card sets for the checks performed during the lease
- Planned work-package card listings from each check
- Certificates of release to service for each package
- The open-item tracker and acceptance notes touching workmanship or documentation
Common discrepancies
- A card missing from the package with no cancellation or transfer record explaining its absence
- Steps signed with a stamp the operator's stamp register cannot resolve to a person
- Measurement blocks left blank on cards whose task exists to capture that measurement
- A release to service dated before the final non-routine card in the package was closed
What is at stake
Unsigned steps and unresolvable stamps inside a closed package erode the release built on top of it, which is the record everything else cites. Once an acceptance team finds card defects, sampling depth increases across every package in the file, multiplying the review burden late in the timeline. Missing cards are worse than defective ones, because absence cannot be argued, only recovered or conceded.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Select the sample
Choose packages and card samples weighted toward high-risk checks and known problem areas.
Audit the cards
Check accountability, sign-offs, stamps, references, and recorded results card by card.
Reconcile the releases
Confirm each package's release to service is consistent with the card population beneath it.
Report with depth stated
Deliver exceptions grouped by defect type, with the sampling basis documented for the acceptance discussion.
What the buyer receives
- A card-level exception list grouped by package and by defect type
- A sampling record stating what was reviewed, at what depth, and what that implies for the rest
- A recovery note for each missing card naming the likely holder
Who uses the output
- Transition leads deciding whether to expand sampling or open remediation
- Quality staff resolving stamps and certifications with the organizations that issued them
- Acceptance counterparts who receive the documented sampling basis instead of auditing from zero
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task-card evidence sits underneath the claims every other strand makes, since program accomplishment, AD compliance, and repair embodiment all terminate in a signed card somewhere. This review validates that foundation by sample, and its defect rates tell the transition lead where the other strands should look harder.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Card content expectations trace to 14 CFR 43.9 and the guidance in AC 43-9C on the FAA side, and to Part-145 certification requirements under Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 on the EASA side. The two systems also draw the independent-inspection boundary differently, so a card set produced under one regime gets read against unfamiliar conventions when the aircraft crosses over, and the review notes where an apparent defect is actually a convention difference.
Regulatory limits
The review reports documentation defects; it does not re-certify work, validate a release to service, or determine airworthiness. Whether a defective record requires re-inspection of the aircraft is a decision for the operator and its authority, informed by the findings.
What this review does not cover
- Re-inspection of work the defective cards describe
- Re-certification or re-issue of any release to service
- Judgments on the quality of the physical workmanship
Specific to this review
- Cards go missing in predictable places: subcontracted tasks, cards walked to engineering for a query, and non-routines raised on the last shift.
- Stamp registers age badly; a stamp that was valid at the check can be unresolvable three custodians later, which reads the same as unsigned.
- Acceptance teams treat sampling depth as negotiable and defect rate as not; a clean first sample buys a lighter review of everything else.
- Non-routine cards attached to routine cards inherit their package but not their numbering, which is where card-count reconciliations most often refuse to balance.
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 is the sample size set?
By package risk first and by findings second. Sampling starts weighted toward heavy checks, end-of-lease work, and packages other strands have flagged, then expands where defect rates justify it. The sampling basis is documented so the acceptance side can evaluate coverage rather than re-audit blind.
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.