Program status
Matching maintenance program records to a maintenance-control system export
When a system export becomes the reference for maintenance program status, this review checks it against the approved program the operator answers for. Records and planning specialists run it around operator transfers, program revisions, and system migrations. Task intervals, escalations, revision levels, and applicability on the due list are compared with the approved program basis and its revision record. Maintenance control receives an exception list of tasks tracking against a basis the approved program no longer supports.
When this review is needed
- The aircraft is bridging onto a receiving operator's program and the current status must be stated accurately first.
- A program revision was adopted and nobody has confirmed the system's task library followed it.
- Escalated intervals are in use and the approvals behind the escalations need to be located.
- A migration loaded the task library from templates and applicability to this serial number is uncertain.
The problem
The approved program and the system's task library are maintained by different people on different rhythms. Revisions get adopted on paper while the system keeps tracking to the old intervals, or escalation approvals lapse while the escalated intervals live on in the due list. The export inherits every one of these drifts and presents them as current status.
What gets reviewed
- System task library compared with the approved program at its current revision
- Intervals on the due list traced to the program basis or to a documented escalation approval
- Applicability of tasks confirmed for this serial number's configuration and utilization band
- Program revision history reconciled with the system's change log
- Accomplishment status of revised or newly introduced tasks checked at the revision boundary
- Out-of-phase and bridged tasks examined for a recorded rationale
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 due-list interval matches the approved program or carries an approval reference for the difference
- Tasks added by the latest program revision exist in the system and show a credible first-due
- Tasks deleted by revision are closed out rather than silently tracking on
- Escalations in use are within their approved scope and have not expired
- Utilization assumptions behind calendar and cycle intervals match how the aircraft actually operates
Evidence normally required
- The maintenance program status export, including the task library and due list
- The approved maintenance program at the current revision, with the revision record
- Escalation approvals and reliability-program justifications in force
- The system change log for the task library
- Utilization data for interval-basis checks
Common discrepancies
- Intervals still tracking to a program revision two issues out of date
- An escalation applied fleet-wide although its approval named specific aircraft
- Revision-introduced tasks loaded with a first-due computed from the wrong reference date
- Template tasks from a migration that never applied to this configuration
What is at stake
Tasks tracked against the wrong basis mean the due list is wrong in ways no one can see, with some tasks running long past their approved interval. During a transfer the receiving CAMO builds its bridge from this status, so program drift propagates into the next operator's compliance position and eventually surfaces as overdue maintenance.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Fix both references
Freeze the export and confirm the approved program revision it should be measured against.
Compare task by task
Check intervals, applicability, and escalation references across the full library.
Work the revision boundaries
Reconcile added, deleted, and renumbered tasks with their accomplishment history.
Issue corrections
Deliver the exception report, corrected intervals, and the bridging-support summary.
What the buyer receives
- A task-level exception report keyed to program revision and approval references
- A corrected interval table for system update
- A bridging-support summary stating the true program position for the receiving CAMO
Who uses the output
- Maintenance planning correcting the task library and due list
- The receiving CAMO building its bridge from an accurate starting position
- Quality and compliance monitoring closing the loop on how the drift arose
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Program-status verification frames every other status claim in the export: AD next-dues, check packages, and task-card evidence all assume the underlying intervals are right. Running it alongside the AD and task-card reviews ensures the transfer package rests on a program position the approved documents actually support.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
For FAA air carriers, 14 CFR 121.380 and 135.439 set recordkeeping duties around the maintenance program, and ICAO Annex 6 frames the program obligation generally. EASA operators maintain the aircraft maintenance programme under Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, with CAMO accountability for keeping status true to the approved programme. Transfers between regimes hinge on stating the outgoing position precisely enough to bridge from.
Regulatory limits
The review compares records against the approved program. It does not approve programs or escalations, does not perform reliability analysis, and does not relieve the operator or CAMO of its duty to maintain and follow the approved program.
What this review does not cover
- Development or revision of the maintenance program itself
- Escalation justification or reliability engineering
- Bridging analysis for the receiving operator's program
Specific to this review
- Program drift is a two-clock problem: the approved document and the task library each keep their own time, and only a deliberate reconciliation syncs them.
- Expired escalations are easy to miss because the system shows the escalated interval, never the approval's end date.
- Revision boundaries create phantom status: a renumbered task can show as never accomplished while its predecessor holds the history.
- Receiving CAMOs price uncertainty conservatively, so an unverified program position tends to shorten every bridged interval.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Air carrier maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements under Part 121.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements for Part 135 operators.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
International Civil Aviation Organization. International standards for aircraft operation, including maintenance program and recordkeeping expectations.
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
Is this the same as a bridging check for the new operator's program?
No. Bridging maps the aircraft onto the receiving program and belongs to the receiving CAMO. This review makes the outgoing position true, which is what any credible bridge has to start from. Bridging from drifted status transplants the drift into the new program.
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.