Repairs and alterations
Substantiating repair and alteration records in a maintenance-control export
A repair map exported from a maintenance-control system is only as good as the approved data behind each entry, and this review checks every entry for it. Certification-aware records specialists run it for operators facing a transfer, audit, or system migration. Each repair and alteration is traced to its substantiation: SRM references, designated engineering approvals, STC data, or field approvals. The maintenance-control lead receives an exception list distinguishing repairs with defensible approval bases from those that need substantiation recovered or reconstructed.
When this review is needed
- A transfer counterparty wants the repair map cross-referenced to approval data before acceptance.
- Dent-and-buckle survey results are being reconciled with the documented repair history.
- A heavy check surfaced undocumented repairs and the map's completeness is now in doubt.
- Structural repairs from a prior operator arrived as map entries with no substantiation attached.
The problem
Repair maps grow by accretion. Line-maintenance blends, heavy-check structural work, and inherited prior-operator repairs all land on the same map with wildly different documentation trails behind them. The export presents them as equals, and the team defending the aircraft cannot tell which entries carry approval data and which carry only a description.
What gets reviewed
- Every repair map entry traced to its substantiation: SRM chapter, engineering approval, STC, or field approval
- Major versus minor classifications checked against the documented basis for each call
- Repair map completeness tested against shop records, non-routine cards, and survey data
- Alterations reconciled with modification records and their approval references
- Damage-and-repair overlaps examined where multiple events affected the same structure
- Prior-operator repairs checked for substantiation that actually transferred with the aircraft
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
- Each SRM-based repair cites a chapter and figure applicable to the location and damage type
- Engineering approvals on file match the repair as embodied, at the approved revision
- No major repair rests on a minor classification made without a recorded evaluation
- Map entries agree with the physical survey where one exists, with differences dispositioned
- Alteration entries trace to modification approvals covering this serial number's configuration
Evidence normally required
- The repair and alteration listing from the maintenance-control export
- Substantiation documents: SRM references, approval forms, STC data packages
- Shop records and non-routine cards from the checks where repairs were embodied
- The latest structural survey or dent-and-buckle chart, if available
- Modification status records for alteration cross-checks
Common discrepancies
- A structural repair described in shop paperwork that never made it onto the map
- Repairs classified minor at embodiment that meet the criteria for major
- An approval document generic to the fleet applied to a repair outside its stated limits
- Inherited entries whose substantiation stayed in a prior operator's archive
What is at stake
A repair without approved data is an open airworthiness question sitting in the structure. At transfer it becomes a finding; at audit it becomes a compliance issue; and if the repair sits in a fatigue-critical area it can require engineering re-substantiation or rework, both of which dwarf the cost of the original repair.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Assemble the map
Consolidate the exported repair listing with survey data and shop records into one working population.
Trace substantiation
Link every entry to its approved data and record what is missing or out of scope.
Test completeness
Search embodiment paperwork for repairs the map never captured.
Rank and report
Deliver exceptions ordered by structural significance and classification risk.
What the buyer receives
- An entry-by-entry substantiation report across the full repair map
- A classification-risk list for repairs whose major or minor call looks unsupported
- A recovery plan for missing approval data, ordered by structural significance
Who uses the output
- Maintenance control answering repair questions during transfer acceptance
- Structures engineers prioritizing re-substantiation work
- Records leadership completing the repair file the export was supposed to reflect
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Repair substantiation connects the records review to the aircraft's certification basis. It draws on the task-card and non-routine reviews for embodiment evidence, feeds the transfer status package, and hands the engineering organization a ranked list instead of an undifferentiated map.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under FAA rules, 14 CFR Part 43 sets performance standards and its Appendix A frames major repairs and alterations, with 14 CFR 91.417 requiring the records. EASA operators work under Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, with repairs approved as changes or repairs to type design. Cross-regime transfers must reread each approval basis, since a field approval means nothing to a receiving EASA CAMO without an accepted equivalent.
Regulatory limits
The review locates and evaluates documentation. It does not approve repairs, does not perform engineering analysis or classification on the operator's behalf, and does not determine the airworthiness of any repaired structure.
What this review does not cover
- Physical structural inspection or nondestructive testing
- Preparation of new engineering approvals or repair designs
- SRM applicability engineering beyond documentary comparison
Specific to this review
- The gap between shop paperwork and the repair map is where most missing entries hide; the repair happened, the map update did not.
- Classification calls age poorly: criteria applied loosely a decade ago will be reapplied strictly by the next reviewer.
- Fatigue-critical structure attracts the deepest scrutiny, so ordering recovery work by location beats ordering it by date.
- An alteration without its approval reference can sometimes be rescued from modification status records; a repair without substantiation usually needs the original shop.
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
Does the review cover repairs embodied before the current operator took the aircraft?
Yes, the full map is in scope regardless of who embodied each repair. Inherited entries are usually where substantiation is thinnest, since the approval data often stayed with the prior operator. The review flags those entries with the likely holding party so recovery can start while that party is still reachable.
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.