Structural repairs
Structural repair records traced through the maintenance-control export
A structural repair source review traces each entry on the structural repair map back through the maintenance-control system: the defect or damage report that started it, the work order that executed it, the approval basis it was accomplished under, and any repeat-inspection task it should have left on the due list. It also works the other direction, searching the defect log for structural damage the map never captured. Records leadership runs it before a transfer or sale, since the damage and repair history is what a technical acceptance team reads most carefully. The output is a repair-by-repair evidence register plus a list of unmapped damage events.
When this review is needed
- The structural repair map has not been reconciled against the system since the last heavy check.
- A transfer or sale will put the damage and repair history in front of a technical acceptance team.
- Repeat-inspection tasks tied to repairs may have been dropped during a planning-system migration.
- The defect log mentions structural damage that the map does not show.
The problem
The repair map and the due list are maintained by different people for different purposes, and repairs with recurring inspection requirements fall into the seam between them. Damage gets written up in the defect log, repaired under a work order, and mapped, or not, depending on workload that week. Years later the map shows repairs without approval references, the due list has lost an inspection interval, and nobody can say from memory which dents were blended and which were left within limits.
What gets reviewed
- Every mapped repair matched to an originating damage or defect record in the system data
- The approval basis identified per repair, whether SRM within limits, approved data, or an engineering disposition
- Repeat-inspection requirements from repair documents confirmed present on the current due list
- The defect log and work-order history searched for structural events absent from the map
- Interim or time-limited repairs checked against their terminating-action deadlines
- Measurement records located for repairs claimed to be within SRM limits
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 map entry carries a resolvable reference to its damage report and executing work order
- The approval basis cited for each repair exists in the export and covers the repair as performed
- Every repair document that imposes a recurring inspection has a matching live task on the due list
- Structural defect-log entries either appear on the map or are explained as non-repair dispositions
- Time-limited repairs show a terminating action accomplished or a deadline still ahead
Evidence normally required
- The structural repair map or dent-and-buckle chart at its current revision
- Defect logs and work-order history from the maintenance-control system
- Repair approval documents, engineering dispositions, and SRM references on file
- The current due list with repetitive-inspection tasks
- Heavy-check packages where structural work was concentrated
Common discrepancies
- A repair on the map with no drawing, approval reference, or measurement record behind it
- A blended dent in the defect log that never earned a map entry
- A repeat inspection lost in a planning-system migration, with the repair still on the aircraft
- An interim repair carried open-ended long after its terminating-action deadline passed
What is at stake
A repair without a visible approval basis reads to a counterparty as an unapproved repair, whatever the truth was, and interim repairs that sailed past a terminating-action deadline become urgent airworthiness questions for the operator at the least convenient time. Structural findings also carry outsized weight in negotiations: one bad repair record casts doubt on the whole map.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Anchor the map
Fix the map revision under review and index every entry with its claimed references.
Trace forward and back
Follow each mapped repair to its damage origin and approval basis, then sweep the defect log for structural events the map lacks.
Test the due list
Confirm each recurring-inspection requirement from repair documents has a live task, and log the ones that vanished.
Deliver the register
Issue the evidence register, unmapped-event list, and due-list corrections for planning and the transfer package.
What the buyer receives
- A repair-by-repair evidence register showing damage origin, approval basis, and inspection status
- A list of unmapped structural events recovered from the defect log and work orders
- Due-list correction items for lost or missing repeat inspections
- A structural annex for the transfer status package stating open exceptions plainly
Who uses the output
- Records leadership preparing the structural story a technical acceptance team will probe
- Planning and engineering staff restoring lost repeat-inspection tasks
- The counterparty's structures reviewer, who receives a map that already carries its evidence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Structural repair evidence is usually the deepest dig in a maintenance-control export review, reaching further back in the aircraft's history than status-list checks. Its due-list findings hand off to planning immediately, and its unmapped-damage list often triggers the deferred-maintenance review, since damage writeups and deferrals share the defect log.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Repairs on FAA-registered aircraft rest on 14 CFR Part 43 and its approved-data requirements, while EASA aircraft carry repairs approved through the Part 21 route or accomplished within SRM limits under Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 oversight. What counts as acceptable substantiation for an older repair differs between the frameworks, and cross-registry transfers regularly reopen repairs the outgoing side considered closed.
Regulatory limits
The review classifies evidence; it does not disposition repairs. No engineering judgment is issued on whether a repair is acceptable, no approval is granted or sought, and no statement is made about the aircraft's structural airworthiness. Those determinations belong to approval holders and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Engineering disposition or re-approval of repairs found without a basis
- Design of new repairs or preparation of approval applications
- Nondestructive testing or physical survey of the structure
Specific to this review
- Repairs with recurring inspections are where the map and the due list most often disagree, because two teams own the two documents and neither owns the link.
- A repair accomplished within SRM limits still needs the measurement record proving it was within limits; without it, the classification cannot be reconstructed years later.
- Searching the defect log finds unmapped repairs more reliably than reviewing repair paperwork, because damage writeups exist before any repair decision is made.
- Interim repairs are individually well controlled at the time and collectively forgotten afterward, which is why terminating-action deadlines deserve their own pass.
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
We already keep a dent-and-buckle chart. What does this add?
The chart records where repairs are; this review establishes what stands behind each one. It attaches the damage origin, the approval basis, the measurement evidence, and the inspection tail to every entry, and it hunts the defect log for events the chart missed, which is the direction of error charts cannot catch on their own.
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.