Closed work packages
Auditing closed task cards in a maintenance-control system export
Closed task cards are the accomplishment evidence behind an export's maintenance status, and this review tests whether the closed sets actually hold up. It is run for maintenance control and records teams before transfers, audits, or migrations that will expose the card archive. Cards are checked for sign-off completeness, correct references, revision validity, and agreement with the work packages and system status they support. The outcome is an exception list of closed cards that would not survive a reviewer, tied to the status lines they weaken.
When this review is needed
- A receiving operator or auditor will sample closed cards behind the exported status.
- A heavy check closed under schedule pressure and card completeness was never confirmed afterward.
- Cards executed by a contract MRO arrived as scans and their sign-off quality is unverified.
- Status lines in the export cite work packages whose card sets cannot currently be located.
The problem
A work package gets closed when the aircraft needs to fly, and the card set is filed in whatever state it was in that night. Missing second signatures, references to superseded card revisions, and cards closed by covering statement all sit in the archive looking like completed evidence. The export's status rests on those cards, and no one knows which ones are hollow until someone pulls them.
What gets reviewed
- Card sets located and confirmed complete for each work package in scope
- Mechanic and inspector sign-offs checked against the card's required certification steps
- Card revisions verified as current at execution against the maintenance data in force
- Required-inspection-item and independent-inspection steps confirmed signed by authorized persons
- Card content reconciled with the work-order and system status the export reports
- Attachments the cards call for, measurements and test results included, confirmed present
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 certification step on each sampled card carries the required signature or stamp
- No card in a closed package remains open, voided without disposition, or missing entirely
- Card revision at execution matches the approved data revision then in effect
- Recorded measurements fall within the card's stated limits or carry a disposition
- System closure dates agree with the final sign-off dates on the cards themselves
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card sets, paper or scanned, for the packages in scope
- Work-package indexes and work orders from the maintenance-control export
- The maintenance data revision record covering the execution dates
- Authorization rosters for inspection sign-offs, where available
Common discrepancies
- Cards with the final inspection block empty in packages the system shows closed
- A card executed at a revision that had been superseded weeks before the check
- Measurement blocks left blank while the card's steps show signed complete
- Scanned card sets from contract maintenance with pages missing mid-sequence
What is at stake
A sampled card that fails takes its whole work package down with it in the reviewer's mind, and the sampling widens. Status lines supported by defective cards get challenged, accomplishment may need re-verification or reinspection, and a transfer acceptance built on card sampling can stall over defects that were curable months earlier.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Scope the packages
Select work packages by status impact and confirm their card sets can be produced.
Pull and inspect
Check each sampled card for sign-offs, revision validity, and required attachments.
Tie back to status
Map card defects to the export status lines that rely on them.
Direct the cure
Split findings into records-curable and re-verification items and hand off the queue.
What the buyer receives
- A card-level exception report grouped by work package and status impact
- A cure list distinguishing defects fixable by records action from those needing re-verification
- A sampling summary the team can hand to an incoming auditor
Who uses the output
- Maintenance control defending exported status through its card evidence
- Quality assurance directing cure actions and any reinspection
- Records teams completing card archives before transfer
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task-card review is the evidence floor under the export review: AD closures, program accomplishment, and non-routine dispositions all resolve to signed cards eventually. Its findings tell the AD and program reviews which claimed accomplishments stand, and its cure list runs ahead of any counterparty sampling.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
14 CFR Part 43 sets the content and signature requirements for maintenance records, with AC 43-9C as the FAA's recordkeeping guidance and 14 CFR 91.417 governing retention. EASA-context cards answer to the certification and record rules of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014. Cards executed under one regime for an aircraft transferring to the other get read against the stricter of the two expectations.
Regulatory limits
The review examines records as filed. It does not re-certify work, does not supply missing signatures, and does not determine whether the maintenance itself was performed correctly; defective evidence is reported, and cure decisions rest with the operator and its authority.
What this review does not cover
- Reinspection or re-performance of the maintenance
- Judgment on the technical adequacy of the work performed
- Card authoring or revision for future checks
Specific to this review
- Card defects concentrate at check exit, when the last shifts close paperwork under delivery pressure.
- Voided cards are a blind spot: a card voided without a documented disposition leaves its task's status unprovable.
- Scanning hides defects as often as it preserves evidence, because a missing page and a skipped scan look identical.
- Auditors escalate sampling on the first failure, so curing the archive before sampling starts changes how the whole review unfolds.
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
A card is missing a signature but the work was clearly done. Is that a real finding?
Yes. The record is the evidence, and an unsigned certification step means the record does not show the required certification occurred. Some defects can be cured through the operator's documented correction process; others require re-verification. The review identifies which path each defect can take, but the signature gap itself always gets reported.
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.