Configuration control
AD compliance status review inside a modification baseline
An AD status list closed by method of compliance often leans on the aircraft's modification history: an AD terminated by an SB, satisfied by an STC, or rendered not applicable by configuration. This review reads each AD line against the modification-baseline source file, meaning SB records, STC files, equipment lists, embodiment evidence, effectivity notes, and configuration-control logs, and verifies that the claimed basis is actually documented. Configuration managers and fleet engineers commission it before a baseline is declared or a status list is handed to a counterparty. The output is an exception list identifying every AD closure the baseline cannot support.
When this review is needed
- A configuration baseline is being declared and the AD status list will be one of its load-bearing documents.
- An AD is closed as terminated by an SB and nobody has recently confirmed the SB embodiment record exists for this serial number.
- A fleet transferred between tracking systems and method-of-compliance references were migrated as text rather than as linked evidence.
- A counterparty or authority has asked how a specific not-applicable determination was reached.
The problem
AD status lists age differently from the modification records beneath them. A line closed years ago as terminated by SB embodiment rests on a work package that has since been archived, migrated, or reindexed, and the status list keeps asserting the closure regardless. Not-applicable determinations are worse: they were reasoned from an equipment list or effectivity note at a point in time, and later modifications can quietly invalidate the reasoning without anyone reopening the line.
What gets reviewed
- Every AD line closed by modification traced to the embodiment evidence for this serial number
- Not-applicable determinations re-derived from current equipment lists and effectivity notes
- Terminating-action claims checked against the SB or STC file that defines the terminating configuration
- Configuration-control logs read for later modifications that could disturb earlier determinations
- Method-of-compliance citations resolved to documents rather than accepted as text
- Repetitive-inspection ADs checked for whether the terminating modification actually ended the repeats
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 closure by SB cites an embodiment record showing accomplishment on this airframe or engine, at a stated date and position
- Each not-applicable line is supported by an effectivity note or equipment-list entry that still holds true
- STC-based closures trace to the STC file and its installation record, including any limitations carried
- No later entry in the configuration-control log contradicts the configuration a closure depends on
- Status-list revision history accounts for every line that changed state since the last verified issue
Evidence normally required
- The current AD status list with methods of compliance and closure references
- SB accomplishment records and STC files for the modifications cited
- Equipment lists and effectivity notes for the serial numbers in scope
- Configuration-control logs covering the period since the last verified baseline
- Prior operator documentation where closures predate the current operator
Common discrepancies
- An AD marked closed by SB where the SB record shows partial accomplishment or a different revision than the terminating one
- A not-applicable determination based on an equipment fit that a later modification changed
- Closure references migrated between systems as free text, with the linked evidence left behind
- A repetitive-inspection AD still generating tasks although its terminating action is documented as embodied
What is at stake
An AD closure that cannot produce its evidence reads as an unsupported closure, and authorities and buyers treat those as open ADs until proven otherwise. That reversal can ground the reasoning behind a whole family of related lines, force repeat inspections that the terminating action was supposed to end, and stall a transaction while embodiment evidence is chased through prior operators. A wrong not-applicable determination discovered late is a compliance finding, no longer merely a records gap.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Freeze the list
Take a dated issue of the AD status list as the review object so findings attach to specific lines.
Resolve each basis
Trace every modification-dependent closure and not-applicable call to the SB, STC, equipment, and effectivity evidence.
Sweep for contradictions
Read the configuration-control log forward from each closure date for changes that disturb the determination.
Rank and report
Deliver exceptions ranked by compliance exposure alongside the supported-status annex.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of AD lines whose claimed basis the baseline cannot evidence
- A supported-status annex mapping each verified closure to its source documents
- A prioritized recovery plan for exceptions, ordered by compliance exposure
Who uses the output
- Configuration managers certifying the baseline the fleet will be managed against
- Continuing-airworthiness staff answering authority queries on specific closures
- Asset and transition teams presenting a defensible status list to counterparties
How the work fits into the transaction or program
AD status is usually the first document a counterparty or authority samples, so this review anchors the wider modification-baseline verification. Exceptions it raises frequently point onward: a failed embodiment reference sends the team into the SB records review, and a broken not-applicable determination sends them into the equipment-list and effectivity checks on the same baseline.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA ADs issued under 14 CFR Part 39 and EASA ADs bind differently depending on the state of registry, and dual-influenced fleets often carry parallel status lists whose modification references must reconcile to one physical configuration. A closure valid under one authority's AD can be insufficient for the corresponding AD of the other when applicability text or terminating actions differ, so the review keys each line to the issuing authority's own wording.
Regulatory limits
The review establishes what the records support. It does not determine AD compliance in the regulatory sense, does not approve alternative methods of compliance, and does not make the aircraft airworthy. Where evidence is missing, the disposition of the affected AD remains with the operator and its authority.
What this review does not cover
- Engineering assessment of whether a modification technically satisfies an AD
- AMOC applications or any interaction with the issuing authority
- Physical verification of embodied modifications on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- Not-applicable is the riskiest state on a status list because it is a conclusion, and the evidence for a conclusion goes stale silently when configuration changes.
- Terminating-action SBs frequently exist at multiple revisions where only the later revision terminates the AD, so an embodiment record must show the revision, without it the closure proves nothing.
- System migrations are the classic point where method-of-compliance links die: the text survives as a string while the attachment or record ID it referenced does not.
- One recovered embodiment package often closes several exceptions at once, because a single heavy-check work order can carry multiple SB accomplishments.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
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
Our tracking system shows all ADs green. What would this add?
The tracking system reports the state someone entered, and its confidence is inherited from data entry that may be decades old. This review re-derives the state from the underlying modification evidence for each line, which is the test an authority audit or a purchaser's team will apply.
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.