Skip to content

On-condition status

On-condition component status review

An on-condition component status review confirms that each component managed on condition carries the correct governing inspection or check task, a supported last-accomplished date, and serviceability evidence that the component met its standard at the last check. It is used by lessors, airlines, and acquisition teams when on-condition components carry value or a return obligation that the fixed-interval lists do not capture. It reviews the on-condition status list, the maintenance program tasks, inspection findings, and release evidence. You receive a component-by-component status with task and evidence trace and a list of items whose serviceability basis is unsupported.

When this review is needed

  • On-condition components carry value or a return obligation and there is no fixed interval to confirm the status against.
  • A return standard requires serviceability evidence at the last check and the inspection findings have to be confirmed.
  • An aircraft is changing maintenance programs and the governing on-condition tasks have to be re-mapped.
  • A component was repeatedly deferred or carried on a finding and the basis for keeping it in service needs review.

The problem

On-condition components have no overhaul interval to read off, so the status is only as good as the last inspection and what it recorded. A status list can show a component as serviceable while the governing check task is wrong, the last inspection date is stale, or the inspection that justified keeping it in service recorded a finding that was never resolved. Without the inspection records, on-condition status is an assumption dressed as a number.

What gets reviewed

  • Each on-condition component by part number and serial number with its governing task
  • The inspection or check task reconciled to the applicable maintenance program
  • Last-accomplished date and the inspection record that established serviceability
  • Inspection findings, deferrals, and their resolution at the last check
  • Release or sign-off evidence confirming the component met its standard
  • Components whose basis changed between on-condition and hard-time management
  • The on-condition status list reconciled against the inspection and release records

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 component's governing inspection task matches the applicable maintenance program
  • The last-accomplished date ties to an inspection record, not only a status-list entry
  • Serviceability at the last check is evidenced by the inspection finding or release sign-off
  • Any finding or deferral at the last inspection is shown as resolved or carried with a basis
  • Serial numbers on the list match the components actually installed
  • A change between on-condition and hard-time management carries its program basis
  • The status-list entries reconcile with the inspection and release records behind them

Evidence normally required

  • On-condition component status list with governing tasks and last-done dates
  • Applicable maintenance program defining the inspection or check tasks
  • Inspection reports and findings for the last accomplishment of each item
  • Release or sign-off records confirming serviceability where applicable
  • Component installation records confirming serial numbers in service

Common discrepancies

  • A governing inspection task that does not match the current maintenance program
  • A last-done date with no inspection record behind it, only a status-list entry
  • An inspection finding or deferral at the last check that was never resolved
  • A component shown serviceable on evidence that predates the current check interval
  • A serial number on the list that does not match the component installed
  • Status-list entries that disagree with the inspection records behind them

What is at stake

An on-condition component carried on weak or stale evidence can fail a return standard, force an unplanned shop visit when it is finally inspected, or be priced as serviceable when it is not. Because there is no interval safety net, a missing or adverse inspection finding matters more than on a hard-time item.

Move from findings to resolution

Move from findings to a documented resolution path.

How the work runs

01

Confirm the governing task

Reconcile each component's on-condition inspection or check task to the applicable maintenance program.

02

Anchor the last check

Tie the last-accomplished date to an inspection record and read what that inspection found.

03

Test serviceability

Confirm serviceability is evidenced and that any finding or deferral was resolved or is carried with a basis.

04

Report and route

Deliver the component-by-component status, flag unsupported or stale serviceability, and identify the inspection record needed to close each item.

What the buyer receives

  • A component-by-component on-condition status with task and evidence trace
  • A list of items whose serviceability basis is unsupported, stale, or carrying an open finding
  • A view of governing-task mismatches against the applicable program
  • A closure path for each disputed item with the inspection record needed identified

Who uses the output

  • Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming on-condition serviceability and findings
  • Asset and acquisition teams pricing on-condition risk into a deal or return
  • Records teams re-mapping on-condition tasks onto a new maintenance program

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The review covers the inspection-governed components that a hard-time component status review does not, and feeds the same return binder and configuration baseline. Together they show how every component on the aircraft is managed.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

On-condition tasks derive from the approved maintenance program under the operator's authority. When an aircraft changes authorities, the governing tasks are re-mapped to the receiving program, and a serviceability sign-off recorded on one authority's release is checked for whether the receiving program accepts it as the basis for keeping the component in service.

Regulatory limits

The review confirms that on-condition component status, tasks, and serviceability evidence are supported and consistent. It does not inspect the component, judge its physical serviceability, make an airworthiness determination, or guarantee an authority's acceptance.

What this review does not cover

  • Physical inspection or serviceability assessment of any component
  • Setting or approving a maintenance-program inspection task
  • Any airworthiness determination on component status

Specific to this review

  • On-condition management keeps a component in service while inspection shows it meets its standard, so there is no fixed next-due number and the status depends entirely on the last inspection record.
  • Because there is no overhaul interval as a backstop, a missing or adverse inspection finding carries more weight on an on-condition item than on a hard-time one.
  • An on-condition status can read as serviceable while the last inspection actually recorded an unresolved finding, which only the inspection record reveals.
  • The governing task comes from the approved maintenance program, so when the program changes the on-condition basis is re-mapped rather than treated as a fixed property of the part.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

If a component has no interval, how do you confirm its status?

By the last inspection. On-condition status rests on the governing check task being correct, the last inspection date being current, and the inspection recording that the component met its standard. The review traces each of those to the inspection records.

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.

Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.