Work-package evidence
Task-card evidence inside an owner-managed aircraft file
A task-card source review opens the closed work packages behind a managed aircraft's logbook entries and checks each card for execution evidence: sign-off, date, a data reference at the revision in force, and recorded measurements where the card demands them. Events summarized by a single release entry with no retrievable cards are identified and scoped for retrieval. The owner representative commissions it ahead of handover and receives card-level exceptions organized by event.
When this review is needed
- Major inspections were closed with a summary logbook entry while the card sets stayed at the shop.
- A buyer's reviewer sampled one work package, found cards without sign-offs, and the sample is about to widen.
- An incoming provider wants execution evidence, and summaries alone will not satisfy its intake standard.
- An event was invoiced and paid, yet nobody can produce the work package it should have generated.
The problem
The logbook says the inspection was done. The proof is a stack of task cards in the completing shop's job file, and a managed owner typically received only the release certificate and the bill. Card sets from an event five years back may survive solely at a shop with no remaining connection to the aircraft, on a retention clock that has already run out.
What gets reviewed
- Inventory of maintenance events matched against work packages actually on hand
- Card-level completeness: signature, stamp, and date at every required step
- Data references checked against the maintenance-data revision effective on the work dates
- Measured values and test results present wherever the card calls for them
- Items deferred or transferred out of a package followed to their closure record
- Each package traced back to the release entry that summarized it
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 card in a sampled closed package carries a completion sign-off
- References on the cards cite data revisions that were in force when the work was done
- Recorded values fall inside the limits the card itself states
- Work carried out of the package reappears in the deferral or non-routine system
- The release entry's scope equals the sum of the cards behind it
Evidence normally required
- Logbook entries and release certificates for the events selected
- Closed work packages retrieved from maintenance providers
- Maintenance-data revision history covering the review period
- Deferred-item and MEL records where applicable
- Provider invoices linking events to job numbers
Common discrepancies
- A signed release entry with no retrievable card set anywhere behind it
- Blank sign-off blocks in the middle of an otherwise completed card sequence
- Cards citing maintenance data two revisions older than what applied on the work dates
- Torque and measurement fields left empty on cards that explicitly require values
What is at stake
An entry without cards holds up until someone questions it, and at sale someone always does. One failed sample spreads doubt across the entire file, buyers escalate from sampling to full review, timelines stretch, and physical reinspection of the affected items becomes the fallback everyone pays for.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Select the events
Choose work packages for review, weighted toward the largest and most recent events plus anything a buyer is likely to sample.
Retrieve and index
Obtain packages from providers, index every card, and tie each package to its release entry.
Test the cards
Check sign-offs, data references, recorded values, and carried-over items across the indexed sets.
Report by event
Deliver the evidence matrix and card-level exceptions with concrete retrieval actions per event.
What the buyer receives
- An event-by-event evidence matrix pairing each entry with its package and completeness result
- Card-level exceptions with an honest view of retrieval prospects
- A sampling summary sized to what buyer diligence will actually test
Who uses the output
- The owner representative preparing for the buyer's package sampling
- Incoming maintenance control validating history before adopting the aircraft
- Shops asked to produce, extract, or certify archived packages
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task-card evidence proves the history that the program review says should exist. Exceptions found here regularly trigger the non-routine closure check, since carried-over items live in the seam between the two, and the evidence matrix goes into the handover baseline as the file's execution record.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA rules require the owner to hold summary-level maintenance records, while the detailed cards are the repair station's own record, retained under Part 145 for a limited period, commonly two years. EASA-side organizations keep worksheets longer under continuing-airworthiness rules. Where cards were never contractually deliverable to the owner, the review documents that boundary instead of booking it as a loss.
Regulatory limits
No part of this review re-certifies work, signs or amends a card, or determines airworthiness. Whether performed work was adequate belongs to certifying staff and the authority. The review addresses one question only: does the documentary evidence behind each entry exist, and does it hold together.
What this review does not cover
- Physical verification that tasks were accomplished as carded
- Re-performance of inspections or tests
- Contract disputes with providers over record custody
Specific to this review
- Shop retention clocks, as short as two years in some regimes, run out mid-ownership, making the earliest events the least recoverable and the first to triage.
- A single unsigned card in a sampled package does more commercial damage than an openly disclosed gap, because it implies closure happened without review.
- Data-revision mismatches cluster around events that straddled a revision date, with work opened under one revision and closed under the next.
- Securing card delivery in the work-order terms costs nothing at signature; requesting the same cards years later is a favor, and that asymmetry defines what this review can recover.
- Buyers sample rather than read everything, so a clean, indexed card set for the largest recent event carries weight far beyond its share of the file.
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
Were we ever entitled to the task cards in the first place?
That depends on the work-order terms each event was contracted under, and many owners never secured delivery rights. The review distinguishes cards that are genuinely missing from cards that sit retrievably in a shop archive, and it states which contract governs each case so requests go out with the right footing.
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.