Accomplishment evidence
Task-card evidence review across the redelivery binder
Task cards are where a maintenance claim either holds or fails, and this review inspects the closed task-card set offered in a redelivery binder at that level of detail. Each sampled card is checked for complete step sign-offs, required-inspection dual signatures, the correct manual reference at the revision then in effect, and a closure that connects cleanly to the work pack and the program status. Reviews are run for lessors or returning operators during binder assembly. Findings come back card by card, with the defect and the cure named for each.
When this review is needed
- The final heavy check closed under schedule pressure and its card set went into the binder without an independent quality pass.
- Several MROs produced cards in mixed paper and electronic formats that must now be presented as one coherent accomplishment record.
- An acceptance team has started pulling cards at random and early pulls have shown sign-off defects.
- Return conditions make the closed task-card set the proof for specific high-value tasks, such as corrosion-prevention program items.
The problem
A card set from a big check can exceed ten thousand pages, executed by dozens of mechanics across shifts, and its defects are invisible at the index level. A card can be listed as closed while a step inside carries no stamp, an inspection item shows one signature where two are required, or a step is marked not applicable with no rationale. Electronic systems introduce their own versions: exports without stamp images, cards closed by users whose authorizations are recorded in a different system entirely. The operator sees a finished check; the acceptance auditor sees an unproven one.
What gets reviewed
- Structured sampling of the closed task-card set, weighted to required-inspection items and return-condition tasks
- Step-level sign-off verification, including mechanic and inspector stamps or their electronic equivalents
- Confirmation each card cites the maintenance data and revision applicable on the accomplishment date
- Review of not-applicable and deviation annotations for recorded justification
- Cross-reference of card closures to the work-pack certification and the program status last-done entries
- Format screening of electronic card exports for completeness against the source system
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 step on a sampled card carries an accountable sign-off, with no blank blocks inside a card certified as complete
- Items designated for required inspection show the second, independent signature the designation demands
- The manual reference on each card corresponds to the revision in force when the work was performed
- Cards raising follow-on actions, such as a non-routine or a deferred item, link to the record that received the action
- The card population in the binder matches the work-pack index, with voided cards accounted for rather than absent
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set and its work-pack indexes for checks performed during the lease
- The operator's or MRO's stamp and authorization registers for the relevant periods
- Maintenance-data revision records sufficient to date-check card references
- The program status entries the cards are meant to evidence
- Return conditions identifying tasks whose cards face guaranteed scrutiny
Common discrepancies
- Certified cards containing unstamped steps, usually at shift boundaries in the middle of long tasks
- Required-inspection items closed on a single signature where the inspection schedule demanded two
- Not-applicable markings on steps with no justification, on aircraft where the step plainly applied
- Electronic exports that dropped continuation sheets, so cards end mid-procedure with the closure page intact
What is at stake
Card-level defects compound. One missing sign-off on a sampled card widens the sample; a widened sample with more findings can push the counterparty to demand reinspection of the underlying work, and physical reinspection at redelivery means opening the aircraft again at the operator's cost. A card that references wrong or superseded data raises the harder question of whether the work itself followed the applicable instructions.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Index the card population
Reconcile binder contents against work-pack indexes and flag numbering gaps or voids up front.
Weight and pull the sample
Select cards toward inspection items, shift-boundary tasks, and return-condition work.
Audit at step level
Check signatures, references, annotations, and follow-on links on every sampled card.
Report and curate
Deliver the findings register and assemble clean evidence sets for the tasks acceptance will test.
What the buyer receives
- A card-level findings register naming the defect, the affected task, and the practical cure for each
- Sample statistics by check and by MRO, indicating where deeper pulls are warranted
- A curated evidence set for return-condition tasks, assembled to survive acceptance sampling
Who uses the output
- Quality and records staff at the returning operator running the cure effort
- Lessor representatives calibrating their own acceptance sampling
- Bridging planners who need certainty that specific tasks were genuinely accomplished
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task cards are the evidence layer beneath the maintenance-program review: where that review asks whether the status is computed correctly, this one asks whether the claimed accomplishments really happened as recorded. Its findings also seed the non-routine review, because cards that spawned defects point directly at the closure records the next review must trace.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Sign-off and inspection-item requirements trace to 14 CFR Part 43 and the guidance in AC 43-9C on the FAA side, and to Part-145 and Part-CAMO provisions of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 on the EASA side. A card set executed in one regime and audited under the other draws questions around inspector authorization categories and language, particularly for checks performed at MROs outside both the operator's and the lessor's home jurisdictions.
Regulatory limits
This review audits records against recordkeeping requirements and the operator's own procedures. It does not certify maintenance, re-close cards, judge the physical adequacy of the work performed, or issue findings with regulatory force; authority action and maintenance certification stay with the approved organizations.
What this review does not cover
- Reinspection or reperformance of any maintenance task
- Full-population review of every card in every check, absent a specific mandate
- Assessment of MRO organizational approvals or personnel licensing
Specific to this review
- Sign-off gaps concentrate at shift handovers and at the end of a check when card-closing accelerates, so competent sampling targets those cards first rather than sampling uniformly.
- An electronic card set is only as auditable as its export: stamp identities, timestamps, and continuation pages routinely fail to survive the transfer from the MRO system to a PDF binder.
- Cards translated from another working language for acceptance need the technical annotations translated too; a translated header over untranslated steps satisfies no one.
- The voided-card trail matters as much as the closed cards, because an unexplained gap in card numbering reads as a removed record to any experienced auditor.
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
Our MRO holds the original cards and gave us PDFs. Will that satisfy an acceptance audit?
Usually yes, if the PDFs are complete and legible and the originals remain retrievable. The review checks precisely that: whether the exported set preserves stamps, continuation sheets, and closure data. Where it does not, the finding names the specific cards to re-export, which is a far smaller request to the MRO than a blanket re-scan.
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.