Records & evidence
Aircraft repair-history records review
A repair-history review confirms that every recorded repair on an airframe, engine, or component is backed by the approval basis and substantiating data the record claims. It is run for lessors, airlines, and acquisition teams before a purchase, a redelivery, or a re-lease. It reads logbook entries, dirty-finger prints, structural repair sheets, 8110-3 or DOA approvals, and the release paperwork tied to each repair. You receive a repair register, a substantiation gap list per repair, and the data needed to close each open item.
When this review is needed
- An aircraft has accumulated structural repairs over its life and the next party needs to know each one is approved and substantiated.
- A status list or damage chart references repairs whose underlying approval data has never been pulled.
- A redelivery condition requires repairs to be supported by approved or acceptable data, and the binder is being assembled.
- A major repair was carried out under a field approval or design organization approval and the basis needs confirming before the asset moves.
The problem
Repairs are recorded as one-line logbook entries that name a drawing, a repair scheme, or an approval number, but the document those entries point to is often not in the records. A structural repair can read as closed in the status list while the substantiation, the approved data reference, and the release that ties it to the airframe sit in three different places or are missing entirely. The next operator inherits the obligation to keep that repair under continued airworthiness without knowing what it actually rests on.
What gets reviewed
- Each recorded repair on the airframe, engine, and rotable components by location and reference
- The approval basis cited for each repair, whether approved data, a field approval, or a design approval
- Substantiating data behind each major repair, including drawings, repair schemes, and engineering dispositions
- The release evidence tying the repair to the asset at the time it was carried out
- Damage charts, repair maps, and structural repair logs reconciled against the source entries
- Repeat and overlapping repairs that interact at the same structural location
- Repairs accomplished under a supplemental type certificate or modification and their continued airworthiness data
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 major repair cites an approval basis and the cited document is present and matches the entry
- Substantiation data for a structural repair traces to approved or acceptable data appropriate to the work
- The release record for the repair shows the correct asset, date, and approving authority or organization
- Repairs recorded against a location reconcile with the damage chart and repair map for that area
- Field-approved repairs carry the approval document and the data it approved alongside the reference number
- Repeat repairs at one location are individually substantiated and do not conflict with one another
- Logbook repair entries are internally consistent with the work cards and non-routine cards behind them
Evidence normally required
- Airframe, engine, and component logbooks or their digital equivalents
- Major repair and alteration records and any field approval documentation
- Structural repair sheets, damage charts, and repair maps
- Approved or acceptable data references cited by each repair, such as drawings or repair schemes
- Release certificates and work-package non-routine cards tied to each repair
- Any structural repair manual deviations or engineering dispositions relied on
Common discrepancies
- A repair entry that names an approval reference whose document is absent from the records
- Substantiation that cannot be tied to approved or acceptable data for the work performed
- A field-approved repair recorded with a reference number but without the approved data attached
- Overlapping repairs at one structural location with no engineering review of their interaction
- Damage charts that disagree with the repairs recorded in the logbooks
- A repair carried out abroad whose approval basis is unclear under the receiving authority
- Release paperwork for the repair that names a different serial number or configuration
What is at stake
A repair with no traceable approval basis may have to be re-substantiated, re-inspected, or removed before the aircraft can move to the next lessee or registry. On a structural repair near a principal structural element, that exposure can be significant, and it is far cheaper to surface during diligence than after the deal or return has closed.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Build the repair inventory
Extract every recorded repair from logbooks, repair sheets, and damage charts, and place each one by location and reference.
Pull the approval basis
For each major repair, locate the cited approval and the substantiating data and confirm they match the entry.
Reconcile and register gaps
Compare the inventory against damage charts and releases, then record each missing or inconsistent item per repair.
Map closure
Recommend a closure path and responsible party so each open repair can be resolved before the transaction or return.
What the buyer receives
- A repair register listing each repair, its location, its approval basis, and its evidence trace
- A per-repair substantiation gap list showing what is missing or inconsistent
- A recommended closure path for each open repair with the responsible party identified
- A reconciled view linking the damage charts and repair maps to the source records
Who uses the output
- Acquisition teams pricing repair exposure into a purchase
- Records teams assembling the repair package for a redelivery or sale
- Continuing-airworthiness staff who must keep each repair under their program after transfer
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review feeds the discrepancy register and the data room for a transaction or return, and it produces the repair section of the technical binder. It runs alongside an LLP traceability review and a wider records audit, focusing specifically on whether each repair has the approval and substantiation its entry claims.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Repair history weighs differently by aircraft family. The structural repair manual, the principal structural element list, and the modification baseline change which repairs are decisive, so the review is scoped to the specific type and its structural configuration rather than applied uniformly across a fleet.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A repair approved under one authority is not automatically accepted under another. A field approval or a design organization approval has to be evaluated against what the receiving registry will accept, and a repair carried out abroad may need its approval basis reconstructed before the aircraft can cross authorities.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms that recorded repairs are documented, approved, and substantiated in the records. It does not re-approve a repair, issue an airworthiness determination, perform structural inspection, or guarantee that another authority will accept the repair.
What this review does not cover
- Physical or structural inspection of the repair on the aircraft
- Engineering re-substantiation or re-approval of a repair
- Any airworthiness determination or regulatory approval
Specific to this review
- A repair entry frequently names an approval reference, but the document that reference points to is the thing most often missing from the records.
- Repeat or overlapping repairs at one structural location can interact, and each one needs to be substantiated on its own rather than read as a single closed item.
- Approved data and acceptable data are treated as distinct categories in the review, because the basis a repair rests on determines what closing the gap requires.
- A field-approved repair recorded only by reference number is treated as incomplete until the approved data behind it is in 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.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
How is a repair-history review different from a full records audit?
A records audit reconciles AD, LLP, and component status broadly. A repair-history review goes repair by repair, confirming that each one names an approval basis and that the substantiating data and release behind it are present and consistent.
Does a missing approval document mean the repair is bad?
No. It means the records do not yet support the repair. The review flags the gap and recommends a path to recover or reconstruct the approved data so the repair stands behind the asset.
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.