Archive quality
AD compliance status substantiated against scanned source records
After a records digitization, this review substantiates the AD compliance status list line by line against the scanned archive that now stands behind it. A technical-records specialist takes each Airworthiness Directive shown as complied with and locates the accomplishment record, the method of compliance, and the recurring-action basis inside the OCR batches and image files. Lines the archive cannot support are logged, and the outcome is a corrected digital index in which every substantiated directive points at its evidence and every unsupported one is queued for retrieval.
When this review is needed
- Paper records were scanned and warehoused or destroyed, and the status list has never been re-proven against the digital copies.
- An audit or lease return is approaching and AD substantiation requests will hit the archive hard.
- The AD list was migrated between tracking systems and closure evidence links did not migrate with it.
- Recurring ADs show next-due dates whose last-done evidence nobody has recently opened.
The problem
An AD status list is an assertion; the accomplishment record is the proof, and scanning projects separate the two. The list migrates cleanly because it is already data, while the work orders, task cards, and sign-offs behind it become images with whatever names the scanner assigned. Months later a single request, show compliance for this directive, sends the records team digging through image batches with no reliable path from list line to page.
What gets reviewed
- Every AD on the status list mapped to its accomplishment evidence in the scanned archive
- Method of compliance on each line compared with what the located record actually shows
- Recurring directives checked for last-done evidence consistent with the projected next-due
- Superseded and terminated ADs traced through their replacement chain in the list
- Alternative methods of compliance located and matched to the lines that invoke them
- Index and file-name paths recorded for every substantiated line
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 complied-with line has a legible accomplishment record identifying aircraft, date, and reference
- The compliance method recorded matches the action the source document describes
- Last-done values driving recurring intervals agree with the dated evidence
- An AMOC cited on the list exists in the archive with the approval it depends on
- No status line rests solely on a prior operator's summary with nothing behind it
Evidence normally required
- The current AD status list with revision date and applicability basis
- Access to the scanned archive: OCR output, image batches, and the metadata export
- The archive's file inventory or index in spreadsheet form
- Any legacy tracking-system export that carried closure references before migration
- Sample paper documents, where retained, for spot comparison against their scans
Common discrepancies
- Closure lines whose only support is a legacy system screenshot rather than a signed record
- Accomplishment records present in the archive but unfindable because OCR mangled the AD number
- Recurring ADs projecting from a last-done date the scanned evidence contradicts
- AMOC references on the list with no corresponding approval letter anywhere in the batches
What is at stake
Under 14 CFR 39 an AD is a legal requirement, and status without retrievable evidence fails exactly when it matters: authority audits, lease redeliveries, and sale diligence all sample AD substantiation first. Each failed retrieval costs hours of manual searching, and a genuinely unsupported closure can stall the discussion until the accomplishment history is rebuilt from vendor and MRO archives.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Baseline the list
Fix the AD list revision under review and enumerate every line requiring evidence.
Hunt the evidence
Search OCR text, metadata, and file names for each line's accomplishment record, then verify by eye.
Judge each line
Classify lines as substantiated, weakly supported, or unsupported, with the reason.
Correct the index
Publish page-level evidence pointers and flag the retrieval work that remains.
What the buyer receives
- A substantiation matrix linking each AD line to its evidence location in the archive
- The corrected digital index with unsupported lines flagged and prioritized
- A retrieval plan for missing evidence, naming likely external sources per item
Who uses the output
How the work fits into the transaction or program
AD substantiation is typically the first line-to-evidence review run on a fresh scan archive, because directives draw the most external scrutiny. The matrix it produces becomes the template for the LLP, release-document, and repair reviews that follow on the same archive, and the corrected index accumulates all of their results.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
For FAA-regulated operators, 14 CFR 39 makes each directive mandatory and 14 CFR 91.417 requires the compliance record to be kept and transferable. EASA-supervised organizations hold the equivalent duty through Regulation 1321/2014 and their CAMO arrangements. Both regimes treat the status list as meaningful only insofar as the underlying record can be produced.
Regulatory limits
The review verifies retrievability and consistency of evidence. It does not determine whether an AD applies, does not judge the technical adequacy of an accomplishment, and does not restore compliance where a directive was genuinely missed. Applicability and compliance decisions stay with the operator and its airworthiness organization.
What this review does not cover
- Engineering evaluation of accomplishment methods
- Performing or arranging outstanding AD actions
- Rebuilding evidence from external MRO or vendor archives, beyond identifying where to ask
Specific to this review
- OCR misreads directive numbers at a high rate because hyphens and digits dominate them; a 2019-14-05 rendered as 2019-14-06 in the text layer misdirects a search to the wrong directive entirely.
- Compliance evidence for one AD is often a page inside a heavy-check package hundreds of pages long, so a page-level pointer, never a package-level one, is what makes the corrected index useful.
- Lines inherited from a previous operator's summary are the most common unsupported category: the summary transferred at delivery, the work orders behind it did not.
- A recurring AD with a wrong last-done date is more dangerous than a missing record, because it silently moves a legal deadline.
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 every AD closed. Why re-prove it against scans?
The system records what someone once entered; an auditor or lessee asks for the document behind the entry. If the scan archive cannot produce that document on demand, the closure is an assertion without proof, and the time to find that out is before the request arrives, at your own pace.
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.