Shop-visit closeout
AD status review inside the shop-visit source file
This review tests every line of the AD status list delivered with a shop visit against the paperwork that sits behind it. A records specialist works through the work orders, sign-offs, and release certificates in the source file and confirms that each AD marked complied with has a method of accomplishment, an effectivity match, and a dated record. It runs at closeout, before the quality manager accepts the work package. The output is a line-by-line exception report showing which AD positions the file supports and which ones rest on an assertion alone.
When this review is needed
- A shop visit is closing and the AD status list must be reconciled before the work package is accepted.
- A lessor's technical representative has questioned an AD position taken during the visit.
- An AMOC or alternative method was used and the approval reference needs to be on file.
- The engine or component is heading into a redelivery where the AD sheet will be re-audited line by line.
The problem
An AD status list is an assertion, and the shop visit is where assertions get made under time pressure. Cards are stamped, the status system is updated, and the compliance entry moves forward, while the record that actually proves accomplishment stays buried in a work order or a subcontractor's release. By the time the package reaches quality acceptance, nobody can say quickly which closures are documented and which are inherited from the incoming status.
What gets reviewed
- Every AD on the status list dated or closed during the visit, traced to its accomplishment record
- Method of accomplishment on each line checked against the directive's compliance options
- Effectivity confirmed for the serial number, part number, or configuration the AD actually applies to
- AMOC and alternative-compliance references verified against the approval on file
- Repetitive-inspection ADs checked for the next-due calculation carried out of the visit
- Incoming AD positions relied on but not re-verified flagged as inherited assumptions
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
- The work order or task card cited for each closure describes the work the directive requires
- Dates and times on the compliance entry agree with the sign-off on the underlying card
- Sub-tier releases cover any AD work performed away from the primary shop
- Superseded or revised directives are tracked to the revision actually complied with
- The status list total reconciles: no AD applicable to the configuration is silently absent
Evidence normally required
- The AD status list delivered at closeout, in its native format
- The full shop-visit source file: work orders, task cards, non-routines, and releases
- Incoming AD status as received at induction
- AMOC approvals or alternative-compliance correspondence, where used
- The applicable AD index for the model and configuration
Common discrepancies
- A directive shown terminated where the file only supports a repetitive-inspection step
- Compliance recorded against a superseded revision of the AD
- An AMOC cited on the status line with no copy of the approval in the package
- A closure inherited from the incoming status and restated as if verified during the visit
What is at stake
An AD marked complied with but unsupported in the file becomes a repeat finding at every later event: the next shop visit, the redelivery audit, the sale. Reconstructing the evidence years afterward means chasing a shop that has archived or purged the job, and where nothing surfaces, the operator may face re-inspection or re-accomplishment against a directive that was probably done.
How the work runs
Fix the review basis
Agree the status list version, the applicable AD index, and the acceptance standard the file must meet.
Trace each closure
Follow every AD closed or dated in the visit to its work order, sign-off, and release.
Classify the exceptions
Separate missing evidence from wrong revision, wrong effectivity, and inherited status.
Report before acceptance
Deliver the exception report while the shop can still retrieve or correct the record.
What the buyer receives
- A line-by-line exception report keyed to the AD status list
- A supported-status view showing which closures the source file proves
- Document requests drafted for each unsupported line, addressed to the party holding the evidence
Who uses the output
- Quality managers deciding whether to accept the work package as delivered
- Lessor technical teams tracking the asset's AD position between events
- CAMO staff updating the continuing-airworthiness record after the visit
How the work fits into the transaction or program
AD verification is one lens on the same source file that also carries LLP, release, and repair evidence. Run it at closeout and the exception report feeds the acceptance decision; skip it and the unsupported lines surface again at redelivery, when the shop's leverage to fix them is gone.
Start with a single asset
Confirm release certificates and component traceability are complete.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under 14 CFR 91.417 the operator must retain the current status of applicable ADs with the method of compliance, while EASA Part-M places an equivalent continuing record on the CAMO. Cross-registered assets add a layer: an FAA AD and its EASA counterpart can differ in revision and compliance time, so the review tracks which authority's directive each status line answers to.
Regulatory limits
The review reports what the source file does and does not support. It does not determine airworthiness, approve an AMOC, sign a compliance entry, or direct the shop's work; those judgments stay with the certificate holders and the responsible CAMO or operator.
What this review does not cover
- Determining whether an AD applies to a configuration the file does not document
- Performing or certifying any inspection or modification the directive requires
- Negotiating closure language with the shop on the owner's behalf
Specific to this review
- AD status lists are usually exported from the shop's tracking system, so a data-entry closure with no card behind it looks identical to a genuine one until the source file is opened.
- Repetitive ADs are the most common gap: the visit accomplishes the inspection but the next-due point never makes it onto the outgoing status.
- Terminating-action claims deserve the hardest look, because they remove a directive from every future due list on the strength of one record.
- The cheapest moment to fix an unsupported AD line is before package acceptance, while the shop still holds the job file and the commercial relationship is open.
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
The shop's system shows the AD complied with. Why is that not enough?
A tracking-system entry records that someone updated a status, and audits look for the record that justified the update. The work order, the signed card, and the release are what a buyer, lessor, or authority will ask for, and the review confirms those exist before the status list is relied on.
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.