Review evidence
Airworthiness review evidence held in the shop-visit source file
An airworthiness review conducted around a shop visit leaves a file of findings, sampled records, and open items. This check reads that airworthiness review file against the closeout source package to confirm each finding's disposition is actually evidenced: the card, release, or status change the reviewer relied on exists and says what the file claims. It is run before work-package acceptance for quality leadership or the CAMO. Dispositions that rest on documents absent from the package are returned as exceptions with a recovery owner.
When this review is needed
- An ARC recommendation or renewal was worked alongside the shop visit and its file references visit records.
- Open items from the airworthiness review were dispositioned during the visit and closure evidence must be in the package.
- The CAMO accepting the aircraft back needs the review file and the closeout file to agree.
- A lessor wants confidence that review findings were closed with records, ahead of the next transition.
The problem
Airworthiness reviews and shop visits run on different clocks with different owners. The reviewer samples records, raises items, and moves on; the shop closes items in its own system as work completes. By closeout, the review file says an item was resolved, the shop file holds the evidence, and no single document connects them. When the two files separate at delivery, the connection is lost, and the review's conclusions stop being checkable.
What gets reviewed
- Each finding in the airworthiness review file traced to its dispositioning record in the closeout package
- Open-item registers reconciled between the reviewer's file and the shop's tracking
- Sampled records cited by the review located and confirmed present in the package
- Status lists relied on by the reviewer checked for the revision actually sampled
- Physical-survey items from the review matched to the cards that addressed them
- The review file's references indexed so both files can be read together later
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 dispositioned finding cites a document that exists in the closeout package
- Disposition wording matches what the cited document supports, without extension
- No open item appears closed in one register and open in the other
- Records the reviewer sampled remain in the package at the revision sampled
- Items dispositioned by deferral carry the control that makes deferral legitimate
Evidence normally required
- The airworthiness review file, findings list, and open-item register
- The shop's closeout source package and item tracking
- Status lists and records the reviewer sampled, at their sampled revisions
- The CAMO's continuing-airworthiness records for the review period
Common discrepancies
- Findings marked resolved against work orders that address a different item
- Reviewer-sampled documents replaced by later revisions before the package closed
- Open items dispositioned verbally between reviewer and shop with nothing on file
- Survey items closed by cards that record inspection but skip the corrective step the finding required
What is at stake
A review file whose dispositions cannot be evidenced weakens every certificate and recommendation that rests on it. At the next review the same items resurface as new findings, now with older evidence, and the continuity of the aircraft's review history breaks. In EASA-regime transactions, an ARC trail with unevidenced dispositions invites the receiving CAMO to re-perform work the seller already paid for.
How the work runs
Align the registers
Reconcile the reviewer's findings and open items with the shop's tracking into one authoritative list.
Trace each disposition
Locate the dispositioning document for every item and read it against the disposition wording.
Freeze the citations
Confirm sampled records remain in the package at the revisions the reviewer used.
Deliver the bound file
Issue the exception register and the cross-reference index with the closeout package.
What the buyer receives
- An exception register naming each disposition the package does not evidence
- A cross-reference index binding the review file to the closeout package
- A recovery plan assigning each exception to reviewer, shop, or CAMO
Who uses the output
- CAMO leadership accepting the aircraft and its review conclusions back into management
- Quality managers closing the work package with knowledge of what it must contain
- Asset managers preserving the review trail for the next transaction
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The airworthiness review and the shop visit each produce a defensible file; the weakness is the seam between them. This check stitches the seam while both files are still in one place, so the review's conclusions remain verifiable after the aircraft, the reviewer, and the shop separate.
Start with a single asset
Confirm release certificates and component traceability are complete.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under EU 1321/2014 the airworthiness review is a defined CAMO function with an ARC at stake, so disposition evidence carries certificate weight. The FAA system has no direct ARC equivalent, and review-type inspections there lean on 91.417 records and program audits instead; the check calibrates its expectations to whichever regime the review was performed under.
Regulatory limits
This check verifies that review dispositions are evidenced in the closeout package. It does not perform an airworthiness review, issue or extend an ARC, overrule reviewer judgments, or determine airworthiness; it protects the evidence those functions depend on.
What this review does not cover
- Conducting or repeating the airworthiness review itself
- Physical survey of the aircraft
- Certificate issuance, extension, or authority liaison
Specific to this review
- The seam between reviewer file and shop file is unowned by default; each organization reasonably assumes the other holds the connecting evidence.
- Revision drift is specific to this record type: the reviewer sampled a status list at one revision, the package ships with a later one, and the citation is silently invalidated.
- Verbal dispositions between reviewer and shop are frequent during compressed visits and leave the review file unsupportable within weeks.
- A cross-reference index built at closeout costs hours; rebuilding the same connections after delivery costs weeks of correspondence.
Sources
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
International Civil Aviation Organization. International standards for the airworthiness of aircraft and the framework states use for type and continuing airworthiness.
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
Is this a second airworthiness review?
No. The review's judgments stand with the reviewer. This check tests only whether the documents behind those judgments are present, cited correctly, and consistent between the two files, which is what a future reader will need.
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.