Repairs and approved data
Repair approval data review within the shop-visit source file
Repairs recorded during a shop visit are only as strong as the approved data behind them. This review takes the repair map produced at closeout and asks, for each entry, where the approval lives: an SRM chapter within limits, an engineering disposition, an STC, or a specifically approved repair design. A records specialist runs it for the accepting quality team while the package is still open. It closes with a repair-by-repair statement of which dispositions the file substantiates and which need data recovered or created.
When this review is needed
- The visit generated structural or engine repairs and the map must be reconciled with the substantiation before closeout.
- A repair was dispositioned by engineering during the visit and the approval paperwork trail is unclear.
- An older repair was found on the asset mid-visit and recorded without its original data.
- The asset's next lease or sale requires a repair file that a counterparty's reviewer will accept.
The problem
During a heavy workscope, repairs are dispositioned at the speed the floor requires, and the paperwork strategy varies with each one: some cite an SRM figure, some rest on an engineering order, some on a repair specification approved years earlier. The repair map assembled at the end flattens all of that into rows, and the file behind the rows is uneven. Nobody discovers which rows are hollow until an outside reviewer starts pulling threads.
What gets reviewed
- Every repair on the visit's map traced to its authorizing data source
- SRM-based repairs checked against the manual revision in force and the stated limits
- Engineering dispositions verified for the approval signature and the aircraft or part effectivity
- Repairs referencing STCs or repair specifications matched to the approval documents
- Pre-existing repairs found during the visit checked for recorded origin and prior approval
- Interface between the repair map and the non-routine cards that generated each repair
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 cited data source actually covers the damage location, size, and type recorded on the card
- Repairs described as within SRM limits show the measurements that put them inside those limits
- Engineering approvals carry the authorization basis appropriate to the regulatory system involved
- Repair identifiers on the map, the cards, and the substantiation refer to the same physical repair
- Any repair categorized as temporary carries its inspection interval and terminating action
Evidence normally required
- The repair map or repair summary issued at closeout
- Non-routine cards and inspection findings that initiated each repair
- Engineering orders, dispositions, and approved repair designs referenced by the map
- The SRM or engine manual revision applicable at the time of repair
- Records of pre-existing repairs carried on the asset before induction
Common discrepancies
- A repair mapped as standard SRM practice with no dimensions recorded to prove the limits were met
- An engineering disposition referenced by number but missing from the delivered package
- A temporary repair carried out of the visit without its repeat-inspection requirement on the outgoing status
- A pre-existing repair discovered at strip and logged with no attempt to locate its original approval
What is at stake
A repair without retrievable approved data reads, to any later reviewer, as an unapproved repair, whatever actually happened in the shop. That single reading can hold up a redelivery, trigger engineering re-evaluation at the owner's cost, or in the worst case force rework of a structure that was properly repaired the first time. Approval data ages badly: engineering staff rotate, and dispositions that lived in email are effectively gone within a few years.
How the work runs
Assemble map and sources
Collect the repair map, the initiating cards, and every data reference the entries cite.
Grade each entry
Test whether the cited data covers the repair as recorded, and grade the substantiation.
Chase the live gaps
Route recoverable gaps to the shop and engineering while the job file is intact.
Close with a defensible map
Issue the annotated map and gap register for the acceptance file.
What the buyer receives
- An annotated repair map grading the substantiation behind each entry
- A gap register naming the specific data document missing per repair
- A recommended recovery sequence ordered by transaction risk and recoverability
Who uses the output
- Quality managers holding acceptance until the map is substantiated
- Asset managers whose next transaction will expose the repair file to outside review
- Engineering and CAMO staff who own the follow-up on temporary repairs and open dispositions
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The repair review consumes the output of the non-routine review, since almost every repair starts life as a defect card, and it feeds the modification-status picture when a repair changes configuration. Handled at closeout, gaps route back to the shop's engineering desk; handled later, they route to a consultant reconstructing intent from fragments.
Start with a single asset
Confirm release certificates and component traceability are complete.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Approval routes differ meaningfully between systems: FAA practice recognizes designated engineering representatives and data approved under 14 CFR Part 43 provisions, while EASA channels repair design through Part-21 design organizations. A repair approved cleanly in one system can need supplementary substantiation when the asset changes register, so the review notes which regime each approval actually satisfies.
Regulatory limits
The review evaluates documentation, never structures. It does not approve repair data, classify damage, extend inspection intervals, or determine that any repair is airworthy. Those functions belong to approved design organizations, authorized engineering representatives, and the certifying mechanic or organization.
What this review does not cover
- Generating or approving new repair data for unsubstantiated repairs
- Physical inspection of repaired areas or damage mapping on the aircraft
- Determining regulatory classification of repairs as major or minor on the operator's behalf
Specific to this review
- The measurements proving a repair sat within SRM limits are the single most commonly missing artifact, because the mechanic saw the numbers and the card never captured them.
- Repair identifiers drift across documents; the same doubler can appear under three references in the cards, the map, and the dent-and-buckle chart.
- Temporary repairs are a timing trap: the repair itself is documented, and the recurring inspection it obligates quietly falls off the outgoing due list.
- A repair map graded during closeout typically clears most gaps within the shop's own job file; the same exercise a year later recovers far less.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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 repairs were all done by an approved shop. Does the data still matter?
Shop approval covers who performed the work; approved data covers what was permissible to do. Later reviewers ask the second question, and the file has to answer it repair by repair, which is what the grading on the map gives you.
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.