Task-card evidence
Task-card evidence review for the shop-visit source file
Closed task cards are the primary evidence that maintenance happened as claimed. This review examines the card set from a shop visit for the elements later reviewers demand: complete sign-offs at each step, the data reference and revision worked to, measurements where the task requires them, and clean continuity between cards and the higher-level summaries built from them. A records specialist performs it before or alongside work-package acceptance. Findings arrive as a card-level defect list the shop can still correct.
When this review is needed
- The card set is back from the shop and acceptance is contingent on a records review.
- Sampling during the visit found sign-off defects and the full population needs screening.
- Cards were executed electronically and on paper in the same visit, and the combined set has never been reconciled.
- An upcoming audit or transaction will sample this visit's cards and the file must hold up.
The problem
A heavy visit closes thousands of cards under schedule pressure, and card discipline is the first casualty of a compressed exit. Steps get bulk-signed, the data revision worked to is left blank because everyone knows it, and required-value blocks carry a checkmark where a measurement belongs. Each omission is trivial in isolation; in aggregate they turn the visit's primary evidence into a document set that cannot stand on its own.
What gets reviewed
- Sign-off completeness across steps, inspection points, and RII items on every sampled or reviewed card
- Data references and revisions recorded on each card checked for currency at the time of work
- Required measurements, torque values, and test results verified present where the card demands entries
- Card continuity: cross-references to non-routines, deferred steps, and follow-on cards resolved
- Alterations, overwrites, and correction practices on cards checked against acceptable methods
- Electronic and paper card populations reconciled where the visit used both
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 mandatory step block carries a technician signature or stamp with a date consistent with the sequence
- Independent or required inspection items show the second signature the card calls for
- Blocks demanding recorded values contain values, within any tolerance the card states
- The maintenance data revision cited was the effective revision on the work date
- Card numbering is continuous against the work-package index, with voided cards accounted for
Evidence normally required
- The complete closed card set, electronic, paper, or mixed
- The work-package index or card control log
- Maintenance data revision records covering the visit dates
- The shop's card completion and correction procedures, if available
Common discrepancies
- Value blocks completed with ticks or 'OK' where the task calls for a recorded measurement
- A second-signature inspection item closed by the same stamp as the performing technician
- Cards citing a data revision that was superseded weeks before the work date
- Voided or reissued cards missing from the set with no annotation in the control log
What is at stake
Card defects compound with distance. During closeout, a mechanic can correct a missed block in minutes; after redelivery, the same block is a formal finding requiring statements, and in a dispute, a card without a required measurement supports the counterparty's version of events. Regulators sampling records read card quality as a proxy for maintenance control, so weak cards invite wider scrutiny than the individual defects deserve.
How the work runs
Define the population
Establish the card count from the package index and choose full review or structured sampling.
Screen the cards
Work the set against the sign-off, data, value, and continuity checks.
Sort by correctability
Split findings into shop-correctable items and permanent-record annotations.
Report inside the window
Deliver the defect list while technicians and stamps are still on site.
What the buyer receives
- A card-level defect list sorted by correctability while the shop's staff are available
- A sampling summary quantifying defect rates by card type and defect class
- An acceptance memo stating what the card set supports as delivered
Who uses the output
- Quality leadership setting conditions on work-package acceptance
- Shop program managers routing corrections to technicians before demobilization
- Records teams certifying the archived set for future audit and transaction use
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Cards are the substrate every other source-file review stands on: AD closures cite them, program status derives from them, and repairs originate on them. A card-set review early in acceptance raises the reliability of everything checked afterward, which is why sampling often starts here even when the full review runs later.
Start with a single asset
Confirm release certificates and component traceability are complete.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA guidance in AC 43-9C describes the content of acceptable maintenance records, while EASA Part-145 organizations work under exposition procedures that specify sign-off and stamp control. Mixed-heritage card sets, common when subcontractors work under their own systems inside one visit, are reviewed against the procedure each card was actually executed under.
Regulatory limits
The review addresses the documentary quality of executed cards. It does not re-certify work, judge the technical adequacy of maintenance performed, approve correction methods, or substitute for the shop's own inspection system; certification of the work stays with the persons and organization that performed and released it.
What this review does not cover
- Re-inspection of the physical work described on any card
- Judging technician competence or authorization scope
- Managing the shop's correction workflow beyond delivering the defect list
Specific to this review
- Defect rates cluster by exit week: cards closed in the final days of a visit carry several times the omissions of mid-visit cards.
- Bulk sign-off is easiest to detect through date and sequence analysis, identical timestamps across steps that physically cannot be concurrent.
- A voided card that simply vanishes causes more audit trouble than a defective card that remains, because the numbering break implies removal.
- Electronic card systems eliminate blank blocks but introduce their own failure mode: auto-carried data revisions that no one confirmed against the work date.
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.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
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 sampling enough, or does every card need review?
Sampling sized to the population and stratified by card type finds systemic problems reliably, and most acceptances run on it. Full review earns its cost when the visit feeds a transaction, when sampling shows a high defect rate, or when the card set mixes systems and subcontractors.
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.