Status & source
Status-list source-evidence review
A status-list source-evidence review is for teams about to price or accept against a status list before checking the documents under it. The trigger is a status list that will drive a value, a return condition, or an acceptance. It reconciles each AD, Service Bulletin, modification, and component-status line to the accomplishment evidence, the records that effected the change, and the release and removal documents behind it. You receive a line-by-line reconciliation marking each entry supported or unsupported, with the conflicting or missing evidence named.
When this review is needed
- A status list will drive a price, a return condition, or an acceptance decision and has not been checked to source.
- Status lists were produced from a tracking system whose underlying documents were never re-verified.
- Two status lists for the same aircraft disagree and the source has to settle which is right.
- An AD or modification entry is decisive to value and the evidence behind it has to be confirmed.
The problem
A status list is a summary, and a summary inherits whatever the tracking system was fed. The list can read internally tidy while the accomplishment evidence for an AD is missing, while a modification on the list was never actually effected by any record in the set, or while a life figure disagrees with the shop report it supposedly came from. The number on the line is what gets priced, and the document that should justify it is rarely opened until a dispute forces it.
What gets reviewed
- AD status reconciled to accomplishment evidence and the method of compliance shown
- Service Bulletin and modification status against the records that actually effected each change
- Part-level and life-status entries against release and removal evidence
- Time and cycle figures on the list against logbooks and shop reports
- Entries with no source document behind them flagged as unsupported
- Disagreements between two status lists for the same aircraft resolved to source
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 AD entry is backed by accomplishment evidence with the method of compliance shown
- Service Bulletin and modification entries trace to the records that effected the change
- Component status entries reconcile with the release and removal documents behind them
- Time and cycle figures agree across the status list, logbooks, and shop reports
- Entries carried forward from a tracking system with no source document are flagged
- Where two lists conflict, the supported value is identified from source rather than chosen
Evidence normally required
- The AD, Service Bulletin, and modification status lists
- Component and life-status lists with part and serial numbers
- Accomplishment evidence, work packages, and release certificates
- Logbooks and shop reports for time and cycle reconciliation
- Any second or prior status list where versions disagree
Common discrepancies
- An AD shown as complied with no accomplishment evidence behind the entry
- A modification on the list that no record in the set actually effected
- Life figures on the list that disagree with the shop report for a part
- Entries carried forward from a tracking system with no source document at all
- Two status lists for the same aircraft that disagree on a decisive entry
What is at stake
Pricing or accepting against an unsupported list moves the cost of the gap to whoever relied on it. An AD with no accomplishment evidence may have to be re-accomplished, a phantom modification can collapse an assumed configuration, and a life figure that source contradicts can force a conservative call worth real money, all harder to recover once the deal has closed.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Set the lines to test
Identify the AD, Service Bulletin, modification, and component entries that drive value or acceptance.
Pull the evidence
Gather the accomplishment, change, and release documents that each line is supposed to rest on.
Reconcile entry by entry
Match each line to its source, confirm methods and figures agree, and flag the unsupported entries.
Recommend a path
For each gap, recommend how to source the document or correct the entry before it is relied on.
What the buyer receives
- A line-by-line reconciliation marking each entry supported or unsupported
- A list of entries with missing or conflicting source evidence
- A recommended path to source or correct each unsupported entry
Who uses the output
- Acquisition and asset teams pricing against the status list
- Continuing-airworthiness staff confirming compliance is evidenced
- Records teams sourcing or correcting the unsupported entries
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review turns a status list into a supported position before it drives a number, so unsupported entries are found while there is still leverage to source them. Its reconciliation feeds the discrepancy register and the data room for the larger transaction or return.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
An AD or modification status reads against the authority whose rule applies. A line complied with under one authority's directive is not assumed to satisfy an equivalent requirement under another, so the source is checked against the rule that governs the asset's registry.
Regulatory limits
This review confirms that status entries are supported, consistent, and traceable to their source records. It does not certify compliance on an authority's behalf, does not re-accomplish any task, and makes no airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Re-accomplishing an AD or modification to close a gap
- Issuing a compliance finding on an authority's behalf
- Physical inspection to confirm an installed configuration
Specific to this review
- A status list is a summary, and a summary can stay internally tidy while the documents underneath it are missing or contradict it.
- The list and its source evidence are treated as two separate things to be matched, because the value is in the match rather than in the list.
- When two status lists for one aircraft disagree, source decides which is right rather than the more recent or more detailed list winning by default.
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.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Why not just trust the status list the tracking system produces?
A tracking system reports what it was given. If a document was never loaded or was loaded wrong, the list inherits the error. The review checks each decisive line against the source so the position rests on evidence, not on the system's confidence.
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.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.