Operator transfers
Acquisition-side AD status review when an aircraft changes operators
This review verifies the AD position of an aircraft a buyer is acquiring while it moves between operators and maintenance programs. A records specialist works the AD status list line by line, matching applicability decisions and method-of-compliance entries to the accomplishment evidence in the transferred files. It runs after the seller opens the data room and before the deal team signs technical acceptance. The buyer receives a verified AD position, a register of unsupported lines, and a document request list the seller can act on before closing.
When this review is needed
- A purchase closes at the same moment the aircraft leaves its current operator, and AD status must be settled before technical acceptance.
- The seller's AD status list came out of a maintenance system the buy side cannot query directly.
- The receiving operator's CAMO wants a supported AD position before it builds the program bridge.
- Recurring inspections are mid-interval at handover and the deal team needs to know which ones come due first under the new operator.
The problem
An AD status list is an assertion, and at an operator transfer it is an assertion made by a team that is about to stop being responsible for the aircraft. Applicability calls sit undocumented in someone's head, method-of-compliance entries cite SBs nobody has pulled, and the buy side has weeks, sometimes days, to decide which lines to trust. Deal pressure pushes toward accepting the list at face value.
What gets reviewed
- Applicability review of airframe, engine, APU, and appliance ADs against the serial number and installed configuration
- Method-of-compliance entries traced to the specific AD paragraph they claim to satisfy
- Accomplishment evidence pulled for terminated lines, including task cards, work orders, and logbook entries
- Repeat-inspection next-due points recomputed from the last accomplishment record rather than the status list
- AMOC approvals checked for validity, effectivity, and whether they follow the aircraft to a new operator
- Not-applicable dispositions examined for a documented configuration or effectivity basis
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 terminated line points to a signed work record, and that record covers the full action the AD requires
- SB accomplishments cited as compliance match the SB revision the AD actually mandates
- Recurring next-due figures agree across the status list, the tracking extract, and the last accomplishment entry
- Engine and APU AD histories follow serial numbers, not installed positions, across any swaps in the records
- The status list extract date leaves no unreviewed gap between the report and the planned transfer date
Evidence normally required
- Current AD status lists for airframe, engines, APU, and appliances
- Work orders, task cards, and logbook entries supporting terminated lines
- AMOC grants and related authority correspondence
- SB accomplishment records referenced as methods of compliance
- The installed-configuration and major-assembly serial-number listing
Common discrepancies
- A line marked complied-with where the work order covers only part of the required AD action
- A repeat inspection tracked from issue date instead of accomplishment date, shifting when it next comes due
- An AMOC granted to the outgoing operator that does not transfer the way the status list assumes
- Engine ADs reported by position rather than serial number, concealing a gap created by an engine change
What is at stake
Unsupported AD lines that pass through closing resurface at induction, where they stall the bridging program and become the new operator's problem to prove. A repeat inspection tracked from the wrong date can come due earlier than planned, and a compliance claim that collapses after transfer converts into a priced dispute with a seller who has already moved on.
How the work runs
Fix the datum
Agree the status-list extract date and reconcile list coverage against the installed configuration and major-assembly serials.
Trace terminated lines
Match each complied-with entry to accomplishment evidence and confirm the method satisfies the AD paragraph cited.
Test open and recurring lines
Recompute next-due points from source records and check AMOC validity across the operator change.
Issue the exception register
Deliver the verified position, the unsupported-line register, and the per-line document request list.
What the buyer receives
- A verified AD position keyed to the status list line numbers
- An exception register that separates unsupported claims from genuinely open ADs
- A seller-facing request list naming the exact document needed to close each line
- A technical-acceptance summary the deal lead can circulate internally
Who uses the output
- Deal leads deciding whether AD exposure changes price, escrow, or closing conditions
- The receiving operator's continuing-airworthiness team building the program bridge
- Buy-side records staff who inherit whatever remains open after closing
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review sits between data-room access and technical acceptance. Its exception register feeds the closing negotiation while the seller still has an incentive to answer, and its verified AD position becomes the datum the receiving operator bridges from on day one.
Start with a single asset
Organize records and a discrepancy register for diligence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under 14 CFR Part 39 and the FAA recordkeeping rules, AD status with method of compliance and next-due times must be producible for the aircraft. Where the transfer moves the aircraft toward an EASA operator, Regulation 1321/2014 continuing-airworthiness expectations apply, and directives issued by the state of design may map differently onto the receiving registry, so the list is read against both frameworks.
Regulatory limits
The work reports what the records support as of a stated date. It does not determine airworthiness, close or defer an AD, obtain or extend an AMOC, or replace the receiving operator's and authority's own acceptance decisions.
What this review does not cover
- Physical inspection or borescope verification of accomplished work
- Preparation or approval of the receiving operator's bridging program
- Negotiation of purchase-agreement remedies arising from the findings
Specific to this review
- An AD status list ages from its extract date; a report pulled three weeks before transfer says nothing about work done, or missed, since.
- Compliance claimed through an SB fails quietly when the shop embodied an earlier revision than the AD requires, and only the work order reveals it.
- Engine and APU lines break most often at transfer because swaps between positions and airframes fracture the compliance history.
- Leverage to extract missing evidence collapses at closing; a request raised while the seller still needs the deal gets answered in days, the same request afterward can take months.
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 current operator was audited by its authority last year. Does that make the AD status list reliable?
An authority audit samples processes; it does not certify every line of a status report, and it says nothing about the weeks between the audit and your transfer. A buyer still needs line-level evidence for the ADs that matter to this airframe, its engines, and its APU.
Can the review run before the full data room opens?
A useful first pass can start from the status lists alone, flagging structural weaknesses such as position-based engine reporting or stale extract dates. Line-level verification, though, needs the underlying work records, so the depth of the output tracks the depth of access.
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.