Repairs and alterations
Repair and alteration records review for aircraft-management teams at redelivery
An owner's aircraft-management team uses this review to establish whether every repair and alteration on a returning aircraft is mapped, substantiated by approved data, and closed with a proper return to service. The work compares the repair map and dent-and-buckle chart against damage reports, repair dispositions, and the approvals behind each one during the redelivery window. It answers the owner's core question: does the paper support the structure the aircraft is coming back with. The management team receives a mapped exception register, per-repair evidence requests, and a substantiation file for the owner's records.
When this review is needed
- The lessee's redelivery package includes a repair map that has visibly not been updated since the last heavy check.
- The owner plans to remarket the aircraft and the next transaction will inherit whatever repair story is accepted now.
- Structural repairs were done away from base during the lease and their approval basis was never centrally filed.
- STC alterations were embodied or removed mid-lease and the configuration paperwork needs to match what is coming back.
The problem
Repair history accumulates in fragments: a damage report in one system, the disposition in an email chain, the approved data at whichever organization produced it, and the return-to-service entry in a logbook. The repair map is supposed to summarize all of it, and at return it rarely does. A management team accepting for an owner has to reconcile those fragments against an airframe it did not operate, on the lessee's timeline.
What gets reviewed
- The repair map and dent-and-buckle chart reconciled against damage reports and logbook entries from the lease period
- Approval basis identified for each repair: SRM within limits, approved data from an engineering source, or an authority-approved deviation
- Alterations checked for STC documentation, embodiment records, and any ICA obligations they created
- Return-to-service entries verified for each repair and alteration event
- Repairs categorized by the inspection burden they impose on the next operator
- Away-from-base and AOG repair events traced to their originating organization and paperwork
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 mapped repair cites data that was approved, applicable to this aircraft, and current when the repair was performed
- Damage reports without a corresponding disposition are surfaced rather than assumed repaired
- Repairs classified as within SRM limits actually fall inside the cited SRM section and revision
- Alteration records include the STC holder's data package or equivalent, plus ICA where required
- The dent-and-buckle chart contains no entries that lack a matching repair record or an accepted-damage disposition
Evidence normally required
- The repair map, dent-and-buckle chart, and structural repair file as delivered
- Damage and incident reports raised during the lease
- Approved data packages, engineering dispositions, and repair drawings on hand
- Logbook and work-order entries covering repair and alteration return to service
- The lease's return conditions on repairs, alterations, and required documentation
Common discrepancies
- Mapped repairs citing SRM sections from a revision that did not yet cover the damage location
- An alteration embodied under STC with no ICA incorporation evidence in the maintenance program
- Dent-and-buckle entries carried for years without any disposition decision on record
- A composite repair performed on the road whose data package stayed with the performing organization
What is at stake
A repair accepted without its approval basis follows the aircraft. At the next sale or lease the counterparty's reviewer will find the same gap with less goodwill available, and the owner will pay for substantiation work, an engineering re-evaluation, or a price concession. Structural items with missing data can also constrain future repair options, since new damage near an undocumented repair is harder to disposition.
How the work runs
Reconstruct the repair population
Merge the repair map, chart, damage reports, and logbooks into one list of every repair and alteration event on the airframe.
Attach the approval basis
Locate the data behind each event and classify it: substantiated, recoverable, or missing.
Push the recoverable items
Send data requests to performing and engineering organizations while the window still allows answers.
Deliver the acceptance position
Hand the management team the register, the substantiation file, and a clear line between items to close and items to price.
What the buyer receives
- A repair-by-repair exception register mapped to airframe location and category
- Evidence requests addressed to the organizations that hold each missing data package
- A substantiation file assembling the approval basis for every accepted repair, structured for the owner's archive
Who uses the output
- The owner representative deciding what to accept, dispute, or price at return
- Maintenance control planning the inspection burden the repair population imposes going forward
- The remarketing side, which will present the repair story to the next counterparty
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Repair substantiation is the slowest-moving strand of a redelivery, because missing data has to come from engineering organizations rather than a records archive. Starting it at the front of the return window keeps it off the critical path, and its exception register merges with the AD, LLP, and release-document findings into the owner's single acceptance position.
Start with a single asset
Reconcile maintenance tracking against source records.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA practice under 14 CFR Part 43 and EASA's Part-21 and Part-145 framework draw the line between acceptable and approved data differently, and a repair fine on one registry can need re-substantiation on another. Where the owner intends to place the aircraft under a new authority, the review reads each repair's basis against the destination registry as well as the current one.
Regulatory limits
The review assesses documentation, and only documentation. It does not approve repair data, perform engineering evaluation of structures, or make the airworthiness call that belongs to certifying staff and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Non-destructive testing or physical verification of repair condition
- Producing new approved data for unsubstantiated repairs
- Managing the lessee's obligations under the lease on the owner's behalf
Specific to this review
- Away-from-base repairs generate a disproportionate share of missing-data findings because the paperwork stays with whoever recovered the aircraft, and nobody circles back once it is flying.
- A dent-and-buckle chart that is too clean is itself a finding: normal operation leaves marks, and an unmarked chart usually means the chart stopped being maintained.
- Repair findings interact with future maintainability in a way other records gaps do not, since the next SRM revision or an adjacent damage event can force re-evaluation of an undocumented repair at the worst possible time.
- Engineering organizations answer data requests in weeks or months, so any repair item still open at the return date is realistically settled with money, and the register prices that honestly.
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 lessee says every repair was done by approved organizations. Does that settle it?
Organizational approval covers who did the work. Return conditions turn on what data the repair was performed to and whether that data was approved for this airframe and location. Both checks have to pass, and the second is where redelivery findings actually come from.
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.