In a Part-145 maintenance organisation, doing the work correctly is only half of the obligation. The organisation must also prove who performed the task, which approved data was used, what authorisation scope applied and who finally released the aircraft or component to service.
1. Incomplete maintenance work package
The work may have been completed, but the package is missing a task card, attachment, photo, AD/SB reference or evidence of the part used. From the auditor's perspective, the organisation cannot reconstruct the full maintenance record.
- unsigned task card despite a closed package
- attachment stored outside the official archive
- multiple form versions circulating in parallel
- no clear link between work order, job card and CRS
How to prevent it
A work package should have a completeness status before closure. The system should block CRS or clearly flag missing cards, missing signatures, missing attachments and unresolved corrections.
2. Signature without documented authorisation scope
A mechanic or certifying staff signature needs context. An auditor may ask whether the person held the required licence, category, organisation authorisation, training and type rating at the moment of performance or release.
- keep a current personnel authorisation matrix
- link each signature with role and authorisation scope
- store a snapshot of privileges at the time of signature
- prevent every user from signing every task type
3. Weak audit trail for corrections and changes
A correction is not automatically a problem. A correction without history is. The organisation should be able to show who changed the record, when, why and whether the change was reviewed or accepted.
4. No proof of current technical data
Part-145 requires work to be performed using applicable and current maintenance data. Auditors may ask not only whether the organisation had access to AMM, IPC, AD or SB data, but whether a specific task referenced the correct revision.
Good practice
The task card should identify the data source, revision or reference, and the system should store that information with task execution and signature evidence.
5. CRS disconnected from execution history
The CRS should not be an isolated document at the end of the process. It should be traceable back to the work package, task cards, signatures, parts, tools, corrections and attachments.
Short Part-145 audit readiness checklist
- Does every closed package include all task cards and attachments?
- Does every signature include person, role, date and authorisation context?
- Do corrections include history and reason for change?
- Is CRS linked to the package rather than stored as a standalone file?
- Can the team show a full task history to an auditor within minutes?
The strongest audit response is not an explanation from memory, but a coherent record.cuervo.aero