Have a qualified maintenance professional reconcile applicable directives with the actual installed products and supporting records. Document completed work, recurring limits and unresolved issues; a summary list or price credit does not establish compliance.
Treat directive compliance as a documented condition of ownership
An airworthiness-directive review should establish what applies to the actual aircraft and installed products, what actions have been completed, what evidence supports that conclusion, and what remains due. A list of directive numbers or a seller’s statement that the airplane is current does not answer all four questions. Before a purchase, assign the review to an appropriately qualified maintenance professional and agree on the deliverables. The buyer’s role is to obtain a coherent record and understand unresolved issues, not to substitute an online checklist for technical judgment.
The FAA: airworthiness directives and authority explanation describes airworthiness directives as enforceable rules addressing unsafe conditions in aircraft, engines, propellers, and appliances. 14 CFR 39.7: legal effect of directive noncompliance addresses operation of a product that does not meet an applicable directive. Those are operational obligations, not merely negotiating points about resale value. This guide explains a purchase and ownership documentation process; it does not determine the airworthiness of a particular aircraft or authorize a flight, inspection, repair, or deferral.
Identify the installed products before searching
Start with a configuration inventory that reconciles the aircraft identity, engine and propeller models, relevant serial numbers, installed appliances, modifications, and supporting records. Include a place to document the evidence for the configuration, rather than copying an advertisement. An airframe model search alone may not capture an issue affecting an installed engine or appliance. A previously changed component also makes the dates and supporting records important: the installed product today may differ from the one described in an older summary.
The FAA’s FAA: determining directive applicability and compliance guidance directs searches across the relevant product types and explains the role of models, series, part numbers, modifications, and the directive’s applicability section. Use the FAA’s current search resources through that guidance and have the maintenance professional assess the results against the aircraft configuration. Record the review date and the source version. A past inspection’s completed search is useful historical evidence, but it is not a guarantee that no subsequent directive or configuration change requires attention.
Read applicability, required action, and timing separately
For each potentially relevant directive, separate the applicability decision from the compliance decision. First establish whether the identified product and circumstances are covered. Then establish what action is required and when. Finally identify the maintenance record, inspection result, part replacement, or other evidence supporting the status. If something does not apply, retain a specific basis tied to the actual directive and configuration. A blank box or an unexplained not-applicable notation leaves the next reviewer unable to follow the reasoning.
Read time limits in their actual units and conditions. Calendar dates, time in service, cycles, effective dates, and combinations of triggers should not be converted casually into a single estimated due date. The qualified reviewer should identify how the actual requirement is tracked. If the owner expects increased utilization, ask how that changes the planning calendar. A projected date is a scheduling aid; it does not replace a directive’s stated compliance limit or establish that an aircraft may be operated until that projection.
Build a status worksheet that can be verified
Use a worksheet to connect each conclusion to the underlying record. For a purchase, request both the current summary and access to the source documents needed to verify it. Ask the reviewer to distinguish a completed one-time action, an ongoing repetitive requirement, an action that is not yet due, and an unresolved status. Those categories create different ownership costs and scheduling decisions. Keep the reviewer’s unresolved questions visible through acceptance and closing rather than replacing them with a general statement that the records were checked.
| Worksheet field | Evidence or decision to capture | Buyer’s follow-up question |
|---|---|---|
| Product identification | Model, relevant serial or part number, and installed configuration | Does the searched product match the aircraft as delivered? |
| Directive and revision | Current document and applicability basis | Was the complete requirement reviewed? |
| Compliance method | Specified action, supporting entry and referenced document | Can the conclusion be traced to the records? |
| Recurring requirement | Actual interval, last accomplishment and next limit | Who monitors the next action after closing? |
| Unresolved item | Missing evidence, technical question or required work | What must happen before acceptance or operation? |
Under 14 CFR 91.417: maintenance records and retention, specified maintenance-record information includes the current status of applicable directives, the compliance method, and relevant recurring-action information. The worksheet should help retrieve and understand the actual records rather than pretend to replace them. Store readable supporting documents with consistent identifiers, preserve the original maintenance records, and arrange access for the inspector. If a digital summary and original entry disagree, treat the disagreement as an item to resolve, not as a choice between whichever version is more convenient.
Do not assume a modification removes the requirement
A modification or repair in the affected area does not automatically establish that a directive no longer applies. 14 CFR 39.15: modified, altered or repaired products addresses products that have been changed by modification, alteration, or repair. Have the technical reviewer examine the actual configuration and any relevant approved method. Avoid reasoning that newer equipment, a different installation, or work described as an upgrade must have eliminated the unsafe condition for regulatory purposes. The supporting technical and approval documents matter.
An alternative method also requires the appropriate approval. 14 CFR 39.19: alternative compliance methods and times explains the process for proposing an alternative compliance method or compliance time and that the proposed alternative may be used only after approval. If a seller relies on an alternative method, obtain the approval and have the reviewer establish its applicability and conditions for this product. A shop’s informal opinion that a different action is equivalent is not the same evidence as an applicable approved alternative.
Separate technical status from the purchase remedy
An unresolved directive issue can affect the inspection, delivery, price discussion, financing review, and intended first flight. Those effects should be coordinated without confusing their different roles. The maintenance professional determines the technical issue and required work. The buyer and seller address their contractual obligations with counsel. A lender determines its financing conditions. A price reduction can change the economics of a purchase, but it does not itself establish that required action has been performed or that operation is permitted.
For example, an owner might budget a hypothetical $3,000 quoted action, $1,000 of repositioning or travel costs, and $2,000 of provisional extra-work allowance. The resulting $6,000 planning amount is not an industry cost estimate or an authorization to move the aircraft. Keep quoted charges, uncertain charges, and operational permission in different fields. If the technical review identifies additional work or a different transport plan, revise the budget and acceptance schedule together. Do not finance or negotiate around a scope that has already changed.
Check movement to the repair location explicitly
An overdue or unresolved requirement can create a practical problem when the preferred maintenance provider is at another airport. Do not assume that a short repositioning flight, a ferry pilot, or a buyer’s willingness to accept the aircraft resolves the issue. 14 CFR 39.23: movement to a repair facility describes circumstances involving special flight authority, including the possibility that a directive restricts such movement or that the FAA declines a permit for safety reasons. The actual directive and appropriate FAA process control the answer.
Before making travel or delivery commitments, assign someone to establish whether the aircraft can be moved under the intended conditions. Obtain the necessary technical and operational advice and any required authority. If ground transport, on-site work, or a different closing sequence is needed, include it in the transaction plan. A proposed closing date is not a reason to infer permission. The same discipline applies when the uncertainty is missing compliance evidence rather than an agreed outstanding repair.
Budget recurring work and downtime after the purchase
For an applicable recurring action, model the actual interval and expected use with the maintenance provider. Record whether its scheduling can reasonably coincide with other planned work and whether parts, specialist equipment, or facility availability affect execution. Obtain an aircraft-specific quote where possible. An hourly reserve can help organize future cash needs, but the work may become due before enough hours have accumulated to fund it. Calendar and utilization assumptions both deserve attention in the ownership budget.
The owner or operator’s primary airworthiness responsibility under 14 CFR 91.403: owner and operator airworthiness responsibilities continues after closing. Name the person who monitors updates, tracks the aircraft’s use, maintains the status file, and communicates approaching limits. A management company or maintenance shop may perform agreed services, but the owner should understand what has actually been assigned and how completion is confirmed. A receipt for a subscription, a scheduled appointment, or a reminder email does not prove that the applicable work and record entries are complete.
Close the documentation loop before treating an issue as resolved
Have the maintenance professional reconcile the completed work with the directive, the approved method, and the records. Confirm any remaining repetitive obligation and identify the next action clearly. For a purchase, deliver that information to the people responsible for inspection acceptance and lender conditions, using only the information each party needs. Preserve the distinction between a technical completion, an accepted purchase condition, and a funded transaction. Each has its own evidence.
Use the pre-buy inspection guide to organize independent diligence, the closing responsibility checklist to assign unresolved transaction tasks, and the ownership budget resource to plan cash. A useful directive review ends with a traceable status, a defined owner for future monitoring, and clear unresolved questions. It should leave the buyer better prepared to work with qualified professionals without implying that a finance website can certify compliance.