Airworthiness directive tracking that shows why every tail is in or out, and proves every line of the AD status report
No tail flies past an AD, and every line of the status report is proven.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Airworthiness directive tracking software for airlines that goes past a due list: seven agents read each new AD and its service bulletin, decide which tails it applies to with the paragraph and record behind every in and out, plan each due point into a slot and prove compliance from signed work. The AD engineer signs the applicability call, and the AD status report stays current per tail.
How to choose AI for airlines: a buyer's guide to agentic AI solutions →
Updated
Airworthiness directive tracking begins with a rule: an AD is issued under 14 CFR Part 39, and no one may operate an aircraft that does not meet an applicable AD. Each new one sends an AD engineer into the directive and the service bulletin it incorporates, to work out tail by tail whether it applies — model and line number, installed part numbers by position, modification status, credit for earlier work — and to turn "within 50 flight cycles after the effective date" or "before accumulating 8,000 total flight cycles" into a due point per tail. That call lives in spreadsheets and in engineers' heads; the M&E system only holds a due list after someone has typed it in.
Then technical records must prove, per tail, that the work was done the way the AD says: the right bulletin revision, every step signed, the result sheets, the parts and the inspector's stamp. A carrier must keep the current status of each applicable AD, with its method of compliance and the next due for a recurring action (14 CFR 121.380), yet the AD status report is rebuilt by hand for every audit. An acquired airline's records arrive as scans in another format, and a credit for earlier work is only as good as the page that proves it. Part 39 compliance is judged tail by tail, and the FAA counts each flight.
Estimated split for one structural AD on a single-type fleet of about 60 aircraft, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents read each AD, sieve the fleet through its paragraphs, check each other and prove compliance from signed work; the AD engineer signs the call.
Thursday, October 15, 2026, 07:40 at DEN. Corvane Airways flies 300 aircraft, and AD 2026-19-07 — cracking at the forward end of the slat main tracks on 737-8 airplanes, effective on publication — needs an AD engineer's signature today. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dana's Today screen shows 3 new ADs this week, 1 call waiting for her, 4 tails due within 50 cycles and 9 recurring inspections in 30 days. The applicability agent's briefing says one AD needs her signature: 14 of 62 tails apply, four inside 50 cycles, and the check agent agrees after one correction. She asks whether N834CV is legal to fly tonight.
Applicability agent: “Yes. It has 41 cycles left on AD 2026-19-07 and no other AD item open past due; its status report shows 74 applicable ADs, all within limits.”
The watch agent found AD 2026-19-07 in the Federal Register and fetched Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1442 RB; it filtered AD 2026-19-05 because the fleet has no 737-7s. The reader agent extracted paragraphs (a) to (l) and Parts 1 to 3 of the bulletin, and wrote the plain summary with 9 quotes: what is unsafe, what to do, by when — (g)(1) within 50 cycles for airplanes at 7,500 cycles or more, (g)(2) before 8,000 cycles for the rest, repeat every 1,500 — and what ends it, replacing all eight tracks with P/N 311A1856-9.
The AD reader agent never paraphrases a compliance time without the quote.
Each applicability paragraph becomes a sieve, quoted in the AD's words. ¶(c) takes 300 aircraft to 62 737-8s; ¶(c)(1), line numbers 7212 through 8460, stops 24; ¶(c)(2), a slat main track P/N 311A1856-3 or -5 installed at slats 2 to 5, stops 16 that already carry -9 tracks; ¶(k), credit for an inspection under the August alert bulletin, stops 8 that still get the 1,500-cycle repeat. Fourteen come through, ordered by cycles left — thirteen on the first pass, and one more after the check agent refused a credit.
Any tail opens to show why it is in or out. N835CV stopped at ¶(c)(2): seven tracks are -9, but slat 3L carries a -7 from a 2024 repair, a dash number the AD does not list. The agent's confidence is 0.71, below the 0.85 threshold, so it does not decide. It suggests moving the tail in until the part is checked on the aircraft; Dana can move it in with a reason.
The applicability agent never decides a tail below confidence 0.85, and never removes a tail without a record.
The check agent recomputed the call from the raw records without seeing the first answer. It agreed on 61 of 62 tails and refused the ¶(k) credit for N858CV, a Halvard Air tail: the scanned pack has 6 pages and the task card refers to a result sheet on page 7. Under rule R4 there is no credit without it, so N858CV moved into the tails that apply, due at 8,000 cycles with 3,380 left. The report agent drafted the records request, and an AMOC request for N829CV's repaired slat 4R track under ¶(l)(3).
Check agent: “Without it there is no credit (rule R4); N858CV is due at 8,000 cycles anyway — 3,380 left — so nothing is at risk while we look.”
Dana weighs the terminating action against repeat inspections. The planner agent answers in the thread: replacement ends the repeats but takes 46 labor hours per airplane, and DEN stores hold 12 tracks — one and a half airplanes. It proposes the -9 replacement at the three C-checks already planned, N837CV, N839CV and N842CV, and the inspection for the rest.
Approving takes a reason code — A1 call confirmed as proposed, A2 confirmed with a tail moved in, A3 confirmed with a tail moved out, or X1 send back to the agents — an optional note for the record, and her e-signature. She signs A1: 14 of 62 737-8s apply, 48 are out, each with the paragraph and the record that stopped it.
“I approve the applicability call for AD 2026-19-07 as Dana Whitfield, AD Engineer — e-signature, Thu, Oct 15, 2026 07:42.”
N834CV has 7,977 of 8,018 cycles at 4.6 a day, so it reaches its limit around Oct 24; its next DEN overnight with a hangar after tonight is Oct 26 — two days too late. The planner agent proposes tonight, Hangar 4, 22:30 to 04:30: 6.5 labor hours, with the HFEC kit and two Level II technicians free. The plan shows 4 tails inside 50 cycles, 3 to replace with -9, 209.5 labor hours and engineering order EO-26-0412. Elena accepts the slot and the work package goes to the night shift.
The planner agent never books a slot or orders parts; the planner accepts.
DEN line maintenance signs WO-26-77310: 8 of 8 tracks at slats 2 to 5 inspected, no cracks, the HFEC result sheet attached, inspector stamp DEN-114 at 7,981 cycles. The proof agent checks method, bulletin revision, steps, results and stamp against ¶(g)(1) and proposes closure. Jordan Pike confirms compliance, and the next inspection is set at 9,481 cycles.
The proof agent never closes an item with a missing page and never edits a record.
The report agent regenerated the AD status report: AD 2026-19-07 added to 14 tails, N834CV complied, repeat at 9,481 cycles. N834CV's report lists each applicable AD with its amendment, method of compliance, date complied and next action due, each line linked to its evidence. Version 216 waits for Marcus Bell's signature; the report exports as a PDF or CSV for the FAA inspector.
The report agent never signs or sends anything to the FAA.
The same airworthiness directive, seen by the four people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents read each AD, sieve the fleet through its paragraphs, check each other and prove compliance from signed work; the AD engineer signs the call.
Watches the FAA's AD feed and the Federal Register every 30 minutes, EASA ADs daily and emergency ADs the moment they are sent; fetches the bulletins an AD incorporates and filters by type certificate.
Reads the AD and its bulletins and extracts applicability, actions, compliance times, credit, terminating action and AMOC terms, paragraph by paragraph; writes the plain summary with quotes.
Builds a sieve from each applicability paragraph and runs the fleet through it with configuration, installed part numbers, modification status and work history, giving a confidence per tail.
Recomputes applicability, credit and due points from the raw records without seeing the first answer; any difference blocks the call until a person settles it.
Turns compliance times into cycles, hours and dates per tail at live utilization, finds the slot that beats each due point, checks labor, tooling and parts, and drafts the engineering order.
Reads signed task cards that cite an AD; checks the method, bulletin revision, every step, results, parts and the inspector's stamp; proposes closure and sets the next repeat.
Keeps the 14 CFR 121.380 AD status report per tail live and versioned, and drafts AMOC requests, records requests and comments on proposed rules.
Signs every call; the planner accepts slots; records confirm proof; the Director of Quality signs the report. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Every screen has the agents beside it. Ask a question or tell them what to do; answers cite their source, and nothing is approved, sent or booked until a person says so.
Why is N835CV out?
¶(c)(2) covers tracks -3 and -5. N835CV's slat 3L carries -7 from repair R-24-1187; the other seven are -9. The -7 is not listed, so the sieve stops it — but at 0.71 confidence, so the call is yours.
Why tonight for N834CV and not Oct 26?
At 4.6 cycles a day N834CV reaches its 8,018-cycle limit around Oct 24; its next DEN overnight with a hangar after tonight is Oct 26 — two days too late. Tonight it arrives 21:48 as CV1182 and leaves 06:15 as CV407, so the 6.5-hour job fits.
Why not close WO-26-74988? The work was done.
The task card follows SB A321-52-1209 Revision 01; AD 2026-19-03 requires Revision 02, which changed the step 9 torque. Work done to the wrong revision is not compliance. N416CV still has 2,300 flight hours before its due point, so SEA can re-do step 9 at the next overnight.
Does a repaired track change anything?
Yes. ¶(l) says a repaired slat main track needs an approved AMOC before the (g) time. N829CV has a blend-repaired track at slat 4R; the report agent drafted the AMOC request for Marcus Bell.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The rules every AD is checked against are settings. Changes are proposed and need the Director of Quality's approval with a reason code.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| R1 · The check agent must agree before a call can be signed | On | On · Off |
| R2 · Confidence below which the engineer decides | 0.85 | A number you set; confidence is scored per tail, per AD |
| R3 · Due-soon alert | 50 cycles · 100 hours · 14 days, whichever first | Cycles, hours and days set separately |
| R4 · Credit for previous actions needs the result sheet | On | On · Off |
| R5 · Re-sign the status report | After any change | After any change · Daily · Monthly |
| R6 · Four eyes on moving a tail out | On | On · Off |
| Who signs applicability calls | AD engineers; powerplant engineers for engine and propeller ADs | Set by role; the administrator cannot sign compliance |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample fleet data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1), $75,000 per violation, DOT final rule Dec 30, 2024; FAA newsroom, proposed $400,000 penalty for 44 flights out of compliance with an AD, July 2024). Rules named: 14 CFR Part 39 (including 39.19) and 14 CFR 121.380. Corvane Airways, Halvard Air, AD 2026-19-07 and its bulletin, tails, work orders and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Airworthiness directive tracking software for airlines that goes past a due list: seven agents read each new AD and its service bulletin, decide which tails it applies to with the paragraph and record behind every in and out, plan each due point into a slot and prove compliance from signed work. The AD engineer signs the applicability call, and the AD status report stays current per tail.
The applicability agent turns each applicability paragraph — model and line or serial numbers, installed part numbers, modification status, credit for earlier work — into a sieve and runs the fleet through it with configuration and work history. Every tail stopped shows the quote, the record and a confidence; below 0.85 the engineer decides. A check agent recomputes the call blind, and any difference blocks the signature.
The current status of each applicable AD, including the method of compliance and, for a recurring action, when it is next due. Here the report agent keeps that AD status report per tail, with each line linked to its evidence; it regenerates on every change, is versioned, and the Director of Quality signs it before it is exported as a PDF or CSV.
When technical records confirms a closure, the proof agent sets the next due from the inspection — in the demo, 7,981 cycles plus the 1,500-cycle repeat makes 9,481. All recurring AD actions show on one list by cycles, hours or calendar, ready to bundle into a check.
Yes. When an AD requires an alternative method of compliance — in the demo, a repaired slat track under ¶(l)(3) — the report agent drafts the request under 14 CFR 39.19 with the facts, the repair data and the proposed method. The Director of Quality edits, signs and sends it; the agent never sends to the FAA.
Its records library indexes scanned records, including an acquired airline's archive. A credit for earlier work is given only with the result sheet, so a missing page becomes a records gap with a drafted request, and the tail stays in the AD until the page is found.
Yes. The agents propose, quote and ask; they never approve applicability, book slots, order parts, close an item with a missing page, edit a record or sign anything. The AD engineer signs the call, the planner accepts slots, records confirms closures and the Director of Quality signs the report, each with a reason code and e-signature on a chained audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your AD procedures, fleet configuration, M&E system and a sample of past ADs and signed work — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own recent ADs.
Every bulletin decided in days on the fleet’s own evidence, every tail and dollar cited.
1-min demoDeferred Defect ManagementNo aircraft flies past its MEL limit, and every fix lands on a planned overnight.
1-min demoAircraft Troubleshooting AssistantEach fault traced to its cause with cited steps, and the aircraft out on time.
1-min demoWe'll run Airworthiness Directive Compliance Tracking on one of your recent ADs and your own fleet configuration.