Per 14 CFR Part 39, Airworthiness Directives are the FAA's legally enforceable orders correcting unsafe conditions in aircraft, engines, propellers, and appliances. Per 14 CFR §91.7, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition — and AD non-compliance is consistently among the most-cited Part 91 enforcement categories in FAA enforcement summaries. FAA civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 reach $37,377 per violation in 2026 (inflation-adjusted annually under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act) — and a single missed recurring AD interval can compound across every flight conducted after the due date passed.
Best AD compliance software in 2026 covers two layers an FAA inspector, insurance underwriter, or prospective buyer expects to see in working order. The first is the per-tail layer: 14 CFR §39.7 applicability determination against the specific airframe configuration, and §39.11 corrective action scheduling against the initial compliance time and any recurring interval. The second is the document-side layer: every AD compliance event recorded as a §43.9 maintenance entry, retained under §91.405 and §91.403 owner responsibility, with an audit-ready AD status report on demand for the entire fleet.
The platforms ranked below split between those layers. Per-tail maintenance tracking platforms (CAMP, Veryon, Flightdocs, ADLog) handle the applicability + forecasting layer at per-aircraft pricing — costs that scale linearly with fleet size. Document-side platforms (FileFlo for cross-fleet §43.9/§91.417 audit trail, Avantext for AD library distribution) handle the document layer at flat-rate or library-license pricing. Most operators that need full AD compliance run a platform from each category — and missing either layer is the most common path to a citation under §91.403 owner responsibility.
Primary regulations cited in this guide: 14 CFR Part 39 (Airworthiness Directives), 14 CFR §39.7 (AD applicability), 14 CFR §39.11 (AD required actions), 14 CFR §91.403 (Owner responsibility for maintenance), 14 CFR §91.405 (Maintenance required), and 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (FAA civil penalties).
AD findings are usually documentation problems, not maintenance problems
The most common AD non-compliance findings during routine §91.409 annual inspections, §91.405 maintenance reviews, or Part 145 SVEs are administrative failures the right software prevents structurally — missed applicability on newly issued ADs against previously installed components, recurring intervals that drifted out of schedule, and §43.9 maintenance entries that did not reference the AD number or method of compliance. The underlying maintenance work was usually performed. The documentation did not survive the §91.417 review.
The 7 Best AD Compliance Platforms
Ranked by Part 39 workflow coverage, §39.7 applicability automation, §39.11 corrective action scheduling, §43.9/§91.417 document audit trail depth, ICA management, and value across the AD compliance layers an FAA inspector reviews.
FileFlo
Top Pick — Best for AD Document Audit TrailBest For
Owners, operators, and repair stations who need the document-side audit trail behind every Part 39 Airworthiness Directive compliance action — §43.9 maintenance entries, §91.417 records retention, ICA library version control, and cross-fleet AD status reporting on demand
Key Feature
AI document classification — routes every uploaded AD compliance work order, 8130-3 tag, ICA revision, and maintenance entry to the correct AD reference and §43.9 record automatically
AD Focus
Document-side AD audit trail — §43.9 maintenance entry tagging by AD number, §91.417 records retention, ICA library distribution and version control, AD status report by tail and by fleet
Strengths
- AI document classification ties every uploaded AD compliance record to the correct AD number and tail number automatically
- §43.9 maintenance entry workflow with mandatory AD reference, method of compliance, date, and total time-in-service fields
- §91.417 records retention with full audit history for every AD action across every aircraft
- ICA library version control — STC airworthiness limitations and OEM maintenance instructions tied to airframe configuration
- Cross-fleet AD status report — every aircraft, every applicable AD, every recurring interval — generated on demand
- Owner-side audit trail independent of any maintenance provider — protects §91.403 owner responsibility even when maintenance is contracted
- $299/mo flat for unlimited users, documents, and aircraft — no per-tail or per-mechanic pricing tax as fleet grows
- 5-day free trial, no credit card required, no annual contract
Limitations
- Not a per-tail maintenance forecasting system — pair with CAMP, Veryon, or Flightdocs for AD applicability scanning and due-list forecasting against airframe configuration
- Does not subscribe to FAA AD publication feeds directly — relies on per-tail platforms or operator imports for new AD ingestion
- No native MEL/CDL management for operator-side dispatch (separate from AD scope)
Our take: FileFlo is the purpose-built answer to the AD document audit trail problem. It handles the §43.9 maintenance entry layer, the §91.417 records retention layer, the ICA library distribution layer, and the cross-fleet AD status report — exactly what an FAA inspector under §91.403, an insurance underwriter, or a prospective buyer asks to see. Most operators that need full AD compliance run a per-tail platform for AD applicability forecasting and FileFlo for the document-side audit trail. For a single-aircraft owner or a small fleet operator who already has applicability forecasting handled, FileFlo is the only platform priced and structured for the document-side audit-trail use case at flat-rate scale.
CAMP Systems
Best for Per-Tail AD Applicability + ForecastingBest For
Operators and repair stations whose primary AD burden is per-tail applicability scanning, due-list forecasting, and AD notification across customer aircraft
Key Feature
Mature per-tail AD applicability scanning against airframe configuration with automated notification when new ADs are issued
AD Focus
Per-tail AD applicability + due-list forecasting — primary value is the AD applicability decision and the next-due interval projection, not the §43.9 maintenance entry record
Strengths
- Industry-leading per-tail AD applicability scanning with deep airframe and engine configuration databases
- Automated AD notification when the FAA issues a new AD affecting an aircraft in the customer fleet
- Strong AD due-list forecasting against flight hours, cycles, and calendar time
- Established Part 135 charter and Part 91 corporate flight department customer base for AD compliance
Limitations
- Not purpose-built for the §43.9 maintenance entry record or §91.417 records retention behind every AD action
- Per-aircraft pricing — costly when applied across a growing fleet or high customer-aircraft volume
- No ICA library version control workflow for STC airworthiness limitations or OEM maintenance instructions
- No cross-fleet document-side audit report independent of the per-tail tracking layer
- Sales-led pricing; annual contracts standard
- No 5-day free trial
Our take: CAMP Systems is the per-tail AD applicability and forecasting incumbent. For the §43.9 maintenance entry record, §91.417 records retention, and cross-fleet document audit trail an FAA inspector or insurance underwriter reviews under §91.403, CAMP is oriented to a different compliance layer. Pair CAMP with FileFlo when both layers matter.
Veryon (Traxxall)
Best Post-Merger Per-Tail Tracking Suite with AD ModuleBest For
Operators that want consolidated per-tail tracking and AD forecasting after the 2024 Traxxall + Continuum CMP merger
Key Feature
Consolidated per-tail AD module + maintenance tracking from the 2024 Traxxall + Continuum CMP rebrand
AD Focus
Per-aircraft AD applicability + due-list forecasting — same per-tail orientation as CAMP for AD compliance
Strengths
- Post-2024 merger consolidated Traxxall + Continuum CMP into a single suite with broader AD coverage
- Cloud-first architecture with modern UI compared to legacy on-prem AD systems
- Strong international footprint (EASA + FAA dual-environment AD tracking) for stations with foreign customers
- Per-tail AD tracking + flight ops in one stack for customers needing both layers
Limitations
- Per-aircraft pricing — same structural mismatch as CAMP for document-side AD audit trail use case
- No standalone §43.9 maintenance entry workflow or §91.417 records retention module
- No ICA library version control independent of the per-tail tracking layer
- Post-merger integration period creates feature-roadmap uncertainty on some AD modules
- Sales-led pricing — no published rates
- Annual contracts standard
Our take: Veryon is the rebranded post-2024 result of the Traxxall + Continuum CMP merger. For per-tail AD applicability and forecasting on customer aircraft, it is competitive with CAMP. For the §43.9 maintenance entry record and §91.417 records retention behind every AD action, Veryon is the wrong layer of the stack and per-aircraft pricing accelerates the cost mismatch as fleet grows.
Flightdocs
Best Cloud-First Per-Tail AD TrackingBest For
Operators that want a cloud-first per-tail AD tracking platform with strong mobile experience for technicians and pilots
Key Feature
Cloud-native per-tail AD tracking with strong mobile experience for technicians, pilots, and DOMs to record AD compliance entries from the hangar floor
AD Focus
Per-tail AD applicability + due-list forecasting + mobile AD entry — customer-aircraft layer, not document-side §91.417 retention
Strengths
- Cloud-first, mobile-friendly UI ahead of legacy AD tracking systems
- Strong adoption in Part 91 corporate and Part 135 charter customers serviced by repair stations
- Modern API stack for integration with maintenance management and dispatch systems
- Per-tail subscription with predictable scaling for fleet operators
Limitations
- Primary value is per-tail AD tracking, not standalone §43.9/§91.417 document-side audit trail
- Per-aircraft pricing — same structural mismatch for cross-fleet document audit as CAMP and Veryon
- Sales-led pricing — published rates not available
- No ICA library version control workflow independent of per-tail tracking
- No 5-day free trial
Our take: Flightdocs is the modern cloud-first alternative to CAMP and Veryon in per-tail AD tracking. For the document-side §43.9 maintenance entry and §91.417 records retention audit trail an FAA inspector reviews under §91.403, the per-tail layer does not address the document-side need. Pair with FileFlo for the audit-trail layer.
ADLog
Best Legacy AD Tracking Niche ToolBest For
Smaller Part 91 operators and independent A&P/IAs who built workflows around the long-established ADLog AD tracking format
Key Feature
Established AD tracking tool with focused AD applicability and compliance forecasting workflow
AD Focus
AD applicability, AD due-list forecasting, AD compliance status report — focused tool for the AD layer specifically
Strengths
- Long-tenured AD tracking workflow familiar to a specific segment of A&P/IA and small Part 91 operators
- Focused tool — AD applicability and compliance is the entire scope, not a buried module
- AD status reporting workflow for annual inspection AD review under §91.409
- Useful complement to a document-management platform when AD-specific niche tracking is preferred
Limitations
- Narrow scope — does not handle §43.9 maintenance entries beyond AD, §91.417 retention, ICA library, or cross-fleet document audit trail
- Legacy workflow design compared to cloud-first per-tail platforms
- Custom per-aircraft pricing without published rates
- No AI document classification or AD reference auto-tagging
- No free trial; demo-only sales process
Our take: ADLog is a focused AD tracking niche tool used by A&P/IAs and small Part 91 operators who built workflows around the format. For operators who already have a per-tail platform for forecasting or whose primary need is the §43.9/§91.417 document audit trail, ADLog does not extend to the document-side compliance layer. Pair with FileFlo for the document-side audit trail.
Avantext
Best for AD Library Distribution + Tech PubsBest For
Operators and repair stations needing centralized AD library distribution alongside AMM and SB publication management
Key Feature
Centralized aviation technical publications library including current AD revisions, AMM updates, and SB distribution
AD Focus
AD library distribution and revision control — provides the current AD text and reference library, not the per-tail applicability decision or the §43.9 compliance entry
Strengths
- Centralized AD library kept current with FAA AD publications
- OEM publication feeds keep AMM and SB revisions current — useful evidence during inspector data review
- Established footprint in business aviation MRO and repair-station data management
- Useful complement to a per-tail AD platform and a document-side audit-trail platform
Limitations
- AD library distribution is one narrow slice of AD compliance — does not address §43.9 entry, §91.417 retention, or applicability decision
- No per-tail AD applicability scanning against airframe configuration
- No cross-fleet AD compliance status report on demand
- Sales-led pricing; annual contracts standard
- No published flat-rate pricing tier
Our take: Avantext is a strong AD library and technical publications distribution layer for stations with multiple aircraft type ratings and OEM data subscriptions. It is not a full AD compliance platform. Best used alongside a per-tail forecasting tool and FileFlo for the document-side audit trail.
Paper / Spreadsheet / Network Drive
The Status Quo Most Owners Are QuittingBest For
Single-aircraft owners and very small Part 91 operators with a stable airframe configuration who have not yet outgrown a binder and Excel sheet workflow
Key Feature
No software vendor relationship; full local control over the AD compliance binder
AD Focus
Whatever the owner or operator builds in Excel + a printed AD compliance binder — vulnerable to applicability misses on newly issued ADs, recurring interval drift, and §43.9 maintenance entry gaps
Strengths
- Zero software cost
- No vendor lock-in
- Familiar to long-tenured A&P/IAs and accountable owners
- Works for a single-aircraft owner with a stable configuration and active A&P/IA relationship
Limitations
- Manual AD applicability scanning is error-prone — newly issued ADs against previously installed components are routinely missed
- Recurring AD intervals drift on paper — every interval requires manual recalculation against flight hours, cycles, and calendar time
- §43.9 maintenance entries often lack the AD number reference and method-of-compliance detail required for §91.417 audit survival
- No ICA library version control — STC airworthiness limitations and OEM revisions get missed when paper revisions accumulate
- No cross-fleet AD compliance status report — every report is a manual roll-up
- Hidden labor cost: an A&P/IA spending 4+ hours/month on AD document tracking costs more annually than the software
Our take: Paper, spreadsheets, and network drives are the status quo most owners and small operators are actively quitting in 2026. The hidden labor cost of manual AD tracking plus the asymmetric downside of a single missed recurring AD interval (up to $37,377/violation under 49 U.S.C. § 46301, plus the §91.403 owner-responsibility exposure) makes the status quo more expensive than a flat-rate document-side platform within the first inspection cycle.
Side-by-Side Comparison
All 7 platforms across the criteria that matter most for AD compliance: AD notification, recurring AD tracking, §91.417 records retention, cross-aircraft management, pricing, and free trial.
| Criteria | FileFlo | CAMP | Veryon | Flightdocs | ADLog | Avantext | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform | FileFlo | CAMP | Veryon | Flightdocs | ADLog | Avantext | Paper |
| AD Notification | ⚠️ Via import | ✅ FAA AD feed | ✅ FAA AD feed | ✅ FAA AD feed | ✅ Niche feed | ✅ Library feed | ❌ Manual |
| Recurring AD Tracking | ✅ Doc-side entry log | ✅ Per-tail forecast | ✅ Per-tail forecast | ✅ Per-tail forecast | ✅ Per-tail | ❌ | ❌ Manual |
| §91.417 Records | ✅ Full retention | ⚠️ Per-tail only | ⚠️ Per-tail only | ⚠️ Per-tail only | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Cross-Aircraft Mgmt | ✅ Flat-rate fleet | ⚠️ Per-tail cost | ⚠️ Per-tail cost | ⚠️ Per-tail cost | ⚠️ Per-aircraft | ⚠️ Library only | ❌ Manual |
| Pricing | $299/mo flat | ~$50–$500/aircraft | Per-aircraft | $30–$200/aircraft | Custom per-aircraft | Custom annual | $0 + hidden labor |
| Free Trial | ✅ 5 days | ❌ Demo only | ❌ Demo only | ❌ Demo available | ❌ Demo only | ❌ Demo only | N/A |
⚠️ = partial or limited support. ❓ = unknown / not published. Data based on vendor documentation as of May 2026 and post-2024 Veryon merger context.
How to Choose the Right AD Compliance Platform
Part 39 AD Compliance Workflow
14 CFR Part 39 is the source authority for every Airworthiness Directive. The compliance workflow has three discrete stages — ingest the new AD from FAA publications, evaluate applicability against the airframe configuration, schedule and record the corrective action — and the software must support all three. Per-tail platforms (CAMP, Veryon, Flightdocs) lead the first two stages with automated FAA AD feeds and applicability scanning. Document-side platforms (FileFlo) lead the third stage with §43.9 maintenance entries, §91.417 retention, and the cross-fleet AD status report on demand. Most operators need both layers.
§39.7 AD Applicability Determination
Per 14 CFR §39.7, an AD applies to a product if the product is identified in the applicability statement of the AD. The decision is non-trivial when the airframe has been modified by STC, an engine has been swapped for a different serial number, or an appliance has been changed since the original type certificate configuration. The single highest-leverage applicability software capability is the airframe configuration record cross-referenced against every new AD — and the documented rationale for every applicability decision (applicable, not applicable, applicable but already complied with). FileFlo's AI document classification routes every uploaded configuration record, STC document, and AD compliance entry to the correct tail and AD reference automatically.
Recurring AD Inspection Tracking
Per 14 CFR §39.11, many ADs prescribe a recurring inspection or corrective action on a defined interval — calendar months, flight hours, cycles, or a combination. Every compliance event resets the next due interval. Paper-based tracking misses recurring intervals routinely because the interval calculation depends on the actual flight hours or cycles since the last AD compliance, not on a fixed calendar date. Per-tail forecasting platforms (CAMP, Veryon, Flightdocs) handle the forecasting layer well — they integrate with flight ops data and project the next due interval. Document-side platforms (FileFlo) hold the §43.9 maintenance entry record proving the last compliance event happened, the date, and the time-in-service at compliance — which is what an FAA inspector reviews under §91.417 to verify the forecast against actual history.
ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) Management
Per 14 CFR §91.403(c), the owner or operator must comply with replacement times, inspection intervals, and procedures specified in the manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness — including any ICA issued with an STC modification. ICA management is functionally a parallel discipline to AD compliance: the airworthiness limitations section of an ICA carries the same mandatory force as an AD. ICA management software ties the ICA library to the airframe configuration, surfaces the inspection intervals and replacement times for each installed component (including STC-installed components), and ties those to the AD schedule. Missing an ICA airworthiness limitation is functionally similar to missing an AD — and §91.403(c) makes ICA compliance non-optional. Document-side platforms hold the ICA library version control; per-tail platforms hold the forecasting against ICA-prescribed intervals.
§91.405 + §91.417 Records: The Owner-Side Audit Trail
Per 14 CFR §91.405, the owner or operator must have maintenance performed in accordance with Part 43, ensure appropriate entries are made in the aircraft maintenance records, ensure discrepancies are repaired, and ensure ADs are complied with. The owner-side responsibility under §91.403 means the maintenance provider's records are not enough — the owner needs an independent audit trail tying every AD compliance event to a §43.9 maintenance entry retained under §91.417. Document-side software with cross-fleet AD status reporting on demand (every aircraft, every applicable AD, every recurring interval) protects the owner during an FAA inspection, an insurance underwriting review, or a sale due diligence. The hidden labor cost of maintaining this audit trail manually plus the asymmetric downside of a single missed AD interval (up to $37,377/violation under 49 U.S.C. § 46301) makes the document-side software pay for itself within the first inspection cycle.
Owner-side AD audit trail across every tail in your fleet
FileFlo holds the §43.9 maintenance entry, §91.417 records retention, and ICA library version control behind every AD compliance event — across every aircraft. AI document classification ties every uploaded record to the correct AD reference and tail automatically. $299/month flat for unlimited users and unlimited documents.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Airworthiness Directive (AD) compliance software?
Airworthiness Directive compliance software automates the workflow required by 14 CFR Part 39 — the regulation that gives the FAA authority to issue legally enforceable orders correcting unsafe conditions in aircraft, engines, propellers, and appliances. Per 14 CFR §39.7, no person may operate a product to which an AD applies unless it has been complied with. Per §39.11, ADs prescribe inspections, conditions and limitations, and corrective actions on an exact schedule — initial compliance dates, recurring intervals (calendar time, flight hours, or cycles), and one-time terminating actions. Compliance software ingests new ADs from FAA publications, evaluates applicability against tail number, serial number, and configuration, schedules the corrective action, records the maintenance entry under 14 CFR §43.9 with the AD reference, and produces an AD status report on demand for inspectors, insurance underwriters, and prospective buyers.
How does 14 CFR §39.7 determine which ADs apply to a specific aircraft?
Per 14 CFR §39.7, an Airworthiness Directive applies to a product if the product is identified in the applicability statement of the AD — typically by type certificate holder, model, serial number range, and configuration. Determining applicability is not optional and not delegated to OEMs: the registered owner or operator under 14 CFR §91.403 is responsible. AD compliance software automates the applicability determination by maintaining the aircraft configuration record (model, serial number, engine serial numbers, propeller serial numbers, installed appliances), cross-referencing each new AD against that record, and flagging applicability with a documented rationale. Paper-based operations miss applicability frequently when an AD is issued against a previously installed component the operator did not realize was on the airframe.
What does 14 CFR §39.11 require for AD compliance actions?
Per 14 CFR §39.11, an Airworthiness Directive prescribes inspections, conditions and limitations, and corrective actions under which a product may continue to be operated. Each AD specifies: the initial compliance time (often "within X hours time-in-service" or "before further flight" or "within X calendar months"); the corrective action (inspection, modification, replacement, operating limitation); and any recurring interval for ADs requiring repeated compliance. The corrective action must be recorded as a maintenance entry under 14 CFR §43.9 with the AD number, the method of compliance, the date, the total time-in-service, and the signature of the person approving return to service. Recurring ADs require tracking forward — every AD compliance event resets the next due interval based on the AD's recurring schedule. Missing a recurring AD interval is a Part 91 violation that is among the most-cited enforcement categories.
What is the difference between §91.403 owner responsibility and §91.405 maintenance required?
Per 14 CFR §91.403(a), the owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in airworthy condition, including compliance with Part 39 Airworthiness Directives. Per §91.403(c), no person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) has been issued unless the replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in those instructions are complied with. Per 14 CFR §91.405, the owner or operator must have maintenance performed in accordance with Part 43, ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records, have discrepancies repaired, and ensure that ADs are complied with. Together §91.403 and §91.405 mean: AD compliance is the owner's legal obligation, even when the maintenance is contracted to a Part 145 repair station or independent A&P. Owners who rely on their maintenance provider to track ADs without an independent system are personally exposed when a recurring AD is missed.
What does Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) management mean?
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness are the airworthiness limitations and maintenance instructions developed by a type certificate holder, supplemental type certificate (STC) holder, or PMA parts manufacturer that the operator must follow under 14 CFR §91.403(c). ICA documents include airworthiness limitations sections (mandatory inspection intervals and replacement times), maintenance manual sections (recommended procedures), and any STC-specific maintenance instructions issued with a major alteration. ICA management software ties the ICA library to the airframe configuration, surfaces the inspection intervals and replacement times for each installed component (including STC-installed components), and ties those to the AD schedule and to the §91.409 inspection program. Missing an ICA airworthiness limitation is functionally similar to missing an AD — and §91.403(c) makes ICA compliance non-optional.
Can FileFlo replace CAMP Systems or Veryon for AD compliance?
CAMP Systems, Veryon (Traxxall), and Flightdocs are per-tail maintenance tracking platforms that include AD applicability, AD notification, and AD due-list forecasting as part of their per-aircraft pricing — they are strong at the per-tail AD layer. They are not purpose-built for the document-side audit trail an FAA inspector, insurance underwriter, or prospective buyer reviews: the §43.9 maintenance entries demonstrating AD compliance, the §91.417 records retention behind every AD action, the ICA library distribution and version control, and the AD status report for the entire fleet on demand. FileFlo handles that document layer at $299/month flat for unlimited users, unlimited aircraft, and unlimited documents, with AI classification routing every uploaded AD entry, work order, and 8130-3 tag to the correct AD reference automatically. Most operators that need AD applicability forecasting run CAMP or Veryon for the per-tail tracking and FileFlo for the document-side audit trail.
How much does Airworthiness Directive compliance software cost?
Pricing splits into two categories. Per-tail maintenance tracking platforms (CAMP Systems, Veryon/Traxxall, Flightdocs) bundle AD applicability and forecasting into per-aircraft pricing of roughly $30–$500/aircraft/month under sales-led annual contracts — costs that scale linearly with fleet size. AD-specific niche tools (ADLog, Avantext for AD library distribution) price under custom annual contracts without published rates. FileFlo prices at $299/month flat for unlimited users, unlimited aircraft, and unlimited documents — structurally cheaper for any operator or repair station with growing fleet size, multiple tail-number configurations, or document-side audit trail requirements. Paper or spreadsheet tracking is $0 in software cost and substantial in hidden labor cost plus asymmetric downside: a single missed recurring AD interval is a Part 91 violation exposed under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 at up to $37,377 per violation.
Why is AD non-compliance one of the top-cited Part 91 enforcement categories?
AD non-compliance is consistently among the most-cited Part 91 enforcement categories because the rule applies to every owner and operator under §91.403, the compliance schedule is exact under §39.11, and the documentation requirement under §43.9 is unambiguous. Three failure modes dominate. First, applicability misses — an AD was issued against a component the operator did not realize was installed (often after an STC modification or component swap years earlier). Second, recurring interval misses — an AD was complied with once but the recurring schedule was not tracked forward, and the next due date passed without action. Third, documentation gaps — the AD was complied with, but the maintenance entry under §43.9 did not reference the AD number, the method of compliance, or the date in a way that survives an FAA records review under §91.417. Each failure mode exposes the operator to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 at up to $37,377 per violation — and the underlying maintenance is usually not the problem. The recordkeeping is.
Stop reconstructing the AD audit trail the night before the annual
FileFlo holds the owner-side AD document audit trail across every aircraft. §43.9 maintenance entries tagged by AD number, §91.417 records retention, ICA library version control, and a cross-fleet AD status report on demand — all for $299/month flat, no contract, no per-user fees, no per-aircraft fees.
5-day free trial · No credit card required · Cancel anytime