Cessna 150/152 AD Compliance Records: What a Status Sheet Should Explain
An AD status sheet is useful when another reader can follow each conclusion back to the directive and the aircraft records. A list of numbers marked “done” leaves the hardest questions unanswered: which product was evaluated, what method was used, and whether anything becomes due again. For a Cessna 150 or 152, the research must extend beyond the airframe to the installed engine, propeller and applicable appliances.
Separate the legal record from a helpful worksheet
14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v) requires current AD status, including method of compliance, AD number and revision date, and the next time and date for recurring action. The status records in paragraph (a)(2) have retention and transfer treatment distinct from ordinary work records. The worksheet below is an original research aid; it is not an approved compliance form.
Make the applicability conclusion reproducible
For each candidate directive, write down the product identity used in the comparison and the paragraph that establishes applicability. If the conclusion depends on a part number, installed kit or engine serial, identify where that fact came from. An airframe serial lookup cannot establish the identity of a later replacement component.
A negative conclusion deserves a reason too. “Different engine model, identification checked in these records” is more informative than an unexplained “N/A.” A missing component record is an unresolved question, not evidence that the component falls outside the directive. Keep the pending question visible for the maintenance reviewer.
Distinguish three kinds of continuing question
A one-time replacement claim needs evidence of the qualifying replacement. A repetitive inspection needs the last accomplishment and the next due condition. An event-triggered requirement needs the event history and the resulting action. These categories help organize the file; the actual directive controls its own obligations, exceptions and credit provisions.
For an example of why event history matters, see Lycoming propeller-strike records. For a configuration-sensitive airframe case, see AD 2009-10-09 R2. Neither example supplies a universal interval for other directives.
Preserve the method and its supporting entry
Record a locator that another person can use: logbook volume and date, work-order identifier, or a linked scan in the owner's private file. Keep the cited service-document revision and any claimed alternative method with that evidence. A later publication with a similar title should not silently replace the document referenced by the accomplishment record.
When comparing two status sheets at purchase, reconcile the changed conclusions instead of simply choosing the newer sheet. A new engine, a revised directive or corrected component identification could explain a difference; a transcription mistake could also explain it. The file should show which explanation was established.
The maintenance-entry guide helps read the underlying work record. For Reims aircraft, directive authority research adds the jurisdiction and historical-authority questions. This page organizes evidence for review; it does not certify that any aircraft's AD search is complete.