There is an uncomfortable truth about aircraft maintenance: the customer does not see the work. They were not in the hangar when the mechanic found the crack, did not watch the torque being applied, did not see the care. What they see — and what the authority sees, and what the aircraft's next buyer sees — is the record.
For everyone outside the hangar, the work order is the product. Technically flawless work with a poorly documented work order is worth, in practice, whatever the work order can prove.
And that is why it hurts so much when the record lives on paper.
Where the paper work order breaks down
The part without a chain. Part traceability is the heart of RBAC 145 (Brazil's counterpart to FAR Part 145): where it came from, with which certificate, which aircraft it went into, on whose order. On paper, that chain crosses three places — the stockroom, the work order, the certificate folder — and a single loose link is enough to turn a legitimate part into an audit problem. Not because anything wrong was done, but because the link is not demonstrable.
The signature left for later. The work order needs the right signatures, from the right people, in the right order — execution and approval for return to service. In the real routine, the work ends at 7 p.m., the responsible person has already left, and the signature goes into the "tomorrow" queue. The work order that is technically closed and formally open is the most dangerous state in the hangar: the airplane flies, the paper does not.
The customer in the dark. While the work is under way, the aircraft owner is miles away, with no visibility. The result is familiar: the shop phone rings, someone stops work to answer "where do things stand", and the answer is only as good as the memory of whoever picked up. A customer without visibility grows suspicious — of the deadline, of the scope and, when the invoice comes, of the amount.
The estimate that changes midway. Maintenance discovers things. The additional item the customer approved by phone and nobody recorded is the seed of the worst invoice disputes — the shop did it, the customer "does not remember approving it", and there is no evidence for either side.
The report that becomes an all-hands scramble. At month's end, someone rebuilds by hand what the shop performed, for the report to ANAC. If the information had been structured in the work order from day one, the report would be a query — the shop's SIGRAC is the perfect example: whoever classifies the work in ANAC's vocabulary throughout the month has no deadline eve.
What to digitize first
- The work order as the common thread. Everything — service item, part installed, labor hours, signature, customer approval — hung on the same work order, with date and author. The question "who authorized this?" gets an answer one click away.
- The part linked on the spot. The part leaves stock already pointing to the work order and the certificate. The chain is born closed, instead of being reconstructed at the audit.
- Digital signature, right then. Whoever performs and whoever approves sign from a phone, in the hangar — the "tomorrow" queue ceases to exist, and a closed work order is truly closed.
- The customer seeing the work. A link for the aircraft owner to follow progress and approve additional items in writing — fewer phone calls, zero invoice disputes based on memory.
How Alis handles this
Alis' maintenance shop module was designed with the work order at the center:
- Complete work order, with items, installed parts and the execution recorded by whoever did it and when.
- Work order export to PDF with digital signature — the document the customer receives and the one the audit asks for come from the same place, with no rework.
- Aircraft owner portal: the customer follows the work through a link, with no need for an account — and what they approve is recorded.
- SIGRAC with no deadline eve: the work is classified in ANAC's vocabulary during the month, the type/category pair is validated before saving, and the monthly and quarterly files come out in the Guide's format.
The effect is what paper does not deliver: the shop that proves its own work — to the customer, to ANAC and to the aircraft's next buyer — without stopping the hangar to do it.
If your shop also handles maintenance tracking for customers' fleets, see how that connects with CTM — and the maintenance shops page shows the complete module.
This article is informational and does not replace consulting the ANAC regulations in force or the requirements of your maintenance organization's certificate. Specific obligations must be confirmed in the applicable rule.