Configuration across authorities
Cross-jurisdiction aircraft configuration alignment
Cross-jurisdiction configuration alignment confirms that an aircraft's modification, STC, and repair status stands under the receiving authority's approval basis before a transition between the FAA, EASA, and TCCA systems. It is run by or for the lessor, airline, or acquisition team ahead of the move. It examines each modification's approval origin, whether it has been validated or accepted by the receiving authority, and whether the configuration baseline is internally consistent. You receive a configuration map, a list of modifications without a receiving-side basis, and the validation path for each.
When this review is needed
- An aircraft is changing authority and its installed modifications have to stand under the receiving approval basis.
- An STC was approved by one authority and its standing on the receiving register is unknown.
- A major repair was carried under one authority's approved data and the receiving side has to accept the basis.
- A configuration baseline has been assembled from several sources and needs to be made internally consistent before the move.
The problem
Configuration is where transitions stall. A modification approved by one authority does not automatically hold under another, and the records often show the installation without the approval basis the receiving side needs. STCs accumulate across operators, repairs are carried under data approved in the outgoing system, and the configuration baseline is rarely reconciled against the physical and recorded state at one time. When the receiving authority or its CAMO starts on the configuration, items without a receiving-side basis stop the move while validation is sought.
What gets reviewed
- Each installed modification and STC by approval origin and reference
- Validation or acceptance status of each modification under the receiving authority
- Major repairs and the approved data they were carried under
- The configuration baseline reconciled against installation and approval evidence
- Interaction between modifications where one affects another's basis
- Records of any prior cross-authority acceptance the modification already holds
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Send a representative, redacted record set and we will scope the review.
What gets validated
- Each STC traces to an approval the receiving authority accepts or to an identified validation path
- Major repairs carry data the receiving authority accepts as approved or acceptable
- The configuration baseline reconciles against the installation evidence without unexplained items
- Modifications that depend on one another are consistent under the receiving basis
- Prior cross-authority validations are documented where a modification relies on them
- The recorded configuration matches the status the transition will be built on
Evidence normally required
- Modification and STC status list with approval references
- STC certificates and supplemental approval documents
- Major repair records and the approved or acceptable data behind them
- The configuration baseline or build standard as recorded
- Any existing cross-authority validation correspondence
- Installation evidence linking each modification to the asset
Common discrepancies
- An STC approved by the outgoing authority with no validation on the receiving side
- A major repair carried under approved data the receiving authority does not accept as presented
- A configuration baseline that disagrees with the installation evidence
- Interacting modifications whose combined basis was never established for the receiving authority
- Prior cross-authority acceptance asserted but not documented in the records
- An installation recorded without the approval reference the receiving side requires
What is at stake
A modification that cannot be carried under the receiving basis can mean the aircraft is placed with the modification inoperative, removed, or held while a validation or field approval is pursued. Each of those is slower and more expensive once the transition is underway, and an unreconciled baseline undermines every status list built on it.
How the work runs
Inventory the modifications
List every STC, modification, and major repair with its approval origin and reference from the records.
Test receiving-side standing
Determine for each item whether the receiving authority accepts the approval, validates it, or requires a fuller assessment.
Reconcile the baseline
Check the configuration baseline against installation evidence so the recorded build standard is internally consistent.
Map the validation paths
Produce the configuration map and the validation or acceptance path for each item without a receiving-side basis.
What the buyer receives
- A configuration map showing each modification, its approval origin, and its receiving-side standing
- A list of modifications and repairs without a receiving-authority basis
- A validation or acceptance path for each open item with the evidence it needs
Who uses the output
- The receiving CAMO or maintenance organization establishing the build standard
- Acquisition and asset teams pricing the configuration risk
- Records and engineering teams pursuing validation before the move
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Configuration alignment runs alongside the AD bridging in a transition so the build standard is settled before the receiving authority or CAMO relies on it. It feeds the transition gap list and the configuration baseline the next operator inherits.
Start with a single asset
Start with a single tail and expand once the workflow is proven.
Aircraft-specific considerations
The work scales with modification density and with how interlinked the modifications are. Cabin, avionics, and connectivity STCs frequently interact, so the review examines the combined basis rather than each modification in isolation, and concentrates on the items most likely to lack a receiving-side approval.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
An STC or repair approval is specific to the authority that issued it. The FAA, EASA, and TCCA systems each accept or validate another's design approvals through their own routes, and bilateral arrangements set when validation is streamlined and when a fuller assessment is required.
Regulatory limits
The review reports the standing of the configuration under the receiving basis. It does not validate an STC, approve a repair, establish a build standard on the authority's behalf, or determine acceptability for the receiving authority. Those acts stay with the authority and its delegated organizations.
What this review does not cover
- Applying for STC validation or a field approval
- Engineering substantiation or design approval of a modification
- Physical inspection to confirm the installed configuration
Specific to this review
- A design approval is specific to its issuing authority, so an STC accepted under one system has no standing under another until that system accepts or validates it.
- Interacting modifications can each hold individually yet lack an established combined basis under the receiving authority, which is a frequent transition surprise.
- Bilateral arrangements between the FAA, EASA, and TCCA set when STC validation is streamlined and when the receiving authority requires a fuller technical assessment.
Sources
Federal Aviation Administration. STC application process, certification basis, and continued airworthiness obligations of an STC holder.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
Transport Canada. Canadian airworthiness, maintenance records (CAR 605/571), and Airworthiness Directive requirements (CAR 593).
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
Frequently asked questions
Does an STC carry across authorities automatically?
No. A design approval is specific to the authority that issued it. The receiving authority accepts or validates it through its own route, sometimes streamlined under a bilateral arrangement and sometimes requiring a fuller technical assessment.
Why look at modifications together rather than one by one?
Modifications can interact, so two that each hold individually may lack an established combined basis under the receiving authority. The review examines interacting installations together as a set, with their combined basis treated as its own line of evidence.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.