Change records, checked
Modification and STC status review for an EASA to FAA transfer
Every design change embodied during EASA operation must find a footing in the FAA system when the aircraft is re-registered, and the modification status report is where that reckoning starts. This review verifies the report against SB accomplishment records, STC files, minor-change approvals, and configuration lists, then sorts each embodied change by its likely FAA acceptance route: an existing FAA counterpart approval, validation under the bilateral, or case-by-case substantiation. It is performed during transition planning by a records specialist. The owner receives a change-by-change evidence map, a gap list, and document requests aimed at the approvals and data the US side will want to see.
When this review is needed
- The aircraft carries EASA STCs and minor changes and nobody has established which hold FAA counterparts.
- A US buyer's technical review has asked for the approval and data package behind each embodied change.
- The modification status report has not been reconciled with the configuration list since a tracking migration.
- Decisions about removing marginal modifications before delivery need cost and evidence input now.
The problem
European operation accumulates changes approved through routes the FAA file structure does not mirror: EASA STCs without US validation, minor changes approved inside a design organization's privileges, and SB embodiments recorded against European program revisions. The status report lists them all with equal confidence, but at transfer each route maps differently onto US acceptance, and the minor-change population is the trap, because those approvals are the least documented in the aircraft file and the least familiar to US-side reviewers.
What gets reviewed
- Modification status report reconciled with configuration lists and the change history in the logbooks
- Each EASA STC checked for an FAA counterpart approval or a validation route under the bilateral
- Minor changes traced to their design-organization approvals and classification records
- SB accomplishments verified against embodiment evidence and the revision applied
- Flight-manual supplements and ICA confirmed for changes that require them, in the versions actually approved
- Interactions between changes, where one modification altered another's applicability or limitations
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
- Every embodied change on the report traces to an approval document and an accomplishment record
- STC effectivity covers this serial number at the amendment installed, verified against the certificate
- Minor-change approvals identify the approving organization and its privilege basis, none resting on a bare reference number
- ICA introduced by changes appear in the maintenance program records, tying the modification and program files together
- Changes recorded as removed have deactivation or removal evidence, so the report matches the aircraft
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- EASA STCs installed with no FAA counterpart and no validation initiated, discovered only at transfer
- Minor changes evidenced by an approval number alone, with the classification and data held by the design organization
- Configuration lists showing equipment from a modification the status report never recorded
- ICA from embodied changes absent from the program records, breaking the link the receiving reviewer checks first
What is at stake
Changes without an FAA path become embodiment liabilities: validate, substantiate, or remove, each with cost and lead time. Cabin, connectivity, and avionics changes tend to cluster in the unresolved category and can stall the buyer's acceptance while the airframe questions are long settled. Deferring the sorting exercise until the audit hands the schedule to whichever design organization answers slowest.
How the work runs
Verify the embodied list
Reconcile the status report, configuration lists, and logbook change history into a confirmed change inventory.
Attach approvals and data
Collect the STC, minor-change, and SB evidence behind each confirmed change.
Assign acceptance routes
Sort changes into counterpart-approval, bilateral-validation, and case-by-case populations with open items per change.
Deliver the sorting and requests
Issue the evidence map, lead-time-ranked gap list, and requests to approval holders.
What the buyer receives
- A change-by-change evidence map with the probable FAA acceptance route for each embodied modification
- A gap list splitting validation work from document recovery, ranked by lead time
- Request sets for STC holders and design organizations, issued while they still answer to the current operator
Who uses the output
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Modification status anchors the configuration story in an EASA to FAA transition and exchanges findings with three sibling strands: repairs, where alteration and repair data blur; equipment, where installed units must trace to an authorizing change; and the AD file, where terminating actions live inside modification records. Its acceptance-route sorting also sets the engineering budget for the whole transfer.
Start with a single asset
Confirm the status list matches the underlying evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
EASA changes are approved under EU 748/2012, including minor changes handled within design-organization privileges, a mechanism with no direct US equivalent. On the FAA side, acceptance runs through existing FAA approvals, validation under the US-EU bilateral and its technical implementation procedures, or approved data under 14 CFR Parts 21 and 43, with FAA AC 21-40 shaping how applicants present certification data. The review assigns each change to one of these routes and records the open questions per route.
Regulatory limits
This is an evidence review. It does not validate or approve any design change, does not classify changes as major or minor for either authority, does not prepare certification data packages, and does not determine airworthiness. Route assignments are working assessments to direct effort, never acceptance decisions, which remain with the FAA and the responsible design-approval holders.
What this review does not cover
- STC validation applications or certification engineering
- Physical configuration survey or equipment functional checks
- Removal or deactivation work on modifications the owner elects to delete
Specific to this review
- Minor changes are the sleeper issue in EU-to-US moves: individually trivial, they arrive in dozens, each documented by a reference to a design organization the new owner has no relationship with.
- An FAA counterpart approval sometimes already exists because the same design change was certified separately in the US market; checking both registries before commissioning validation work saves the largest single cost in this file.
- Change interaction is checked late and fails often: a connectivity STC that modified a provision installed by an earlier cabin change needs both approvals read together, and reviewers do exactly that.
- The status report and the configuration list drift in opposite directions over time, one overstating and one understating the aircraft; the truth is established from accomplishment records, never by averaging the two.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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. 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.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Export airworthiness approval requirements and special requirements of an importing authority.
Frequently asked questions
Should marginal modifications be removed before transfer instead of validated?
Often yes, for changes the next operator does not want, since removal can be cheaper than validation. The decision needs the evidence map first: removal itself must be documented and returned to an approved configuration, and a change entangled with other modifications or with AD terminating action cannot simply be taken off.
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.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.