Import evidence mapping
Import airworthiness evidence map
An import airworthiness evidence map is a structured index of every records item an importing authority will draw on, with each requirement tied to the evidence that supports it and a status. It is built by or for the lessor, airline, or acquisition team ahead of a transition into the FAA, EASA, or TCCA system. It covers the export airworthiness approval, the AD bridging, the configuration basis, and the component releases, and it shows where evidence is present, partial, or missing. You receive the evidence map, an open-item register, and the path to close each item before import.
When this review is needed
- A transition into a new authority is planned and the records evidence has to be organized against what the importing side will draw on.
- Several workstreams (AD bridging, configuration, releases) are running and their evidence needs to be tracked in one structured view.
- An import has stalled before and the next placement needs an open-item register that does not lose track of partial evidence.
- A delivery date is set and the importing-side evidence has to be assembled to a schedule rather than discovered piecemeal.
The problem
Import work runs as several separate threads, and the evidence behind each gets tracked in different places. The AD bridging produces one list, the configuration review another, and the release acceptance a third, with the export approval sitting on its own. Without a single structured map, partial evidence looks complete, an open item drops between threads, and the importing authority or its CAMO finds the gap when the placement is already committed. The map exists to hold every requirement and its evidence in one view so nothing is assumed closed.
What gets reviewed
- The export airworthiness approval and the statements or exceptions it carries
- AD bridging onto the importing directive set with each item's evidence status
- Configuration and modification basis against the importing authority
- Component release acceptance and any dual-release evidence
- Maintenance-program and life-limited-part evidence the import draws on
- An open-item register tying each requirement to its current evidence state
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 importing requirement is represented in the map with an evidence status of present, partial, or missing
- Each present item points to the specific source document that supports it
- AD bridging items each carry a disposition rather than an open assumption
- Configuration items each show a receiving-side basis or a flagged gap
- Release acceptance items each show the dual-release evidence or its absence
- No requirement is marked closed without a source document behind it
Evidence normally required
- The export airworthiness approval or export certificate of airworthiness
- Outputs of the AD bridging, configuration, and release-acceptance reviews
- Component release certificates and any dual-release statements
- Configuration and modification status with approval references
- Life-limited part status and supporting releases
- The importing authority's requirements for the type and configuration
Common discrepancies
- A requirement tracked as complete in one thread but unsupported by a source document
- An open item that fell between the AD, configuration, and release workstreams
- Export-approval exceptions not carried into any thread for closure
- Partial evidence presented as a finished item without the missing piece flagged
- A release-acceptance gap not reflected in the configuration or AD view
- A life-limited part status carried forward without the release behind it mapped
What is at stake
An import that proceeds on assumed-complete evidence stalls when a thread turns out to be open. An item lost between workstreams can surface as unplanned maintenance, a re-release, or a validation request after the aircraft has arrived, each slower and costlier once the export side has been released.
How the work runs
Frame the requirements
List what the specific importing authority will draw on for the type and configuration being placed.
Pull in the threads
Bring the AD bridging, configuration, and release-acceptance outputs into one structure keyed to the requirements.
Status the evidence
Mark each requirement present, partial, or missing, with the source document behind every present item.
Register the open items
Produce the open-item register with a closure path and owner for each gap before the placement proceeds.
What the buyer receives
- An evidence map indexing each importing requirement to its supporting document and status
- An open-item register with the closure path and responsible party for each gap
- A consolidated readiness view that pulls the separate workstreams into one structure
Who uses the output
- The importing CAMO or operator assembling the acceptance package
- Acquisition and asset teams running the placement to a schedule
- Records teams closing open items across the separate workstreams
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The evidence map sits above the AD bridging, configuration, and release reviews and pulls their outputs into one structured index. It is the readiness view the importing side and the placement schedule both work from, and it carries into the importing authority's acceptance package.
Start with a single asset
Start with a single tail and expand once the workflow is proven.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
What the importing authority draws on differs across the FAA, EASA, and TCCA systems, so the map is built against the specific receiving authority rather than a generic checklist. The export side's statements and the bilateral arrangements both shape which evidence the importing side will rely on.
Regulatory limits
The map reports the state of records evidence against the importing authority's requirements. It does not import the aircraft, issue a certificate of airworthiness, accept evidence on the authority's behalf, or determine compliance for the importing authority. Those acts stay with the authority and its delegated organizations.
What this review does not cover
- Filing the import or registration with the importing authority
- Issuing any approval, certificate, or release
- Physical inspection or return-to-service tasks
Specific to this review
- The map is a structured index that ties each importing requirement to a specific source document, so an item cannot be marked closed on assumption rather than evidence.
- Import work typically runs as separate threads (export approval, AD bridging, configuration, releases), and items lost between threads are a frequent cause of stalled placements.
- Because importing requirements differ across the FAA, EASA, and TCCA, the map is built against the specific receiving authority rather than a single generic list.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Export airworthiness approval requirements and special requirements of an importing authority.
International Civil Aviation Organization. International standards for the airworthiness of aircraft and the framework states use for type and continuing airworthiness.
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).
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
Frequently asked questions
How is the evidence map different from an import records review?
An import records review checks the records against the requirements. The evidence map is the structure that holds every requirement, its supporting document, and its status in one view, pulling the separate workstreams together so nothing is assumed closed.
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.