Certification plan evidence review for avionics suppliers

When this review is needed

• A submittal is close and the plan's commitments have not been reconciled to what the package delivers.
• A design change altered the affected areas the plan scoped and the plan has not been revised.
• A finding response leans on review commitments the plan made that were never fully met.
• The certification basis stated in the plan needs confirming against the requirements the package answers.

The problem

The certification plan is written to set expectations at the start, then the program moves and the plan often does not move with it. The stated basis drifts from the requirements the package ends up answering, the affected areas no longer match the design that was built, and the review commitments the plan made get quietly narrowed as the schedule tightens. A reviewer reads the plan as the promise and the package as the delivery, and the distance between them is where the questions start.

What gets reviewed

• The certification basis in the plan confirmed against the requirements the package answers
• Affected areas in the plan reconciled to the design as actually built
• Review and coordination commitments checked against what the program delivered
• The means of compliance the plan proposes confirmed as carried through to evidence
• Design assurance levels in the plan aligned with the safety and requirements work
• Plan revisions reviewed so a design change is reflected in the scope it committed to

What gets validated

• The basis the plan states matches the requirements the data package actually answers
• Affected areas in the plan reflect the design as built rather than an earlier scope
• Each review commitment the plan made has been met or is on a stated path to being met
• Every proposed means of compliance in the plan is carried through to the evidence
• Design assurance levels in the plan agree with the safety assessment that sets them

Evidence normally required

• The certification plan in its current revision
• The requirements and certification basis the package answers
• The data package the plan committed to delivering
• The design change history since the plan was last revised
• The safety assessment that sets the design assurance levels

Common discrepancies

• A stated basis that no longer matches the requirements the package answers
• Affected areas scoped for an earlier design than the one built
• A review commitment in the plan the program never fully met
• A design assurance level in the plan that the safety work does not support

What is at stake

A plan that promises more than the package delivers reads as a program that lost track of itself, and each commitment the data does not meet becomes a question about what else slipped. If the affected areas in the plan no longer match the design, a reviewer cannot trust the scope of the evidence either, which widens the review rather than narrowing it and puts the schedule at the mercy of findings that trace back to a stale plan.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• A gap list where the plan and the data package do not agree
• An evidence map from each plan commitment to its delivered status
• A closure sequence to reconcile the plan and the package before submittal

Who uses the output

• Certification leads confirming the plan still describes the program they will present
• Engineering leads deciding whether to revise the plan or complete the missing evidence
• Reviewers on the supplier side aligning scope before a finding response goes out

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The certification plan is the contract a reviewer holds the whole submittal against, so a plan out of step with the package undermines the evidence before it is even read. Reconciling the two before submittal lets the supplier either finish the missing work or revise the plan honestly, and the reconciled scope feeds directly into the compliance matrix and the means-of-compliance map that carry the plan's commitments into detail.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

The plan states the certification basis the FAA and EASA agreed for the article, and the two authorities can hold different expectations for the review commitments a plan makes. The review notes where a commitment that satisfies one authority would be read as short by the other, so a plan built for one program is not assumed to carry across unchanged.

Regulatory limits

The review checks the plan against the data package it commits to. It does not approve the certification plan, accept it on an authority's behalf, or determine that the article meets its basis.

What this review does not cover

• Authoring or revising the certification plan on the supplier's behalf
• Completing the evidence a plan commitment is missing
• Any determination that the plan or the article is acceptable to the authority

Specific to this review

• The plan is written first and revised least, so it is usually the document most out of step with the program it describes.
• Affected areas scoped for an earlier design are more damaging than a missing commitment, because they make a reviewer distrust the scope of every piece of evidence.
• A design assurance level asserted in the plan but not backed by the safety work is a contradiction a reviewer catches by cross-reading, not by reading the plan alone.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits