Independent certification-plan review for avionics and equipment suppliers

When this review is needed

• The plan is being drafted and the team wants the basis and commitments tested before it goes to the authority.
• A program is reusing a prior plan whose standards, editions, or assurance levels no longer fit the new article.
• The plan and the software or hardware sub-plans were written separately and have started to disagree.
• Scope changed after the plan was agreed and the commitments no longer match what the program will deliver.

The problem

The certification plan is where a program makes promises it will be held to for the rest of its life. A basis set too thin invites later additions; a means of compliance chosen for convenience becomes the thing the evidence cannot support; assurance levels assigned early shape every objective downstream. Because the plan is written before the work, its weaknesses stay invisible until the evidence phase, when changing them is expensive and the commitments are already on record.

What gets reviewed

• The certification basis the plan establishes and whether it covers the article's scope
• The standards and editions named and their fit to the article and its functions
• The assurance levels assigned and the rationale tying them to the failure conditions
• The means of compliance proposed for each part of the basis
• Consistency between the top plan and the software and hardware sub-plans
• Whether the evidence the plan commits to is achievable within the program

What gets validated

• The certification basis covers the full scope of the article and its functions
• Named standards and editions are current and appropriate to the article
• Each assurance level traces to a failure condition and a documented rationale
• Every part of the basis has a means of compliance the plan can stand behind
• The top plan and the software and hardware sub-plans agree on scope and approach
• The evidence committed to is producible within the program's resources and schedule
• The plan reflects the current scope rather than a superseded version of the article

Evidence normally required

• The draft or current certification plan and any software or hardware sub-plans
• The certification basis and the article's functional definition
• The failure-condition classifications driving the assurance levels
• The means-of-compliance approach proposed for the basis
• The program scope, resources, and schedule the plan has to live within

Common discrepancies

• A certification basis that does not cover part of the article's intended scope
• Standard editions named in the plan that are not the editions the program will use
• Assurance levels assigned with no rationale tracing them to a failure condition
• A means of compliance the plan commits to that the evidence cannot support
• Top plan and sub-plans that disagree on scope, approach, or assurance level
• Commitments to evidence the program has no resourced path to produce

What is at stake

A plan that promises evidence the program cannot produce sets up a finding for every gap between the promise and the delivery. Renegotiating the basis or the means of compliance after the authority has accepted the plan is slow, and the program carries the cost of the mismatch through every review cycle that follows.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• An assessment of the plan's basis, standards, and assurance-level commitments
• A list of incomplete, inconsistent, or unachievable commitments in the plan
• A consistency check between the top plan and the software and hardware sub-plans
• A prioritized list of plan changes ordered by their downstream cost if left

Who uses the output

• Certification leads finalizing the plan before authority engagement
• Engineering leads confirming the commitments are achievable
• Program management sizing the work the plan commits to

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The review works at the front of the program, before the evidence exists. It sets up the later evidence reviews by making the plan's commitments defensible first, and it pairs with an accomplishment-summary review at the end, when the question becomes whether the program delivered what this plan promised.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

FAA and EASA both build a program around a planning document, but the entry point differs. FAA programs negotiate the basis and the plan with the authority directly or through a delegate, while EASA frames the equivalent through Part-21 and certification review items. The plan content overlaps heavily, so the review checks the commitments against the framework the program is submitting under and flags where one jurisdiction's expectations are assumed to carry to the other.

Regulatory limits

Endeavor Elements checks the applicant's certification plan for completeness, consistency, and feasibility. It does not negotiate the basis with the authority, make compliance findings, or issue any approval. The applicant and the authority agree the basis between them.

What this review does not cover

• Negotiating or agreeing the certification basis with the authority
• Making official compliance findings or issuing any approval
• Writing the certification plan or the sub-plans on the supplier's behalf

Specific to this review

• The plan is the cheapest place to fix a program: a basis or means of compliance corrected on paper costs a fraction of the same correction made once the evidence is built around it.
• Assurance levels assigned without a traced rationale propagate into every objective downstream, so an unsupported level early becomes a recurring finding later.
• Top plans and their software and hardware sub-plans drift apart when written by different teams, and the disagreement surfaces as conflicting commitments in review.
• A plan can be internally tidy and still unachievable, because feasibility against the program's actual resources is a separate question from internal consistency.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits