Certification plan evidence review for certification teams

When this review is needed

• The certification basis was revised after the plan was written and the plan still names the earlier basis.
• A design change altered the affected areas the plan scoped, and the plan has not caught up.
• The plan commits to a level of authority involvement the schedule and evidence no longer match.
• The team is about to submit and wants the plan reconciled to what the package actually contains.

The problem

The certification plan is written early, when the design is a promise and the evidence is a forecast, and it is rarely revisited with the same care the technical data gets. The basis shifts, affected areas grow as the design settles, and review commitments made to fit a schedule stop matching the pace the evidence is coming in. By submittal the plan can describe a project subtly different from the one the data package represents, and that mismatch is the first thing an experienced reviewer notices.

What gets reviewed

• The stated certification basis checked against the current, applicable basis for the project
• Affected-area analysis reconciled to the design as it now stands after changes
• Review and involvement commitments checked against the schedule and evidence maturity
• Means-of-compliance strategy in the plan reconciled to what the data package builds
• Deliverable and data-item commitments checked for corresponding evidence in progress
• Assumptions and open items in the plan traced to their current disposition

What gets validated

• The basis the plan cites matches the current applicable certification basis with no superseded reference
• Every area the design change touched is reflected in the affected-area analysis
• Each review commitment aligns with the schedule and the maturity of the evidence behind it
• The means-of-compliance strategy in the plan matches how the package actually demonstrates compliance
• Every deliverable the plan names has evidence underway or a clear path to it

Evidence normally required

• The certification plan in its current issue
• The current certification basis and any issue papers or special conditions
• The design change history and the affected-area analysis
• The project schedule and the state of the evidence against each commitment
• The means-of-compliance strategy the package is being built to

Common discrepancies

• A plan naming a certification basis that a later revision has superseded
• An affected area the design change created that the plan never scoped
• A review commitment the schedule and evidence maturity cannot support
• A deliverable named in the plan with no corresponding evidence in progress

What is at stake

A plan that overstates coverage sets an expectation the package cannot meet, and the gap between the two is where a reviewer's confidence erodes. A plan that names a superseded basis or an affected-area scope the design outgrew can require reissue late in the program, and a review commitment the team cannot honor undermines the working relationship the plan was meant to establish.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• A gap list flagging each plan commitment the package does not yet support
• An evidence map linking every plan commitment to its supporting or in-progress data
• A closure sequence ordering the plan reconciliation against the submittal date

Who uses the output

• Compliance managers confirming the plan matches the package before it is submitted
• Certification leads reconciling review commitments with the schedule they can honor
• Engineering owners updating the affected-area scope after a design change

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The certification plan frames how the authority reads everything that follows, so it has to describe the actual project rather than the one imagined at kickoff. Reviewing it before submittal keeps the plan and the data package telling the same story, and the reconciliation it produces sets the expectations the compliance matrix and means-of-compliance map are then measured against.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

FAA and EASA expect different plan structures and different levels of stated authority involvement, and a plan built for one system rarely maps cleanly onto the other's expectations for scope and review points. Where a project is certified under both, the review notes where the plan's commitments and basis statement need to be expressed differently to satisfy each authority.

Regulatory limits

The review confirms the plan is current and consistent with the data package. It does not set the certification basis, agree review commitments on the authority's behalf, or determine that the plan is acceptable.

What this review does not cover

• Writing or reissuing the certification plan itself
• Negotiating the basis or review commitments with an authority
• Any determination that the plan will be accepted

Specific to this review

• The plan is drafted when the design is least settled, so it is the document most likely to describe a project the evidence has since outgrown.
• An overstated plan is worse than a modest one, because the gap between promised and delivered coverage is exactly where a reviewer loses confidence.
• Affected-area scope grows silently as a design settles, and a plan that never widened to match is a common late-program reissue.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits