Continued airworthiness
ICA package evidence review for hardware assurance teams
An ICA package evidence review confirms that the instructions for continued airworthiness cover the configuration being certified, with maintenance tasks, limitations, and parts data that match the approved design. It is run by a hardware assurance team before submittal, a finding response, or a change that alters the installation. The review checks that every maintained item has a task, that airworthiness limitations are captured, and that the parts and configuration data reflect the approved build. You receive a gap list, a coverage map from configuration to ICA task, and a closure sequence for the assurance lead.
When this review is needed
- An ICA package is heading to submittal and its coverage of the approved configuration has to be confirmed.
- A design change altered the installation and the ICA has to catch up to the new configuration.
- An authority finding questioned whether an airworthiness limitation was captured in the ICA.
- The ICA was drafted early against a configuration that has since moved on.
The problem
The ICA is usually written before the configuration is frozen, so it lags the approved design more often than any other deliverable in the package. A maintenance task points to a part that was superseded, an airworthiness limitation from the safety assessment never made it into the limitations section, or a changed installation has no corresponding task. The document reads as finished while it describes a configuration the aircraft no longer matches.
What gets reviewed
- Each maintained item in the approved configuration checked for a corresponding ICA task
- Airworthiness limitations from the safety assessment confirmed as captured in the ICA
- Parts and configuration data in the ICA reconciled to the approved build
- Maintenance intervals and tasks checked against the design and safety assumptions
- Superseded parts and tasks removed so the ICA matches the current configuration
- The ICA revision confirmed to reflect the latest approved change
What gets validated
- Every maintained item in the approved configuration has a task in the ICA
- Airworthiness limitations from the safety assessment appear in the ICA limitations section
- Parts data in the ICA matches the approved configuration rather than a superseded build
- Maintenance intervals reflect the design and safety assumptions they rest on
- The ICA revision covers the latest approved design change
Evidence normally required
- The ICA package with tasks, limitations, and parts data
- The approved configuration definition for the installation
- The airworthiness limitations derived from the safety assessment
- Design change records affecting the installation since the ICA was drafted
- The parts and configuration data for the approved build
Common discrepancies
- A maintenance task pointing to a part that a change superseded
- An airworthiness limitation from the safety assessment missing from the ICA
- A changed installation with no corresponding maintenance task
- An ICA revision that predates the latest approved design change
What is at stake
An ICA that does not cover the approved configuration leaves the operator without the tasks and limitations continued airworthiness depends on, and an authority that finds the gap can hold the approval until the ICA is corrected. A missing airworthiness limitation is the most serious case, because it removes a control the safety case relied on.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Fix the approved configuration
Establish the configuration the ICA must cover from the approved design definition.
Map items to tasks
Confirm every maintained item has a corresponding ICA task at the current revision.
Check the limitations
Verify each airworthiness limitation from the safety assessment appears in the ICA.
Sequence by impact
List the coverage gaps and order the updates by airworthiness impact before submittal.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of configuration items and limitations the ICA does not cover
- A coverage map from each maintained item to its ICA task
- A closure sequence ordering the ICA updates by airworthiness impact
Who uses the output
- Assurance leads confirming the ICA covers the approved configuration before submittal
- Certification leads answering a finding on a missing limitation or task
- Engineering owners updating the ICA to the latest approved change
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review comes near the end of the package, once the configuration is approved and the ICA has to match it, catching the lag that builds up while the ICA is drafted against a moving design. Its gap list drives the ICA updates that have to close, and its coverage map confirms the operator will have the tasks and limitations continued airworthiness needs.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both require instructions for continued airworthiness and each specifies how airworthiness limitations are identified and controlled. The review notes where the ICA satisfies one authority's structure and where the other would expect the limitations section or the task presentation to be arranged differently.
Regulatory limits
The review checks that the ICA covers the approved configuration. It does not approve the ICA, set airworthiness limitations on the program's behalf, or make a continued-airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Authoring or approving the ICA content
- Setting airworthiness limitations or maintenance intervals
- Determining continued airworthiness of the installation
Specific to this review
- The ICA lags the design more than any other deliverable, because it is drafted early and the configuration keeps moving under it until approval.
- A missing airworthiness limitation is the most serious ICA gap, since it removes a control the safety case counted on.
- Superseded parts references are the routine defect, because a late change updates the design faster than the ICA that describes maintaining it.
Sources
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.
Frequently asked questions
Why does the ICA lag the design so often?
The ICA is drafted while the configuration is still changing, so late design changes update the build faster than the maintenance instructions that describe it. The review catches that lag before submittal, when it is far cheaper to close than after approval.
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.