Continued airworthiness
ICA package evidence review for qualification test teams
An Instructions for Continued Airworthiness package review checks that the maintenance tasks, limitations, and parts data delivered with a design keep pace with the configuration actually approved. It is run for a qualification test team before submittal, a finding response, or a change that alters the installation the ICA supports. The reviewer confirms that every configuration the design covers has matching continued-airworthiness instructions and that no task references a part or limitation the current configuration no longer carries. You receive a gap list of ICA that lags the configuration, a coverage map, and a closure order.
When this review is needed
- The ICA package is being submitted with the design data and its coverage has not been checked against the approved configuration.
- A finding questioned whether a maintenance task matches the installation the design approves.
- A late design change altered the configuration and the ICA has not caught up to it.
- The design covers several installation variants and each needs matching continued-airworthiness instructions.
The problem
The ICA is written alongside a design that is still moving, and it is the document most likely to be left behind by a late change. A task can call out a part the current configuration replaced, an airworthiness limitation can reflect an interval the design change revised, or a variant the design now covers can have no instructions at all. The package looks complete because it has tasks, limitations, and parts data. What it lacks is agreement with the configuration those instructions are supposed to maintain.
What gets reviewed
- Maintenance tasks reconciled against the approved configuration they support
- Airworthiness limitations checked against the current design and its intervals
- Parts data confirmed to reference parts the configuration actually carries
- Installation variants confirmed to each have matching continued-airworthiness instructions
- ICA affected by a late design change confirmed to have kept pace
- The ICA linked to the approved data and the configuration it maintains
What gets validated
- Each maintenance task applies to a part the approved configuration includes
- Airworthiness limitations reflect the current design's intervals and thresholds
- Parts data references no component the configuration has replaced
- Every installation variant the design covers has matching instructions
- ICA touched by a late design change reflects the change, not the prior configuration
Evidence normally required
- The ICA package: tasks, limitations, and parts data
- The approved configuration and the installation variants the design covers
- The airworthiness limitations section and its basis
- The design change record for anything that altered the configuration
- The approved data the ICA is supposed to support
Common discrepancies
- A maintenance task that references a part the configuration replaced
- An airworthiness limitation reflecting an interval a change has since revised
- An installation variant the design covers with no continued-airworthiness instructions
- ICA that never caught up to a late design change to the configuration
What is at stake
ICA that lags the approved configuration is a finding, and it does not stay a paperwork problem: it becomes an operator's problem the moment the design enters service, because the field will maintain to instructions that no longer match the hardware. Airworthiness limitations that reference a superseded interval are especially serious, since operators build maintenance programs around them. Correcting ICA after approval means an approved revision, which is slower than fixing it before submittal.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Fix the approved configuration
Establish the configuration and installation variants the design actually approves.
Reconcile tasks and parts
Confirm each maintenance task and parts reference matches a component the configuration carries.
Check limitations and variants
Verify airworthiness limitations reflect current intervals and that every variant has instructions.
Order the corrections
Rank the lagging ICA by its effect on the field once the design is in service.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of ICA that lags the approved configuration
- A coverage map tying each task and limitation to the configuration it maintains
- A closure order ranking gaps by their effect on the field once in service
Who uses the output
- Test leadership deciding which ICA has to be corrected before submittal
- Certification leadership answering an authority on ICA coverage
- Engineering leads reconciling tasks and limitations with the approved configuration
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The ICA is where the certification package hands off to the operators who will maintain the design, so it has to agree with the configuration everything else in the package establishes. This review runs after the configuration is settled and before the ICA is submitted, so instructions that lag a late change are caught while a correction is still cheap. Its findings depend on the configuration baseline the configuration management review confirms.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and EASA both require ICA and both treat the airworthiness limitations section as approved data, but they differ in how the limitations are structured and identified within the package. The review notes where an ICA acceptable to one authority would need restructuring or additional identification of the limitations for the other on a dual-validation program.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms that the ICA agrees with the approved configuration and is internally consistent. It does not write the maintenance program, approve the ICA, or determine that the instructions are adequate for continued airworthiness. Approval of the ICA and its limitations rests with the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Authoring or revising the maintenance tasks or limitations
- Approving the ICA or the airworthiness limitations section
- Any airworthiness determination on the design or its maintenance
Specific to this review
- The ICA is the package's most change-sensitive document, because it is written against a design that is still moving and a late change lands there last.
- An airworthiness limitation that references a superseded interval is the most serious ICA gap, since operators build maintenance programs directly on those limitations.
- A configuration variant with no instructions is easy to miss, because the tasks that do exist make the package look complete.
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 review the ICA against configuration rather than on its own?
The ICA only means anything relative to the configuration it maintains. Read on its own, a task list looks complete. Read against the approved configuration, the gaps appear: a part that was replaced, a limitation with an old interval, a variant with no instructions. That comparison is where the findings live.
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.