Product certification
ETSO deviation and DDP package evidence review for the agreed certification basis
This review is for equipment suppliers, avionics suppliers, PMA suppliers responsible for ETSO deviation and DDP package. It is triggered by eASA market entry for a TSO article. EE checks CS-ETSO index entry, its referenced standard, DDP content, plus the governing plan or application, against the agreed certification basis. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or assuming a granted TSO auto-converts to ETSO. Output includes ETSO deviation and DDP package gap register, Means of compliance map, Test and analysis request list.
When this review is needed
- The plan names ETSO deviation and DDP package as a required deliverable.
- The review notes that evidence was carried forward from another configuration or installation.
- The authority or authorized representative is expected to sample the records.
- Open questions need to be separated from editorial cleanup.
The problem
File volume does not settle the question. The package must show why the evidence proves the evidence needed for changes when the same article is taken through EASA ETSO authorization rather than FAA TSO, because the EASA path adds a Declaration of Design and Performance (DDP), a formal deviation-request process against the CS-ETSO index, and DOA involvement that the FAA TSO path does not mirror, especially where assuming a granted TSO auto-converts to ETSO.
What gets reviewed
- Review cS-ETSO index entry against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare its referenced standard against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace dDP content against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge any deviation requests against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile their justification against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm dOA privileges used against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Identify what is missing against the means of compliance.
What gets validated
- Pass check: cS-ETSO index entry must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: its referenced standard must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: dDP content must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: any deviation requests must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: their justification must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled cS-ETSO index entry
- Released its referenced standard
- Signed dDP content
- Current any deviation requests
- Archived their justification
- Supplier dOA privileges used
Common discrepancies
- Gap: assuming a granted TSO auto-converts to ETSO.
- Mismatch: deviations identified too late to be agreed.
- Unsupported claim: dDP that does not match the actual qualified configuration.
What is at stake
The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when deviations identified too late to be agreed, because closure may touch configuration control and engineering rationale.
How the work runs
Frame ETSO Deviation
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any cs-etso index entry is treated as sufficient.
Trace Support Ddp
Walk the named evidence from index entry to source artifact and mark where the trail supports, conflicts with, or fails to answer the page-specific question.
Sort Evidence Review
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Certification Basis
Deliver the exception list, evidence map, and owner sequence in a form that can move directly into remediation, submittal cleanup, or transaction negotiation.
What the buyer receives
- ETSO deviation and DDP package gap register
- Means of compliance map
- Test and analysis request list
- Interface closure plan
Who uses the output
- Certification engineer assign closure actions from the exception register.
- certification liaison use the map to locate source evidence.
- Product manager decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
What changes when the same article is taken through EASA ETSO authorization rather than FAA TSO, because the EASA path adds a Declaration of Design and Performance (DDP), a formal deviation-request process against the CS-ETSO index, and DOA involvement that the FAA TSO path does not mirror. The evidence set centers on the CS-ETSO index entry and its referenced standard, the DDP content, any deviation requests and their justification, the DOA privileges used, and how existing FAA TSO evidence is re-purposed. The likely weak points are assuming a granted TSO auto-converts to ETSO, deviations identified too late to be agreed, and a DDP that does not match the actual qualified configuration; This is the EASA-path counterpart to the FAA-oriented TSO product pages, not a duplicate of them. The output gives the certification engineer a cleanup register for ETSO deviation and DDP package before EASA market entry for a TSO article.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
EE provides an evidence-quality assessment only. The work does not certify an article, sign a finding, approve a plan, or decide regulatory acceptance.
What this review does not cover
- Plan approval
- DER or DOA signature
- Conformity inspection
- Supplier selection
Specific to this review
- Configuration identity matters because evidence from another baseline may prove a different article, load, or installation.
- A useful trail names the source record, revision, owner, and closure decision for each claim.
- The exception list separates document-control cleanup from gaps that need engineering substantiation.
- The finding pattern for this page is specific: assuming a granted TSO auto-converts to ETSO changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the ETSO Deviation Application Support question as the control point, so the review stays tied to EASA market entry for a TSO article and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with CS-ETSO index entry and follows Ddp Package Evidence Review references until every exception has a source location and a reason code.
- The finding logic separates missing paperwork, conflicting status, stale revision data, and unsupported disposition because each class closes through a different owner.
- The timing matters for Certification engineer: the output is useful only if the unresolved items are visible before acceptance, submittal, handback, or negotiation pressure fixes the sequence.
- The boundary control keeps Agreed Certification Basis Product questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from ETSO deviation and DDP package gap register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
European Union Aviation Safety Agency. EASA authorised release certificate for components, equivalent in function to FAA Form 8130-3.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this product-types review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to etso deviation application support and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block easa market entry for a tso article or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is cs-etso index entry, the current status source, and any index or matrix that tells reviewers where the supporting artifact should live. Missing inputs are logged as findings rather than filled with assumptions.
Who decides whether an open item is acceptable?
The review explains what the evidence supports and gives certification engineer a closure path. Acceptance remains with the buyer, operator, authority, delegated engineer, or authorized person responsible for the underlying airworthiness or certification decision.
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.