Product certification
Critical and life-limited PMA parts evidence review for the agreed certification basis
This review is for PMA suppliers, MROs, OEMs responsible for critical and life-limited PMA parts. It is triggered by critical-part PMA program. EE checks part's criticality/life classification, its source, special-process conformity data, plus the governing plan or application, against the agreed certification basis. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or critical rotating part approved on test-. Output includes Critical and life-limited PMA parts gap register, Means of compliance map, Test and analysis request list.
When this review is needed
- The team is preparing for critical-part PMA program.
- Supplier records and applicant records must be reconciled.
- Program leads need to know which findings could block the next gate.
- A proposed means of compliance depends on evidence reuse, analysis, or rationale.
The problem
Reviewers need to reconstruct the path from final claim to source data. For critical and life-limited PMA parts, weak files usually show critical rotating part approved on test-, then reveal revision drift or unclosed assumptions.
What gets reviewed
- Review part's criticality/life classification against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare its source against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace special-process conformity data against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge fatigue/damage-tolerance or life substantiation for life-limited parts against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile iCA/life-limit publication against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm compliance findings tying it to type design. 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: part's criticality/life classification must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: its source must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: special-process conformity data must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: fatigue/damage-tolerance or life substantiation for life-limited parts must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: iCA/life-limit publication must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled part's criticality/life classification
- Released its source
- Signed special-process conformity data
- Current fatigue/damage-tolerance or life substantiation for life-limited parts
- Archived iCA/life-limit publication
- Supplier compliance findings tying it to type design.
Common discrepancies
- Gap: critical rotating part approved on test-.
- Mismatch: -computation data that never demonstrated the life.
- Unsupported claim: material/process substitutions not shown equivalent.
- Late issue: life limit not carried into the maintenance data.
What is at stake
An unresolved gap can become a finding, a deferred submittal, or a narrower claim. Missing support for -computation data that never demonstrated the life often affects several records at once.
How the work runs
Frame Pma Critical
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any part's criticality/life classification is treated as sufficient.
Trace Classification Support
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 Limited Parts
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Review Agreed
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
- Critical and life-limited PMA parts 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.
- materials engineer use the map to locate source evidence.
- DER decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
How a PMA data package changes when the part is critical, life-limited, or an engine part, because criticality drives added substantiation (material and process conformity, fatigue/life data, and for life-limited parts a validated life) that an ordinary interior or consumable PMA does not need. The evidence set centers on the part's criticality/life classification and its source, material and special-process conformity data, fatigue/damage-tolerance or life substantiation for life-limited parts, the. The likely weak points are a critical rotating part approved on test-and-computation data that never demonstrated the life, material/process substitutions not shown equivalent, and a life limit not carried into the maintenance data; Distinct from the general PMA-basis page: this is the criticality-driven delta. The output gives the certification engineer a cleanup register for Critical and life-limited PMA parts before critical-part PMA program.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
This review is not an approval activity. Final findings, acceptance, installation approval, and airworthiness decisions remain with the responsible applicant, authorized representatives, and authorities.
What this review does not cover
- Authority negotiations as decision maker
- Compliance finding approval
- Test execution or article build
- Operator airworthiness release
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: critical rotating part approved on test- changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Pma Critical Part Classification question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Critical-part PMA program and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Part's criticality/life classification and follows Support Life Limited Parts 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 Evidence Review Agreed Certification questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Critical and life-limited PMA parts gap register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
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. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this product-types review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to pma critical part classification and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block critical-part pma program or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is part's criticality/life classification, 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.