ETSO authorization
Compliance matrix support for an ETSO authorization
This is a review of the compliance matrix that a supplier builds to show an article carried through EASA European Technical Standard Order authorization. A certification specialist walks each row to confirm the requirement, the declared means of compliance, and the cited evidence still agree with each other and with the certification basis. It runs before the supplier freezes the package for submittal, while entries can still be repaired without reopening design work. You receive a gap assessment, an evidence map tied row by row to the matrix, and a closure plan that names the missing or stale items.
When this review is needed
- A supplier has assembled the matrix and wants it read before the submittal date is set.
- The applicable ETSO invokes a minimum performance standard whose paragraphs must each appear as matrix rows.
- Design changes late in the program left some cited reports behind the current configuration.
- A prior authorization is being amended and the matrix has to show which claims still stand.
The problem
The matrix is the one document that promises full coverage, and it is the easiest place for that promise to drift. Rows get written when a report is planned, then the report changes revision, gets superseded, or never lands, and the citation keeps pointing at something that no longer says what the row claims. A supplier reading its own matrix tends to see the intent it meant to capture rather than the evidence actually behind each cell.
What gets reviewed
- Every paragraph of the invoked ETSO and its minimum performance standard mapped to a matrix row
- The declared means of compliance for each row checked as an accepted method for that requirement
- The cited evidence located at the revision the row names, not a later or earlier one
- Rows that carry a claim but no traceable report or test record
- Cross-references between the matrix and the certification plan for consistency
- Open deviations and their disposition captured against the affected rows
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
- Each ETSO paragraph appears exactly once and no required paragraph is absent from the matrix
- The evidence a row cites exists at the stated revision and supports the specific claim made
- A row marked closed by test names a report whose results actually cover the tested limits
- The declared means matches what the certification plan committed for that requirement
- Any deviation carries a recorded disposition rather than an open note in the cell
Evidence normally required
- The current compliance matrix with its revision and change history
- The invoked ETSO reference and its minimum performance standard
- The certification plan and the agreed certification basis
- The substantiation reports, test records, and analyses the matrix cites
- The deviation log if any deviations have been raised
Common discrepancies
- Citations pointing at a report revision that has since been superseded
- ETSO paragraphs that never became rows and so were never claimed
- Rows closed against a plan that was written but not yet executed
- Deviations noted in a cell with no disposition recorded anywhere
What is at stake
If a stale or empty row reaches EASA, the finding comes back as a question, and the question stalls every dependent row until it clears. Cells that looked closed reopen, the accomplishment summary has to be re-cut, and the authorization slips while the team re-hunts evidence it thought it had filed.
How the work runs
Rebuild the requirement set
List every paragraph of the invoked ETSO and any EASA conditions so coverage is measured against the standard, not the matrix.
Walk each row
Confirm the requirement, declared means, and cited evidence agree and that the evidence exists at the stated revision.
Flag the drift
Record every row whose citation is stale, empty, or misaligned with the certification plan.
Sequence closure
Order the open rows into a plan that names the evidence or repair each one needs before freeze.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing every unsupported or stale matrix row
- An evidence map that ties each row to a located document at a fixed revision
- A closure plan sequencing the rows that still need evidence or repair
Who uses the output
- Compliance managers finalizing the matrix before submittal
- Certification leads deciding whether the package is ready to freeze
- Engineers assigned to close the rows the review flagged
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The matrix sits at the center of the authorization package and points outward to every other artifact. Reading it against the basis before freeze means the pointers are checked while the reports they name can still be corrected, so the submittal opens with rows that hold rather than rows that unravel under the first question.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under EASA European Technical Standard Order authorization, the matrix demonstrates compliance with the specific ETSO invoked plus any additional technical conditions EASA has attached. The review reads the matrix against those conditions, not against an FAA TSO equivalent, because the invoked paragraphs and accepted means can differ between the two systems.
Regulatory limits
The review checks the supplier's own compliance matrix. It does not grant an ETSO authorization, make a compliance finding on the authority's behalf, or determine that any article is approved. EASA and the applicant keep those roles.
What this review does not cover
- Issuing or holding the ETSO authorization
- Making compliance findings on the authority's behalf
- Producing the substantiation reports the matrix cites
Specific to this review
- A compliance matrix is only as current as its weakest citation, so a single superseded report can void a row that reads as closed.
- ETSO paragraphs that map to no row are invisible in a matrix review that only checks existing rows, so coverage is verified against the standard rather than against the matrix alone.
- EASA can attach conditions beyond the ETSO text, and those conditions need their own rows even though they are not paragraphs of the standard.
Sources
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
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
Do you check the matrix against the ETSO or against our plan?
Both. Coverage is measured against the invoked ETSO and any EASA conditions so no required paragraph is missing, and each row's declared means is checked against what the certification plan committed, so the two documents do not contradict each other.
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.