Field approval data
Means-of-compliance map support for an FAA field approval
This review checks the means-of-compliance map that links each requirement in a field-approval package to the method that shows it is met and the evidence that method produces. It is run by or for a modifier or operator once requirements are set and methods are being assigned, before the evidence is generated. It looks for requirements assigned a method that never reaches an actual evidence artifact, methods chosen that an inspector cannot accept for a field approval, and requirements that carry no method at all. You get a gap assessment, an evidence map that follows each requirement through its method to its source, and a closure plan for the requirements whose compliance path is broken or missing.
When this review is needed
- Requirements are set and each one needs a compliance method assigned before evidence generation begins.
- A method was assigned on paper but there is no evidence artifact it actually produces.
- A requirement carries a method that an inspector will not accept for a field-approved alteration.
- The map was built from a similar job and may assign methods that do not fit this installation.
The problem
A means-of-compliance map can look sound at the method level and still be hollow at the evidence level. A requirement gets assigned analysis, test, or inspection because the method is plausible, but no one has confirmed that the chosen method actually terminates in a report, a result, or a record that will exist. The map reads as complete because every requirement has a method, while the real question, whether that method produces evidence an inspector can hold, is never asked until the evidence is due and turns out not to be planned.
What gets reviewed
- Every requirement in the package assigned a compliance method
- Each assigned method traced through to the specific evidence artifact it will produce
- Methods checked as acceptable for a field approval rather than only for a broader program
- Requirements met by analysis, test, inspection, or similarity each confirmed to reach a real source
- DO-160G environmental methods matched to the requirement and the installation environment
- ARP4754B-derived and interface requirements included in the map where the alteration adds function
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
- No requirement in the map lacks an assigned means of compliance
- Each assigned method resolves to an evidence artifact that exists or is planned to exist
- Every method is one an inspector can accept for a field-approved alteration
- Similarity claims name the specific prior approval or article they rely on
- Environmental compliance methods match the requirement and the installation's actual conditions
Evidence normally required
- The requirement set for the alteration
- The draft means-of-compliance map assigning methods to requirements
- The intended or existing evidence artifacts each method points to
- The applicable regulations and any similarity references relied on
- The installation definition and environmental conditions for the alteration
Common discrepancies
- A requirement assigned a method with no evidence artifact behind it
- A similarity claim that names no specific prior approval to rely on
- A method acceptable in an STC program but not for a field approval
- A requirement with no means of compliance assigned at all
What is at stake
A requirement with a method but no evidence path is a gap that hides until the package is assembled, at which point the modifier is generating evidence under deadline or explaining to an inspector why a requirement has no proof. Where the assigned method is one a field approval cannot accept, the work spent producing that evidence is wasted, and the requirement has to be reworked onto a method the inspector will take, often late enough that it delays the whole approval.
How the work runs
Inventory the requirements
Confirm every requirement in the package carries an assigned means of compliance.
Follow each method to source
Trace each assigned method through to the evidence artifact it will actually produce.
Test acceptability
Check every method against what an inspector can accept for a field-approved alteration.
Repair the paths
List requirements whose method is hollow or unacceptable and reassign before evidence generation.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment of requirements with a broken or missing compliance path
- An evidence map following each requirement through its method to its source
- A closure plan for the requirements whose method does not reach evidence
Who uses the output
- Engineering leads confirming every requirement reaches evidence before generation begins
- Compliance staff reconciling assigned methods to acceptable field-approval practice
- Maintenance leadership tracking which requirements still lack a compliance path
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The means-of-compliance map is the joint between requirements and evidence: it is where each requirement is committed to a method, and where a method that never reaches a source becomes a gap the rest of the package inherits. This review runs after requirements are set and before evidence is generated, so a requirement assigned a hollow or unacceptable method is fixed while the evidence work can still be redirected rather than wasted.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
For a field approval the acceptable methods are those an FAA inspector can review and accept for a single alteration, which excludes some methods available to a delegated organization on a type-certificate program. The review flags where a method that would suit a broader FAA approval needs to be reselected for the field-approval path, and where a similarity basis leans on an approval that does not carry to this installation.
Regulatory limits
The review checks that each requirement's assigned method reaches acceptable evidence. It does not select methods on the modifier's behalf as an authority, generate the evidence, obtain the field approval, or determine that the altered aircraft is airworthy.
What this review does not cover
- Generating the test, analysis, or inspection evidence the methods point to
- Obtaining the field approval or any inspector acceptance
- Any airworthiness determination on the altered aircraft
Specific to this review
- A map can assign every requirement a method and still be hollow, because a plausible method is not the same as one that terminates in an evidence artifact.
- Similarity is the method most often assigned without a real basis, since a claim that names no specific prior approval cannot be relied on by an inspector.
- A wrong method assignment wastes the evidence work built on it, so the cheapest place to catch it is before generation, not after.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
What makes a compliance method acceptable for a field approval specifically?
The method has to be one an FAA inspector can review and accept for a one-off alteration, not one that depends on delegated engineering authority or a type-certificate program's machinery. A method valid in an STC effort can still be unacceptable on the field-approval path, so each assignment is checked against what an inspector can take.
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.