Certification plan
Certification plan support for an installation approval
This review checks the certification plan for an installation approval so its stated basis, affected-area scope, and review commitments match what the program can actually deliver. A certification engineer runs it early, while the plan still governs the effort, or when the plan needs reconciling with a data package that has moved past it. It confirms the basis is stated correctly, the affected areas are scoped completely, and the plan does not promise means or coverage the evidence will not support. You receive a gap assessment of the plan, an alignment map from each commitment to its intended evidence, and a plan to reconcile the promises the package cannot yet meet.
When this review is needed
- The certification plan is being written and the basis and affected-area scope have to be right before the effort commits to them.
- The design has moved since the plan was agreed and the plan no longer describes what the program is actually doing.
- The plan promises a means of compliance the data package is not on track to produce.
- A reviewer will hold the program to the plan and any commitment the package cannot meet becomes a finding.
The problem
A certification plan is agreed early, when the design is least settled, and then the program drifts away from it. The basis stated at the start can miss a requirement the final installation triggers, an affected area can go unscoped because its interaction only became clear later, and a review commitment made optimistically can outrun what the evidence will support. The plan becomes a document the program has quietly diverged from, and the divergence is invisible until a reviewer measures the package against it.
What gets reviewed
- The certification basis stated in the plan confirmed against the installation
- Affected areas scoped completely, including interactions the plan may have missed
- Review commitments and involvement levels realistic for the data package
- Proposed means of compliance consistent with what the evidence will support
- The plan's assumptions checked against the design as it now stands
- Plan commitments reconciled against the certification basis for the installation
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
- The basis stated in the plan captures every requirement the installation triggers
- Each affected area and its interactions are scoped rather than assumed away
- Review and involvement commitments match what the program can realistically deliver
- Every proposed means of compliance is one the data package is on track to support
- The plan's early assumptions still hold against the current design
Evidence normally required
- The draft or agreed certification plan for the installation
- The certification basis and the applicable requirements
- The installation description and the affected-area analysis
- The current data package status against the plan's commitments
- The change impact assessment for the installation
Common discrepancies
- A basis in the plan that misses a requirement the final installation triggers
- An affected area left unscoped because its interaction emerged after the plan was agreed
- A review commitment the program cannot meet on the schedule the plan set
- A proposed means of compliance the data package is not on track to produce
What is at stake
A plan the program has drifted from is a liability, because a reviewer holds the submission to what the plan promised. A missing affected area surfaces as uncovered work late in the effort, and a commitment the package cannot meet becomes a finding the program has to answer under pressure. Reconciling the plan to reality early is far cheaper than defending a promise the evidence never supported.
How the work runs
Confirm the basis
Check the basis stated in the plan captures every requirement the installation triggers.
Scope the affected areas
Confirm each affected area and its interactions are scoped rather than assumed away.
Test the commitments
Check every proposed means and review commitment is one the package can deliver.
Reconcile to the design
Align the plan with the current design and plan the closure of any gap.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment of the plan against the basis and the current design
- An alignment map from each plan commitment to its intended evidence
- A reconciliation plan for the commitments the package cannot yet meet
Who uses the output
- Certification project managers keeping the plan aligned with the program
- Engineering leads confirming affected areas and means are scoped correctly
- Compliance managers tracking which plan commitments the package still cannot meet
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The certification plan governs the whole installation effort, so this review is most valuable early, when correcting the basis or scope is cheap, and again whenever the design outgrows the plan. Its alignment map feeds the compliance matrix and the finding register, and its reconciliation plan closes the distance between what the plan promised and what the package will deliver.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and EASA structure certification planning differently and expect different levels of authority involvement, so a plan written for one route rarely satisfies the other unchanged. The review notes where the basis, the involvement commitments, or the affected-area treatment need to differ so the same installation can be planned into both findings.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the plan is complete, realistic, and consistent with the design. It does not agree the plan on the authority's behalf, set the certification basis, or make any airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Negotiating or agreeing the plan with an authority
- Setting the certification basis on the authority's behalf
- Any airworthiness determination on the installation
Specific to this review
- The plan is agreed when the design is least settled, so its assumptions are the first thing to go stale as the installation matures.
- An unscoped affected area is the most expensive plan gap, because the work it implies is discovered late rather than budgeted from the start.
- A reviewer holds the program to the plan, so an optimistic commitment made early becomes a finding the program answers rather than a promise it quietly drops.
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.
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
Frequently asked questions
We already agreed the plan. Why revisit it?
A plan is agreed when the design is least settled, then the installation moves past it. Revisiting confirms the basis, affected areas, and commitments still match what the program is doing, so the reviewer does not measure the package against promises the effort has quietly outgrown.
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.