Means-of-compliance map
Means-of-compliance map support for an installation approval
This review checks the means-of-compliance map for an installation approval so every requirement is both assigned a means and led to a real evidence path. A certification engineer runs it as the map is built out, ahead of executing the compliance evidence. It confirms the means chosen suits each requirement, that a means labeled test or analysis actually has an activity behind it, and that no requirement is assigned a means with no path to evidence. You receive a gap assessment of the map, an evidence-path view from each requirement through its means to a data source, and a plan for the requirements whose means lead nowhere yet.
When this review is needed
- The map assigns a means to every requirement but no one has checked each means leads to an evidence path.
- A requirement is marked for test or analysis but no such activity is planned or budgeted.
- The means chosen for a requirement is heavier or lighter than the requirement actually needs.
- The map has to drive the evidence effort and a means with no path will simply produce no evidence.
The problem
Assigning a means of compliance is easy; every requirement gets a label. Whether that label leads anywhere is the question the map rarely answers. A requirement can be marked compliance by test with no test in the plan, marked by analysis with no analysis scoped, or assigned a means that does not actually address what the requirement demands. The map looks complete because every cell is filled, but a portion of those cells point at an evidence path that was never laid, and the shortfall only appears when the evidence is due.
What gets reviewed
- The means of compliance assigned to each requirement checked for suitability
- Each test-based means confirmed to have a planned test behind it
- Each analysis-based means confirmed to have a scoped analysis behind it
- Requirements with no evidence path flagged regardless of the means assigned
- The evidence path from requirement through means to a data source made explicit
- The map 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 means assigned to each requirement actually addresses what the requirement demands
- A requirement marked for test has a corresponding test in the compliance plan
- A requirement marked for analysis has a scoped analysis that will produce the evidence
- No requirement carries a means that leads to no evidence path at all
- Similarity or read-across credit names the source it is drawn from
Evidence normally required
- The means-of-compliance map for the installation
- The requirement set the map addresses
- The compliance and test plan showing planned activities
- The certification basis for the installation
- Any similarity or read-across data the map relies on
Common discrepancies
- A requirement marked for test with no test in the plan to produce the result
- An analysis-based means with no analysis actually scoped
- A means that does not address what the requirement demands
- Similarity credit claimed with no source installation named
What is at stake
A means with no evidence path behind it is worse than a blank cell, because it reads as covered and gets skipped in planning. The gap surfaces when the compliance evidence is due, with no activity underway to produce it, forcing a scramble to run a test or write an analysis that should have been scoped from the start. That late discovery is exactly what pushes an installation approval past its window.
How the work runs
Check means suitability
Confirm the means assigned to each requirement actually addresses what it demands.
Trace to an activity
Confirm each test or analysis means has a planned activity behind it.
Flag the dead ends
Identify requirements whose means lead to no evidence path regardless of the label.
Plan the closure
Scope the missing activities so every means reaches a data source before the effort commits.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment of the map's means assignments and evidence paths
- An evidence-path view from each requirement through its means to a data source
- A closure plan for the requirements whose means lead to no evidence yet
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers confirming each means actually leads to evidence
- Engineering leads scoping the tests and analyses the map implies
- Compliance managers tracking which requirements still have no evidence path
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The map converts the requirements into the evidence effort, so this review runs before that effort commits, when a missing path can still be scoped and budgeted. It reads against the requirement set and the compliance plan, and its evidence-path view feeds the compliance matrix, ensuring the matrix rows have real data behind them rather than a means with nowhere to go.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and EASA accept different means for the same requirement, and what one credits as read-across the other may require to be demonstrated. The review notes where a means acceptable to one authority needs a different evidence path for the other so the same map supports both findings.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms each means leads to a real evidence path. It does not accept a means of compliance, execute the test or analysis behind it, or make any airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Running the tests or writing the analyses the map calls for
- Accepting a means of compliance on the authority's behalf
- Any airworthiness determination on the installation
Specific to this review
- A filled cell is not a covered requirement: a means with no activity behind it produces no evidence, and the map hides that until the evidence is due.
- Read-across and similarity credit fail most often on the source, because the credit is only as good as the installation it is drawn from and the map rarely names it.
- An over-heavy means wastes effort and an under-scoped one leaves a gap, so suitability is checked in both directions rather than only for shortfalls.
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.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
Every requirement already has a means. What does this add?
Assigning a means and having a path to evidence are different things. The review confirms that a requirement marked for test has a test planned, that an analysis is actually scoped, and that no means is a label with nothing behind it. Those dead ends are what produce a missing result when the evidence is due.
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.