PMA article data
Certification plan support for a PMA article approval package
This review reads the certification plan that sets the strategy for a PMA article approval, and tests whether the data package can deliver what the plan promises. A certification engineer checks that the stated basis is the correct applicable set, that every affected area is identified, and that each review commitment maps to evidence the program is actually producing. It catches plans that promise coverage or activities the package does not yet contain. You receive a gap assessment, a map from each plan commitment to its intended evidence, and a closure plan before the package advances toward the FAA.
When this review is needed
- A certification plan is drafted and the team wants it validated against what the program can actually deliver.
- The design changed after the plan was written and the affected areas may no longer be complete.
- Review commitments in the plan need to line up with the evidence the package will contain.
- An FAA project is starting and the plan should be sound before it frames the whole approval.
The problem
A certification plan is written early to secure agreement on strategy, then the program moves and the plan does not always move with it. A design change opens an affected area the plan never named, a review commitment gets made against evidence no one ends up producing, and the basis quoted at kickoff drifts from the one the article now needs. The plan reads confidently while quietly describing a program that no longer matches the data being built.
What gets reviewed
- The stated basis checked against the correct applicable requirement set for the article
- Every affected area identified, including any opened by later design changes
- Each review commitment mapped to the evidence the program intends to produce
- Proposed means of compliance tested for fit before they are relied on downstream
- Roles and review points confirmed to match how the program is actually run
- Plan commitments the package cannot support flagged for revision or added scope
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 plan's basis matches the applicable requirements the article must meet
- All affected areas are named, including those opened after the plan was drafted
- Each review commitment has a defined evidence path the program is following
- Proposed means of compliance are appropriate to the requirements they address
- Review points and responsibilities in the plan reflect the program as run
Evidence normally required
- The current certification plan for the article
- The applicable regulatory basis and any changes since kickoff
- The design definition and the change history that may open affected areas
- The program schedule and the evidence deliverables it commits to
- Any FAA project correspondence agreeing the plan or its commitments
Common discrepancies
- Affected areas opened by a design change that the plan never captured
- Review commitments made against evidence the program is not producing
- A basis quoted at kickoff that no longer matches the article's requirements
- Proposed means of compliance that will not fit the requirement once tested
What is at stake
A plan that promises more than the package delivers turns into a running debt the FAA collects at review, when each unmet commitment becomes a request for the missing activity or data. A missed affected area is worse, because it surfaces late as a whole line of compliance work the schedule never accounted for and the reviewer expects to see addressed.
How the work runs
Verify the basis
Confirm the plan's stated basis is the correct applicable requirement set for the article as it now stands.
Close the affected areas
Check that every affected area is named, including any opened by design changes since the plan was written.
Test the commitments
Map each review commitment to the evidence the program intends to produce and flag the ones with no path.
Reconcile and plan
Deliver a commitment-to-evidence map and a closure plan that aligns the plan with the package.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment naming each plan commitment the package cannot yet meet
- A commitment-to-evidence map showing where each activity is satisfied
- A closure plan reconciling the plan with the data the program will deliver
Who uses the output
- Certification leads who own the plan and its FAA commitments
- Quality leads confirming the plan matches the article and its configuration
- Engineers assigned the activities the plan commits the program to
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The certification plan frames everything downstream, so validating it early keeps the matrix, the traces, and the reports aligned to one strategy. Catching an unmet commitment or a missed affected area at the plan stage costs a revision; catching it at review costs a schedule.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
This work is scoped to PMA approval under the FAA framework, where the plan establishes the basis and the review commitments the project runs against. The review keeps the plan in the FAA's terms and does not translate it into another authority's certification process.
Regulatory limits
This review assesses the plan's basis, affected areas, and commitments for realism. It does not approve the plan, does not make a compliance finding, and does not grant PMA or any airworthiness approval.
What this review does not cover
- Writing the certification plan from scratch
- Negotiating the basis or the plan's commitments with the FAA
- Producing the evidence the plan commits the program to deliver
Specific to this review
- A certification plan is most often wrong not in what it says but in what it omits: an affected area the design change opened after kickoff.
- Review commitments made early are cheap to write and expensive to unwind, so a plan should promise only evidence the program is resourced to produce.
- The plan's basis is a moving reference; a requirement amendment during development can invalidate the strategy without touching the plan text.
- Proposed means of compliance in a plan carry forward into the matrix, so an ill-fitting means chosen here propagates through the whole package.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration. STC application process, certification basis, and continued airworthiness obligations of an STC holder.
Frequently asked questions
We already agreed the plan with the FAA. Is a review still useful?
Yes, because agreement fixes the strategy at a point in time and the design usually keeps moving. The review checks whether later changes opened affected areas the plan misses or created commitments the package no longer supports, so you can update the plan before those show up as review findings.
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.