PMA article data
Compliance matrix support for a PMA article approval package
This review examines the compliance matrix that maps each applicable requirement to its means of compliance and evidence in a PMA article approval package. A certification engineer confirms the matrix covers the full applicable basis, that each cited means is appropriate to the requirement, and that the evidence referenced still supports the claim rather than pointing to a superseded revision. It flags entries where the cited data has moved on and no longer proves what the row asserts. You receive a gap assessment, a traceable requirement-to-evidence map, and a closure plan before the package reaches the FAA.
When this review is needed
- A PMA article package is nearly ready and the compliance matrix must show complete, current coverage.
- The applicable basis was amended during development and some matrix rows may reference old evidence.
- Identicality or test-and-computation claims are mixed in one matrix and each needs the right supporting data.
- A prior PMA submission drew coverage questions and the matrix needs a clean pass before resubmission.
The problem
A compliance matrix is built early and edited continuously, and its evidence references age faster than the rows themselves. A test report gets revised, a drawing is superseded, an analysis is redone, and the matrix keeps pointing at the version that existed when the row was written. Coverage gaps hide in the same way: a requirement that became applicable after a design change never gets its row, so the matrix looks complete while the basis it maps has quietly grown.
What gets reviewed
- The matrix checked against the full applicable regulatory basis for the article
- Each requirement's assigned means of compliance tested for appropriateness
- Every evidence reference confirmed to point at the current supporting revision
- Coverage gaps identified where applicable requirements have no matrix row
- Identicality and test-based claims sorted so each carries the right data type
- Rows whose evidence no longer proves the stated claim flagged for update
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
- Every applicable requirement in the basis appears as a matrix row
- Each assigned means of compliance suits the requirement it is mapped to
- Cited evidence points to the current revision and still supports the claim
- Identicality claims reference the approved data they are said to be identical to
- Test and analysis references resolve to reports that cover the stated conditions
Evidence normally required
- The current compliance matrix for the article
- The applicable regulatory basis and any amendments made during development
- Referenced test reports, analyses, and drawings at their current revisions
- The approved design data used for any identicality claims
- The configuration list defining the article the matrix describes
Common discrepancies
- Requirements that became applicable after a design change and never got a matrix row
- Evidence references pointing at a superseded report, drawing, or analysis revision
- A means of compliance that does not fit the requirement it is assigned to
- Identicality claims that cite data the article is not actually identical to
What is at stake
A matrix with stale references or missing rows sends an FAA reviewer straight to a request for additional data, which stalls the approval while the team rebuilds traceability under scrutiny. An evidence link that no longer supports its claim is worse than a blank cell, because it reads as complete until someone opens the cited document and finds it does not say what the row promises.
How the work runs
Confirm the basis
Establish the full applicable requirement set for the article, including anything added by design changes.
Check coverage and means
Verify each requirement has a row and that its assigned means of compliance is appropriate.
Re-walk the references
Open each cited report, drawing, or analysis and confirm the current revision still supports the row.
Deliver the map and plan
Provide a current requirement-to-evidence map and a closure plan for the gaps found.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing missing rows and unsupported evidence references
- A requirement-to-evidence map at current revisions across the applicable basis
- A closure plan sequencing the coverage and reference fixes before submission
Who uses the output
- Certification leads presenting the matrix as the package's coverage argument
- Quality leads confirming the article configuration matches the matrix
- Engineers updating the evidence references and filling coverage gaps
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The compliance matrix is the spine of a PMA package: it tells the FAA reviewer where each requirement is met. Checking it before submission catches coverage and currency problems while the team can still fix references cheaply, rather than during a request-for-data exchange.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
This work targets PMA approval under the FAA framework, where the matrix must trace to the applicable part requirements and the approved data behind any identicality claim. The review keeps the mapping in the FAA's terms and does not attempt to restate it for another authority's regime.
Regulatory limits
This review assesses coverage, means, and evidence currency in the matrix. It does not make a compliance finding, does not grant PMA, and does not issue any airworthiness approval on the article.
What this review does not cover
Specific to this review
- In a PMA matrix, a stale evidence reference is more dangerous than a blank cell because it reads complete until the cited document is opened.
- Coverage gaps usually enter through design changes that expand the applicable basis without anyone re-checking the matrix against it.
- Identicality claims collapse quickly if the approved data they lean on has itself been revised since the claim was written.
- Matrices assembled by more than one engineer tend to apply inconsistent means to similar requirements, which a reviewer notices immediately.
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.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
How do you handle identicality-based rows versus test-based rows?
Each is checked against the right kind of data. Identicality rows must reference the approved design data the article is claimed identical to, while test and analysis rows must point at reports covering the stated conditions. The review separates the two and confirms each carries the evidence its claim type requires.
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.