PMA article data
Conformity records support for a PMA article approval
Conformity records support proves that the articles the tests were run on are the articles being approved. It is done before formal review, for a supplier who has to show that every test specimen and installation was built to, and inspected against, a known configuration. The work checks article identity, build standard, and test eligibility so a reviewer can rely on a result without wondering what was actually on the bench. You receive a gap assessment against the controlled configuration, an evidence map linking each conformity record to the article and test it covers, and a closure plan for the specimens whose eligibility cannot yet be shown.
When this review is needed
- A DO-160G qualification result has to be tied to a specimen whose build standard is documented.
- A test article was reworked between test campaigns and its conformity across the runs is unclear.
- The configuration on the conformity inspection does not obviously match the configuration being approved.
- The package is nearing formal review and the applicant wants test eligibility proven before a reviewer probes it.
The problem
A qualification result is only worth what the reviewer knows about the article it came from. Test specimens get reworked between campaigns, engineering units stand in for production configuration, and the conformity paperwork that would tie a result to a known build is scattered across inspection records, test setup sheets, and the article's own history. When that link is loose, a clean DO-160G report cannot carry the weight the compliance claim puts on it.
What gets reviewed
- Article identity confirmed so each test specimen is uniquely identified in the records
- Build standard for each specimen reconciled to the configuration being approved
- Conformity inspection records matched to the articles and tests they cover
- Rework between test campaigns tracked so eligibility is clear across each run
- Test eligibility confirmed for the DO-160G and other results the package relies on
- Differences between test specimens and production configuration documented and assessed
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
- Each test specimen is uniquely identified and its identity carries through every result it supports
- The build standard on each conformity record matches the configuration the package is approving
- Every qualification result maps to a specimen with a conformity inspection behind it
- Rework between campaigns is recorded so a result is not credited to a changed article
- Any deviation between the test specimen and production configuration is documented and justified
Evidence normally required
- Conformity inspection records for the test specimens and installations
- Test setup and specimen configuration sheets from each campaign
- The controlled configuration the article is being approved against
- Qualification and test reports, including the DO-160G results the package relies on
- Rework and modification history for the test articles
Common discrepancies
- A qualification result tied to a specimen whose build standard the records do not pin down
- A test article reworked mid-program without conformity re-established for later runs
- A conformity inspection against a configuration that differs from the one being approved
- An engineering-unit result carried into the package as if the specimen were production configuration
What is at stake
A result the applicant cannot tie to a conforming article is a result a reviewer can set aside, which means a qualification thought complete may have to be repeated on a properly documented specimen. If a test article turns out to differ from the approved configuration in a way that matters, the credit for that test evaporates and the schedule absorbs a re-test that conformity records would have prevented.
How the work runs
Identify the specimens
Confirm each test article is uniquely identified and its identity holds across every result.
Reconcile build standards
Match each specimen's build standard to the configuration the package is approving.
Track the rework
Follow any modification between campaigns so a result is not credited to a changed article.
Confirm eligibility
Tie each credited test to a conforming specimen and flag the ones that cannot yet be shown.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing specimens and results whose conformity cannot yet be shown
- An evidence map tying each conformity record to the article and the test it supports
- A closure plan for re-establishing eligibility or documenting an acceptable deviation
Who uses the output
- Certification leads confirming every credited test rests on a conforming article
- Quality leads reconciling conformity inspections to the approved configuration
- Engineering owners deciding whether a specimen deviation is acceptable or forces a re-test
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Conformity records are what let a compliance finding lean on a test result, so they sit between the configuration baseline and the compliance matrix. Establishing them before formal review means the applicant is not defending a qualification result under an authority's questions about what was on the bench, and the confirmed eligibility feeds directly into the accomplishment summary and the finding register the rest of the package carries.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Conformity for a PMA article follows the FAA expectations for test-article identity and eligibility, and the configuration each specimen is inspected against has to match the certification basis the part is approved under. Where a test result is also intended to support approval by another authority, the review notes where conformity conventions differ so a single result is not disqualified for the second submittal.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the conformity records tie each test to a documented article and configuration. It does not perform or witness a conformity inspection, accept a test result on the authority's behalf, or make an airworthiness determination about the article.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or witnessing conformity inspections on the test articles
- Re-running qualification tests on a properly documented specimen
- Any determination that a test result is acceptable to the authority
Specific to this review
- A qualification result carries no weight beyond what the records prove about the article it came from, so conformity is checked before any test is credited.
- Test specimens are reworked between campaigns more often than expected, and a result credited across that rework is a common way eligibility silently breaks.
- An engineering unit standing in for production configuration is the easiest deviation to miss, because the test report itself reads as complete.
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.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
Frequently asked questions
Does this cover conformity inspections themselves?
No. The work reviews the conformity records you already hold and shows where a test result is not tied to a documented, conforming article. It does not perform or witness the inspections, and it does not re-run a test on a new specimen. Those remain with your quality and engineering teams.
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.