PMA article data
Finding closure register support for a PMA article approval
Finding-register support gets the action-item log for a PMA article package into a state where a reviewer trusts that a closed item is actually closed. It runs before formal review, for a supplier who has accumulated findings across the program and needs each one owned, evidenced, and honestly stated. The work checks ownership, evidence links, and closure state on every entry and finds the items marked closed that carry no closure evidence. You receive a gap assessment of the register, an evidence map from each finding to what closed it, and a closure plan for the items whose status the evidence does not yet support.
When this review is needed
- Findings have piled up across the program and the register no longer shows a trustworthy closure state.
- Items are marked closed in status but the evidence that closed them cannot be located.
- A finding was closed by a design change that other, related items depend on and that link is unclear.
- The package is nearing formal review and the applicant wants the register clean before a reviewer opens it.
The problem
A finding register is the applicant's own record that problems raised during the program were resolved, but it drifts as the program runs. Items get marked closed when the fix is agreed rather than when the evidence lands, ownership passes between engineers without the register catching up, and a single design change that should close several related findings closes only the one someone remembered. What looks like a tidy register hides items that are closed in status and open in fact.
What gets reviewed
- Each finding checked for a named owner accountable for its closure
- Closure state on every entry reconciled to the evidence that supports it
- Evidence links verified so a closed item points to a retrievable document
- Related findings checked so a shared fix closes every item it actually resolves
- Open items assessed for whether their stated path to closure is real
- The register reconciled against the compliance findings the package depends on
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 closed item is supported by evidence a reviewer would accept as closing it
- Each finding has a named owner rather than a group with no accountable individual
- Evidence links resolve to a retrievable document, not a reference that leads nowhere
- A design change credited with closing findings is applied to every item it resolves
- Open items carry a stated, credible path to closure rather than an indefinite hold
Evidence normally required
- The finding and action-item register in its current state
- The closure evidence referenced against each closed item
- The design changes and analyses that closed findings during the program
- The compliance findings the package relies on for cross-checking
- Ownership and assignment records for the open and closed items
Common discrepancies
- An item marked closed with no closure evidence behind the status
- A design change that closed one finding but left related items still open
- A closed finding whose evidence link points to a document that cannot be retrieved
- An open item with no owner and no stated path to closure
What is at stake
A register a reviewer cannot trust turns into a reviewer who reopens everything, because if one closed item lacks evidence, none of the closures can be taken at face value. That converts a document meant to demonstrate control into a source of new questions, and an item quietly closed without proof is exactly the finding an authority reopens at the worst moment in the review.
How the work runs
Read the register
Take the current finding and action-item log as the record of the program's open and closed work.
Test each closure
Confirm every closed item points to retrievable evidence that a reviewer would accept.
Follow shared fixes
Check that a design change credited with a closure resolves every related item it should.
State the truth
Reconcile status to evidence and give each remaining open item a credible path to closure.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment of the register listing every status the evidence does not support
- An evidence map tying each finding to the document or change that closed it
- A closure plan for the items whose stated state the evidence has to catch up to
Who uses the output
- Certification leads confirming the register a reviewer opens will hold up
- Engineering owners tracing which findings a design change actually closed
- Quality leads verifying every closure rests on retrievable evidence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The finding register is where a reviewer looks to see whether the program disciplined itself, so its credibility affects how the rest of the package is read. Cleaning it before formal review means the applicant enters review with closures a reviewer can spot-check rather than reopen, and the reconciled register ties back to the compliance findings and the accomplishment summary that report the same resolutions.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The register follows the FAA expectations for demonstrating that certification issues were tracked and resolved, and its closures have to align with the compliance findings recorded against the certification basis. Where the same article is being approved by another authority, the review notes where a finding closed for one is still open for the other so the register is not read as complete for both.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the register's closures are supported and its open items honestly stated. It does not close a finding, accept a closure on the authority's behalf, or make an airworthiness determination about the article.
What this review does not cover
- Resolving the underlying engineering behind an open finding
- Marking findings closed on the applicant's behalf
- Any determination that a finding is acceptably closed to the authority
Specific to this review
- A single unsupported closure poisons trust in the whole register, because a reviewer who catches one cannot take any closure on faith.
- One design change frequently closes several related findings, and closing only the one someone remembered is a common way the register overstates open work.
- Findings are often marked closed when the fix is agreed rather than when the evidence lands, which is why status and evidence have to be reconciled separately.
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
Can't we just mark the open items closed before submittal?
Marking an item closed without the evidence to support it is exactly what the review is looking for, because a reviewer who finds one unsupported closure stops trusting the register. The safer path is an honest register with a credible closure plan for what is still open.
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.