STC finding closure
STC program finding closure register support
This review checks that the finding and action-item register driving an STC to closure is telling the truth. A certification engineer runs it before the program reports the register clear, whether the findings came from an internal review, a designee, or the authority. It reads each item's ownership, its linked evidence, and its recorded state, then confirms that findings marked closed are actually supported. You get a gap assessment on the register, a trace map from each finding to its closure evidence, and a closure plan for the items whose status runs ahead of the record.
When this review is needed
- The program is approaching a milestone and needs the finding register confirmed clear with evidence, not merely in status.
- Findings came from several sources and have to be consolidated into one register with consistent closure standards.
- An authority or designee raised findings and the program needs each response tied to the evidence that answers it.
- A register was reported closed but the program wants it audited before the milestone that depends on it.
The problem
A finding register is where a program tracks what still stands between it and approval, and it degrades under deadline pressure. An item gets marked closed when the fix is agreed but before the evidence exists, an owner leaves and the item stalls without anyone noticing, or the same finding is logged twice with different states. The register then reports a program cleaner than it is, and the gap surfaces when a milestone relies on findings that were never actually evidenced.
What gets reviewed
- Ownership of each open and closed finding against a named responsible party
- Closure evidence linked to each finding marked resolved
- Recorded state reconciled against the actual disposition of each item
- Findings from internal, designee, and authority sources consolidated to one standard
- Duplicate and superseded findings identified and reconciled
- Response text checked against the evidence it claims to rest 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 finding marked closed links to evidence that actually resolves it
- Each open finding has a named owner and a defined path to closure
- The recorded state matches the item's real disposition, not the intended one
- Findings from different sources are held to one consistent closure standard
- Duplicate or superseded findings are reconciled so no two states contradict each other
Evidence normally required
- The finding and action-item register in its current state
- The closure evidence referenced against each resolved finding
- The source records for findings raised by designees or the authority
- The disposition or response text recorded for each item
- The milestone or submittal the register has to support
Common discrepancies
- An item marked closed before the closure evidence was produced
- A finding stalled after its owner left, with no reassignment
- The same finding logged twice with contradictory states
- A response that cites evidence the register does not actually contain
What is at stake
A register reported clear when items are closed in status but not in evidence sends the program into a milestone it is not ready for, and the authority finds the same gaps the register hid. That reopens findings late, when leverage and schedule are thinnest, and a finding closed without evidence can stall the STC exactly when the program thought it was done. Rebuilding trust in the register after that is slower than keeping it honest.
How the work runs
Consolidate the register
Bring findings from internal, designee, and authority sources into one register with a common standard.
Check ownership and state
Confirm each item has an owner and that its recorded state matches its real disposition.
Tie closures to evidence
Verify every finding marked closed links to evidence that actually resolves it.
Plan the honest close
Sequence the items whose status runs ahead of the record so the register is truly clear.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment on the register's closure integrity
- A trace map from each closed finding to its supporting evidence
- A closure plan for the items whose recorded state runs ahead of the record
Who uses the output
- Certification leads deciding whether the register is truly clear for a milestone
- Program managers who need an honest count of what remains open
- Modifiers reconciling findings raised across internal, designee, and authority sources
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The finding register is the running account of what stands between the program and approval, so it has to be trustworthy before any milestone that reads it. This review audits the register against its evidence so the program enters formal review knowing what is genuinely closed, rather than discovering the difference when the authority does.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Where an STC is validated across FAA and EASA, findings can be raised by each authority against the same package, so the review notes where the register has to keep both sources distinct and tie each response to the authority that raised it.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the register is complete and each closure is evidenced. It does not close findings on an authority's behalf, accept a response as compliant, sign a compliance finding, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Producing the technical fix behind any finding
- Accepting or closing a finding on the authority's behalf
- Signing the compliance finding a closed item supports, or granting the STC
Specific to this review
- A finding is most often marked closed when the fix is agreed, not when its evidence exists, so status runs ahead of the record under deadline pressure.
- An owner leaving mid-program is a common way a finding stalls silently, because the item keeps its open state while no one is driving it.
- The same finding raised through two sources can carry contradictory states, and reconciling them to one standard is where duplicate closures are caught.
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.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Our register already shows everything closed. What is left to review?
A register showing all closed is exactly what this review tests, because closed in status is not the same as closed in evidence. Items get marked resolved when a fix is agreed, before the record supports it. The review confirms each closure links to evidence that holds, so a milestone does not rest on findings that only look done.
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.