TSO authorization
Compliance matrix support for TSO authorization
A TSO compliance matrix review confirms that every applicable requirement in the article's standard maps to a stated means of compliance and a live piece of evidence. Equipment suppliers use it before the data package goes to the FAA, so a matrix line never cites a report the article no longer matches. It walks each row against the certification basis, checks that the evidence still supports the claim after design changes, and flags rows where the coverage is asserted but the trail is stale. You get a gap assessment per requirement, an evidence map that resolves each row to a document, and a closure plan that sequences the open lines.
When this review is needed
- The data package is nearly assembled and someone has to prove every requirement in the standard is answered before it goes to the FAA.
- A late design change touched articles that several matrix rows already cite, and the coverage has to be re-checked.
- A prior submission came back with findings against matrix rows that cited the wrong evidence revision.
- A new standard revision applies to the article and the matrix has to be re-mapped to the current requirement set.
The problem
The matrix is the one document that claims full coverage, so a single row that cites a superseded report can unravel the whole submission. Rows accumulate over a long program, evidence gets revised underneath them, and the person who wrote a given line is often no longer the person who can confirm it still holds. By the time the package is due, no one has walked all of it end to end against what the article actually is now.
What gets reviewed
- Applicable requirements from the article's standard listed against the certification basis
- The means of compliance assigned to each requirement and whether it fits the requirement type
- Evidence currency for every cited report, plan, and analysis after the latest design state
- Rows where coverage is claimed but no retrievable evidence supports the claim
- Cross-references between the matrix and the DO-160G, DO-178C, and DO-254 data it points to
- Requirements introduced by a standard revision that the existing matrix does not yet address
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 standard appears as a row with a stated means of compliance
- Each cited report revision matches the article configuration the matrix claims to cover
- A row marked complete resolves to a document a reviewer can open and read on its face
- Means of compliance by test, analysis, inspection, or similarity is appropriate to that requirement
- No two matrix rows cite evidence that contradicts each other on the same requirement
Evidence normally required
- The current compliance matrix or checklist in whatever form it exists
- The article's standard and the applicable certification basis
- The DO-160G, DO-178C, and DO-254 reports and plans the matrix cites
- The design change history since the matrix was last reconciled
- Any prior FAA findings against earlier matrix versions
Common discrepancies
- A requirement present in the standard with no row assigned to it
- A row citing a report revision the article superseded during development
- A means of compliance recorded as test where the evidence on file is analysis only
- Coverage asserted for a requirement whose evidence never left draft
What is at stake
A matrix that overstates coverage invites findings the applicant then answers under time pressure, each one reopening evidence that was thought closed. Rows that cite stale reports force a re-test or a re-analysis late, when the schedule has no slack, and every unanswered requirement is a hold on the authorization the program was built around.
How the work runs
Rebuild the requirement set
List every applicable requirement from the current standard revision against the certification basis.
Check each means of compliance
Confirm the assigned means fits the requirement and matches the evidence actually on file.
Verify evidence currency
Resolve each cited report to a live revision that matches the current article state.
Sequence the closures
Order the open rows by how much coverage each one unblocks and hand off a closure plan.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing every requirement without supported coverage
- An evidence map resolving each matrix row to a retrievable document and revision
- A closure plan sequencing the open rows by what unblocks the most coverage
Who uses the output
- Certification leads who present coverage to the FAA and answer for each row
- Engineering owners deciding whether a stale row needs re-test or a revised citation
- Program managers tracking which requirements still block the authorization
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The matrix sits on top of the certification plan and every data report beneath it, so this review runs after those artifacts exist but before the package is formally submitted. Its closure plan feeds the remaining test, analysis, and documentation work, and its evidence map becomes the reviewer's route into the rest of the data.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The matrix is built to the FAA certification basis for the TSO article, so the requirement set and the acceptable means of compliance follow FAA guidance rather than another authority's. Where the same article is later taken to another authority, the matrix is a starting point but not a finished cross-map, and the review notes that boundary rather than assuming it transfers.
Regulatory limits
The review checks that the matrix is complete, consistent, and supported by current evidence. It does not make a compliance finding, grant the authorization, or accept any requirement as met on the FAA's behalf, all of which stay with the applicant and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the underlying tests or analyses the matrix cites
- Issuing or negotiating an FAA compliance finding
- Authoring the certification plan the matrix rests on
Specific to this review
- The matrix is the only artifact that claims total coverage, so one stale citation on it carries more weight than a gap buried in a single report.
- Means of compliance drift is common: a row written when the plan said test can end up backed only by analysis once the schedule tightened.
- A standard revision mid-program can add requirements the matrix never had rows for, and those omissions are invisible until someone re-maps to the current standard.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
RTCA. Design assurance objectives and lifecycle data for airborne electronic hardware (FPGA/ASIC/PLD).
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
Frequently asked questions
Do you build the matrix or only review one we already have?
Either. If a matrix exists, the work checks its coverage, means of compliance, and evidence currency against the current article. If it does not, the same requirement-by-requirement walk produces one, with each row resolved to a document rather than left as an assertion.
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.