TSO authorization
Finding and action-item register support for a TSO program
This review readies the finding and action-item register that tracks open work through a TSO authorization, so that items marked closed are actually closed on evidence. It is run for an equipment or avionics supplier as the program approaches formal review. The work checks who owns each finding, whether its closure links to a document that stands on its own, and whether any item is marked resolved in status while its evidence is still missing. You receive a gap assessment of the register, an evidence map tying each closure to its supporting record, and a closure plan for the items that are open in fact but not in status.
When this review is needed
- The program is nearing formal review and the register has to show every finding driven to a documented close.
- Action items accumulated across several reviews and no one has reconciled status against evidence lately.
- A finding was closed by a promise to update a document that was never confirmed as delivered.
- The authority or a designee will read the register directly and each closed line must hold up on its face.
The problem
A finding register drifts toward optimism. Under schedule pressure an item gets marked closed when the fix is agreed rather than when the evidence lands, and the register then reads greener than the program actually is. Findings that touch several documents get closed on the one that was easy, leaving the others silently open. By review time the status column and the evidence behind it have quietly separated, and reconstructing which closures are real takes longer than the original work.
What gets reviewed
- Ownership confirmed for every open and recently closed finding on the register
- Each closure linked to a specific document, test result, or analysis rather than a status note
- Findings that touch several deliverables checked for closure across all of them, not one
- Status entries reconciled against the evidence that is actually in hand
- Findings marked closed without support reopened and routed into a closure plan
- The register structured so a reviewer can trace any line to its evidence without asking
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 shown as closed cites evidence a reviewer would accept without further explanation
- A multi-document finding is closed against each deliverable it affects, not just the first
- Each open finding has a named owner and a defined action rather than an unassigned note
- The closure evidence cited actually exists and is retrievable, not merely promised
- The register accounts for every finding raised across the program, none dropped between reviews
Evidence normally required
- The current finding and action-item register with its status history
- The review minutes or issue papers that generated the findings
- The documents, test results, and analyses cited as closure evidence
- The ownership map for the program's deliverables
- The certification basis the findings were raised against
Common discrepancies
- An item marked closed on an agreed fix whose evidence was never confirmed as delivered
- A finding closed against one affected document while the others it touched stayed open
- An open finding with no assigned owner that has stalled between review cycles
- A closure citing a document revision that predates the change the finding required
What is at stake
A register that shows closures without evidence collapses under review: each unsupported line reopens, the authority loses confidence in the rest of the status, and items presented as done turn into a fresh action list at the worst point in the schedule. Worse, a real finding hidden behind an optimistic close can carry an unresolved technical issue into the approved article.
How the work runs
Rebuild the ownership map
Confirm every open and recently closed finding has a named owner and a defined action.
Test each closure
Trace closed items to the specific evidence that supports them and flag the ones that only cite status.
Check the multi-touch findings
Verify findings that affect several documents are closed against each, not just one.
Reopen and plan
Route the unsupported closures back to open and build the plan to close them on evidence.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment separating genuinely closed findings from those closed in status only
- An evidence map tying each closure to the specific record that supports it
- A closure plan for the reopened items with an owner and the evidence each still needs
Who uses the output
- Certification leads presenting the register at formal review
- Engineering owners responsible for the evidence behind each closure
- Program managers who need an honest read of how much open work remains
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The register is the program's account of what is done, so this review runs as the last reconciliation before formal review, after conformity, qualification, and the ICA are settled. It draws on those evidence streams to confirm each closure and hands the reopened items to the closure plan that clears the path into the authority review.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Under the FAA framework the register is often read directly by the authority or its designee, so the review holds each closure to the standard of evidence that reader will apply rather than an internal convention where an agreed action counts as done.
Regulatory limits
The review reconciles the register and confirms closure evidence exists. It does not close findings on the authority's behalf, accept a closure argument, or grant the authorization.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the engineering or test work that a finding requires
- Deciding on the authority's behalf whether a closure argument is acceptable
- Any authority acceptance of the register or the findings
Specific to this review
- A finding register almost always reads greener than the program is, because items get marked closed when the fix is agreed rather than when the evidence arrives.
- Multi-document findings are the usual place a silent gap hides, since closing the easy deliverable clears the status while the others stay open.
- Reconstructing which closures are real late in a program takes longer than the original fixes, because the evidence trail has to be rebuilt from status notes.
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
How do you tell a real closure from one that only looks closed?
A real closure points to a specific document revision, test result, or analysis that resolves the finding and can be opened and read on its own. A closure that only cites a status change, an agreed action, or a promised update is treated as open until that evidence is confirmed in hand.
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.