Type-design data package certification plan support

When this review is needed

• A type-design change is starting and the certification plan has to set a basis and commitments the project can meet.
• The scope of the change grew after the plan was written and the affected areas need revisiting.
• The plan commits to a means of compliance the evidence approach may not actually deliver.
• A reviewer will hold the package to the plan, and the plan and the data have drifted apart.

The problem

The certification plan is the contract the reviewer holds the package to, so a promise in it that the evidence never fulfills becomes a finding later. Plans are written early, when the scope and the compliance approach are still forming, and the project moves after the ink dries. By the time the package is assembled, the plan can commit to affected areas that grew, review items that were dropped, and compliance methods the team quietly changed, none of which the plan reflects.

What gets reviewed

• The certification basis the plan asserts for the type-design change
• The areas the change affects and whether the plan captures all of them
• Review and compliance commitments checked against the evidence approach
• Means of compliance in the plan reconciled to the methods actually being used
• Schedule and review-point commitments the package has to meet
• Alignment between the plan and the compliance matrix that will implement it

What gets validated

• The certification basis in the plan matches the basis the package is being built to
• The affected areas in the plan cover the actual scope of the change
• Each compliance commitment maps to an evidence approach that can deliver it
• The means of compliance stated in the plan match the methods in use
• The plan and the compliance matrix agree on how the basis will be met

Evidence normally required

• The draft or current certification plan
• The certification basis for the type-design change
• The scope and affected-areas definition for the change
• The evidence approach and the compliance matrix under development
• Whether the change is bound for the FAA, EASA, or both authorities

Common discrepancies

• A compliance commitment in the plan the evidence approach cannot deliver as written
• Affected areas that grew with the change but were never added to the plan
• A means of compliance in the plan that differs from the method the team adopted
• A plan and a compliance matrix that describe the basis coverage differently

What is at stake

When the package is reviewed against a plan it no longer matches, every divergence reads as a shortfall the supplier has to explain or close. A plan that overcommits sets up findings that were avoidable, and one that understates the affected areas leaves the reviewer to discover scope the plan never acknowledged, which is a harder conversation than stating it up front.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• A gap assessment between the plan's commitments and the evidence approach
• A map from each commitment to the source intended to satisfy it
• A closure plan for the overcommitted or under-scoped areas

Who uses the output

• Certification leads confirming the plan reflects a basis and commitments the project can meet
• Engineering leads reconciling the compliance methods to what the plan promises
• Configuration management keeping the plan aligned with the compliance matrix

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The certification plan sits at the front of the type-design package and sets the terms the compliance matrix and the evidence then have to satisfy. Reviewing it early catches an overcommitted or under-scoped plan while the work can still be steered, rather than after the package is built against a plan it no longer matches.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

FAA and EASA structure certification planning differently, so a dual submission needs a plan that names a basis and commitments each authority will recognize. The review notes where a plan written for one authority leaves the other's expectations for planning and review points unaddressed.

Regulatory limits

The review confirms the plan's basis and commitments match the evidence approach and reports where they diverge. It does not agree the certification basis with an authority, accept the plan, make a compliance finding, or determine airworthiness of the change.

What this review does not cover

• Negotiating or agreeing the certification basis with an authority
• Producing the evidence a commitment depends on
• Ruling on whether the type-design change is airworthy

Specific to this review

• The plan is the contract the reviewer holds the package to, so an unfulfilled promise in it becomes a finding rather than a footnote.
• Plans are written before the scope settles, so affected areas that grew with the change are a frequent and quiet omission.
• A means of compliance the team changed without updating the plan splits the plan from the evidence the reviewer compares it against.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits