Type-design data packages
Finding and action-item register support for a type-design data package
This review examines the finding and action-item register that travels with a type-design data package, so the register is defensible before it reaches a certification office. A certification engineer walks each open and closed line, testing that every finding has an owner, a disposition, and closure evidence that actually supports the stated status. It catches findings marked closed in the tracker while the linked evidence is missing, superseded, or does not address the original concern. You receive a gap assessment, an evidence map keyed to each finding, and a closure plan you can work before the package is submitted.
When this review is needed
- A type-design data package is being assembled and the finding register has to hold up under an authority walkthrough.
- Several findings show a closed state in the tracker but the team is unsure the closure evidence is attached.
- Ownership of action items has drifted as engineers rotated off the program and lines have gone stale.
- A prior submission drew questions about how findings were dispositioned and the register needs a clean pass first.
The problem
A finding register grows across the life of a program and quietly decays. Status columns get updated faster than the evidence behind them, action items inherit new owners without a clean handoff, and a line that reads closed can rest on a memo that no longer exists or on a decision the certification basis never actually accepted. By the time the package is due, no one can say with confidence that every closed finding is truly closed.
What gets reviewed
- Every register line read for owner, disposition, and current state
- Closed findings checked against the evidence actually linked to them
- Open findings sequenced by dependency and closure difficulty
- Disposition rationale tested against the applicable certification basis
- Findings that were merged, split, or superseded reconciled to a single current status
- Action items with no owner or no closure path flagged for assignment
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
- Each closed finding cites closure evidence that exists and addresses the original concern
- Every open action item has a named owner and a defined closure path
- Disposition rationale is consistent with the certification basis the program is working to
- Superseded or duplicated findings resolve to one authoritative current line
- The register state agrees with the underlying compliance records it summarizes
Evidence normally required
- The current finding and action-item register in its working form
- Closure evidence referenced by the closed lines, such as memos, analyses, and test records
- The certification basis and any issue papers agreed with the authority
- The program plan showing action-item ownership and review commitments
- Prior correspondence where findings were raised or dispositioned
Common discrepancies
- Findings shown closed whose linked evidence is missing, outdated, or points elsewhere
- Action items with no assigned owner after a personnel change
- Closure rationale that assumes an acceptable means the basis does not grant
- Duplicate lines tracking the same concern with conflicting states
What is at stake
A register that overstates closure invites the certification office to reopen findings during formal review, which resets the schedule and erodes trust in the rest of the package. Findings that surface late cost far more to resolve than the same items caught while the team still has the authors, the test articles, and the context in hand.
How the work runs
Inventory the register
Pull every finding and action item into one working view and record its stated owner, disposition, and state.
Test each closure
For every closed line, open the cited evidence and confirm it exists and resolves the original concern.
Sequence the open items
Order the remaining findings by dependency and closure difficulty so the team works them in a sensible order.
Deliver the map and plan
Hand over an evidence map keyed to each finding and a closure plan for the items still outstanding.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing each register line that is not defensible as stated
- An evidence map linking every closed finding to the record that closes it
- A prioritized closure plan for the open and unsupported items
Who uses the output
- Certification leads who must present a clean register at formal review
- Configuration managers reconciling the register with the compliance records
- Engineers assigned the open action items and their closure paths
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The register is the index a certification office reads first, so it is checked before the substantive evidence review begins. Cleaning it early tells the team which findings still need work and prevents a weak register from casting doubt on data that is otherwise sound.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both expect findings to be tracked to closure with traceable evidence, but they organize the record differently and phrase dispositions in their own terms. The review notes where a register built for one authority needs its closure statements restated for the other so the same findings read cleanly in either forum.
Regulatory limits
This work assesses the register and its closure evidence for readiness. It does not close findings on the authority's behalf, does not issue a compliance finding or an airworthiness determination, and does not grant or transfer any approval.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the engineering or testing that closes an open finding
- Rewriting the certification basis or negotiating issue papers with the authority
- Submitting the package or acting as the applicant's representative
Specific to this review
- A finding register fails review more often on stale ownership than on missing evidence, because unowned items simply stop moving.
- Closure evidence tends to detach from findings when action items are renumbered mid-program, so cross-references need to be re-walked line by line.
- A closed status is only as strong as the certification basis in force when it was set; a basis change can quietly invalidate an earlier disposition.
- Merged findings are a common trap: the merge is recorded in one place but the retired line still shows a stale state elsewhere.
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
Do you close the findings for us?
No. The review tells you which findings are genuinely closed, which are not, and what each open item needs to close. Your engineers perform the closure work; we make sure the register reflects reality before it goes to the authority.
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.