Type-design packages
Instructions for continued airworthiness support for a type-design package
This review reads the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in a type-design data package and checks that they describe the configuration being approved. It confirms the maintenance tasks, airworthiness limitations, parts data, and applicability in the ICA match the design, the safety assessment, and the effectivity the type design covers. A certification engineer runs it so the ICA does not lag the configuration it is meant to support. You get an assessment of ICA coverage against the approved design, a list of tasks, limitations, or parts that do not match, and a plan to reconcile them.
When this review is needed
- The design is settling and the ICA needs to be checked against the configuration being approved.
- The safety assessment produced airworthiness limitations that must appear in the ICA.
- A late design change altered parts or tasks and the ICA may not have caught up.
- A reviewer will compare the ICA to the approved configuration and the applicant wants mismatches found first.
The problem
The ICA is often the last document to settle, and it settles against a design that kept changing until the end. Maintenance tasks, part numbers, and applicability are written against an interim configuration, and the airworthiness limitations that come out of the safety assessment do not always make it in. Because the ICA is drafted in parallel with the design freeze rather than after it, it lags the very configuration it is supposed to keep airworthy.
What gets reviewed
- Maintenance tasks in the ICA checked against the approved configuration and the safety assessment
- Airworthiness limitations traced from the safety assessment into the ICA
- Parts data and part numbers reconciled with the approved configuration
- Applicability and effectivity in the ICA matched to what the type design covers
- Late design changes traced into the affected ICA tasks and limitations
- The ICA structure checked against the format the reviewing authority expects
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 maintenance task references the approved configuration, not an interim one
- Each airworthiness limitation from the safety assessment appears in the ICA
- Part numbers and parts data in the ICA match the approved configuration
- ICA applicability and effectivity match the coverage of the type design
- Late design changes are reflected in the ICA tasks and limitations they affect
Evidence normally required
- The draft ICA, including maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations
- The approved configuration definition and effectivity
- The safety assessment, for the limitations it produces
- The parts data and illustrated parts information for the design
- The change history for design changes made late in the project
Common discrepancies
- Airworthiness limitations from the safety assessment missing from the ICA
- Maintenance tasks written against a superseded interim configuration
- Part numbers in the ICA that do not match the approved configuration
- ICA applicability broader or narrower than the type design covers
What is at stake
An ICA that does not match the approved configuration is a finding the reviewer cannot wave through, because the ICA is what keeps the design airworthy in service. Missing airworthiness limitations are the most serious version, since they are mandatory and their absence is a direct safety gap. If parts or tasks reference an interim configuration, operators receive instructions that do not fit the aircraft, and the mismatch surfaces in the field where it is hardest to fix.
How the work runs
Fix the approved configuration
Establish the configuration and effectivity the ICA is meant to support.
Trace the limitations
Confirm every airworthiness limitation from the safety assessment appears in the ICA.
Reconcile tasks and parts
Check maintenance tasks and part numbers against the approved configuration and mark mismatches.
Catch the late changes
Trace late design changes into the ICA and order the reconciliation, limitations first.
What the buyer receives
Who uses the output
- Certification leads who present the ICA in review
- Engineers who reconcile tasks and limitations with the approved design
- Configuration managers who confirm parts and effectivity match the type design
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The ICA carries the approved design into service, so it is the last evidence item that must catch up to the configuration everything else in the package describes. This review reconciles it against the approved design and the safety assessment before submission, so the operator receives instructions that fit the aircraft. It runs after the configuration and safety data settle and closes the package's forward-looking side.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both require ICA for a type design and both treat the airworthiness limitations section as mandatory, but the format, the approval path for the limitations, and the acceptance of the rest of the ICA differ between the systems. The review checks the ICA against the expectations of the target authority rather than a single format.
Regulatory limits
This work checks whether the ICA matches the approved configuration and carries the required limitations. It does not write the maintenance program, does not make a compliance finding, and does not determine airworthiness or grant approval. Those remain with the applicant and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Authoring the maintenance tasks or the ICA itself
- Setting the airworthiness limitations from the safety assessment
- Making the compliance finding for the ICA
Specific to this review
- The ICA settles last and against a moving design, which is exactly why it is the evidence item most likely to lag the configuration it supports.
- Missing airworthiness limitations are the most serious ICA finding, because the limitations are mandatory and their absence is a direct safety gap rather than a documentation one.
- An ICA mismatch that survives review reaches operators, and a wrong part number or task in service is far more costly to correct than the same error caught in the package.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration. STC application process, certification basis, and continued airworthiness obligations of an STC holder.
Frequently asked questions
Why check the ICA against the safety assessment?
The safety assessment produces the airworthiness limitations, and those limitations are mandatory in the ICA. If a limitation from the assessment does not reach the ICA, the operator never sees a required maintenance action, which is a direct safety gap. This review confirms every limitation made the crossing.
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.