Type-design packages
Means-of-compliance map support for a type-design data package
This review builds and checks the means-of-compliance map that sits at the front of a type-design data package. It confirms that every requirement in the certification basis has a means assigned, that the means is one the authority will accept, and that a real piece of evidence stands behind each entry rather than a placeholder. A certification engineer runs it before the applicant submits, so the map does not fall apart under the first round of questions. You get a marked-up compliance map, a list of requirements with a means but no evidence, and a plan to close each one.
When this review is needed
- An applicant has drafted a compliance map and wants it checked before the first submission to the authority.
- The certification basis was recently agreed and the means chosen for each paragraph have not yet been tied to evidence.
- A change to the project has added requirements and the existing map no longer covers the full basis.
- A prior submission drew questions about how compliance would be shown and the map needs to answer them.
The problem
A compliance map is easy to fill in and hard to defend. Rows get a means selected because it sounds right for that kind of requirement, not because someone has confirmed the test, analysis, or inspection actually exists and will show what the paragraph asks. By the time the authority reads it, the applicant is committed to a plan that may have no evidence behind half its entries.
What gets reviewed
- Every certification-basis paragraph checked for an assigned and appropriate means of compliance
- Each chosen means confirmed as one the authority accepts for that requirement class
- The evidence named against each row confirmed to exist and to be the right document type
- Requirements carrying a means but no traceable evidence flagged as open
- Overlaps where two rows claim the same evidence for different requirements resolved
- The map structure checked against the way the reviewing authority expects it laid out
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 certification-basis paragraph appears exactly once and carries a means of compliance
- The means selected is acceptable to the authority for that type of requirement
- Every row names a specific evidence item, not a category or a to-be-determined placeholder
- The named evidence exists in the package and matches the row it is cited against
- No requirement is left with a means but an empty or unresolved evidence path
Evidence normally required
- The agreed certification basis with the applicable paragraphs listed
- The draft means-of-compliance map or compliance checklist
- The evidence documents cited in the map, or the plan to produce them
- Any issue papers or special conditions that alter the basis
- The project definition that sets which requirements apply to this article
Common discrepancies
- Rows that select a means but cite no evidence, or cite evidence that does not yet exist
- A means chosen that the authority does not accept for that requirement class
- Certification-basis paragraphs missing from the map entirely
- The same test report cited for requirements it does not actually cover
What is at stake
A map with hollow rows generates findings the moment a reviewer picks one and asks to see the backing data. Each unsupported entry becomes a request for information, and requests stack into schedule slip. Worse, some rows commit the applicant to a means that cannot show compliance at all, which forces a late change of approach after the package is already in review.
How the work runs
Reconcile the basis
List every applicable certification-basis paragraph and confirm each one appears once in the map.
Test each means
Check that the assigned means is acceptable for the requirement and that the cited evidence is the right type.
Follow rows to evidence
Trace a sample of rows into the package to confirm the named evidence exists and covers the requirement.
Log and sequence gaps
Record rows with no evidence path and order them into a closure plan the applicant can work.
What the buyer receives
- A marked-up compliance map showing each row's status against its requirement
- A gap list of requirements that have a means but no traceable evidence path
- A closure plan sequencing the open rows by effort and dependency
Who uses the output
- Certification leads who present the map to the authority and answer for it
- Engineers who own the evidence and must produce what the open rows need
- Configuration managers who keep the map aligned as the design settles
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The compliance map is the index the whole data package is read through. This review makes the index honest before submission, so requirements traceability, verification evidence, and the individual qualification reports downstream all hang off a spine that holds. It sits between agreeing the certification basis and assembling the evidence that closes it.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both expect the applicant to state a means for each requirement, but they organize and phrase the basis differently, and a means accepted in one jurisdiction is not automatically accepted in the other. The review checks the map against the specific authority the package is bound for rather than assuming a shared expectation.
Regulatory limits
This work checks the logic and completeness of the compliance map. It does not make a compliance finding, does not determine airworthiness, and does not grant or transfer any approval. Those remain with the applicant and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Producing the underlying test, analysis, or inspection evidence itself
- Negotiating the certification basis or special conditions with the authority
- Making the formal compliance finding for any requirement
Specific to this review
- A map can be complete on its face and still fail, because a filled row proves nothing until the cited evidence is confirmed to exist and to match.
- The most damaging entries are the ones that pick a means that cannot show compliance at all, since they are only caught when the evidence is attempted.
- Reviewers rarely read the map top to bottom; they pull a sample and follow it to the data, so a single hollow row can set the tone for the whole review.
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.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
Is a completed compliance map enough to submit?
A completed map is a plan, not proof. Every row can be filled and the package can still generate findings if the cited evidence does not exist or does not show what the requirement asks. This review confirms the rows are backed before the authority tests them.
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.