How this STC must perform for your program

• Tell me in one sentence the primary reason you're pursuing an STC now
• Estimate the top three business outcomes this approval must deliver for your fleet Options: Reduce time to market, Meet lease return requirements, Lower total certification cost, Enable a fleet modification or upgrade, Avoid redesign or rework risk, Other
• Which airframe or fleet context best describes where this modification will be installed Options: Narrow-body passenger fleet, Wide-body passenger fleet, Regional turboprop, Freighter conversion, Business jet, Mixed fleet, Other
• Who in your leadership will sign off on program success, and who will run day-to-day delivery Options: VP Engineering, Head of MRO, Program Manager, Fleet Director, Legal/Contracts, Other
• How tight is your target timeline for certificate issuance, and which of these best matches your deadline Options: Critical hard deadline within 3 months, Target 3-6 months, 6-12 months with some flexibility, No firm deadline, timing opportunistic
• If the program slips, what is the nearest financial or operational consequence your team must avoid

Where your current plan is most likely to surprise you

• Walk me through the last time a certification timeline slipped, what caused it, and what it cost your operation
• Describe any airframe-specific constraints we should assume up front, including inspection access, structural hot spots, or fatigue limits
• Which analyses or tests have you already completed for this modification, and can any be reused Options: Finite element analysis, Fatigue assessment, Systems safety assessment, Load surveys, Flight test data, Conformity inspection records, None
• Who currently holds DER or local regulator relationships for this airframe inside your organization Options: In-house DER roster, Contracted DERs, External consulting DERs, No DER relationships, Other
• Are there design assumptions in your current package that would require redesign if a regulator requests more substantiation Options: Yes, several assumptions, A few assumptions likely, No, assumptions are conservative, Unsure
• What single unresolved technical risk would make you stop the program today

When certification problems compound cost and delay

• In the last STC your team ran, which regulator comments forced the biggest redesign, and why were they missed earlier
• List the top points in your process where DER availability or response times create bottlenecks Options: Initial design review, Design approval, Test witnessing, Flight test sign-off, Conformity sign-off, Regulator liaison, Other
• Estimate the average number of regulator review cycles you typically experience on similar packages Options: 1-2 cycles, 3-4 cycles, 5+ cycles, Highly variable
• How many aircraft or shop hours does each additional review cycle typically consume for your team Options: <50 hours, 50-200 hours, 200-500 hours, 500+ hours
• If timeline certainty improved by half, what concrete changes would you make to procurement, production, or commercial terms
• Identify the single cost or schedule threshold that would lead your leadership to pause the project

Regulatory and operational red lines

• Identify any prior FAA or EASA findings on this airframe that directly affect your modification scope Options: Airworthiness directives relevant to mod, Type design limitations, Certification basis changes, No prior findings, Unknown
• Describe required access or facility constraints, such as hangar availability, ferry permits, special tooling, or ferry flights
• Name the primary point of contact your team will use for handing over conformity inspections and signing off work packages Options: Engineering manager, Maintenance lead, Quality manager, Program manager, Other
• List the internal teams you must commit full-time versus part-time during execution Options: Airworthiness/DER coordination, Structures engineering, Systems engineering, Flight test team, Maintenance/line ops, Supply chain, Quality assurance, Other
• Confirm whether your program requires export or import approvals, and who in your organization owns that process Options: Yes, export/import approvals required, No external approvals required, Unsure
• Should DER assignments be unavailable within your timeline, would you cancel, delay, or seek alternate jurisdiction or scope changes Options: Cancel the program, Delay until DERs available, Use alternative DERs or jurisdictions, Re-scope to reduce DER needs

Who else you are weighing and why

• Why might your team keep working with the current incumbent instead of engaging an outside certification partner
• Share the external firms or internal approaches you have evaluated for similar STC work in the last 18 months Options: Local certification specialist, Multi-airframe engineering house, In-house team, OEM support, Specialist DER consult, Other
• What would have to be true about your existing approach for you to stay with it rather than change providers
• Has anyone on your engineering or MRO team proposed handling certification entirely internally, and what resource gaps did they identify Options: Yes, internal with resource gaps, Yes, internal with capability, No internal proposal yet, Unsure
• Suppose an incumbent could guarantee regulator engagement and zero rework, would your team still consider external partners Options: Yes, likely still consider, Maybe, depends on price and schedule, No, would stay with incumbent
• Rank the reasons you might switch providers from most to least important Options: Faster regulator interactions, Lower total cost, Airframe-specific experience, Ability to run parallel programs, Better reporting and transparency, Other

Acceptance: the finish line your team needs

• Imagine the regulator issued the certificate tomorrow, what deliverables and documentation would your team require to accept the work Options: Installation drawings, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Flight test reports, Conformity inspection records, Parts traceability, Spares and maintenance data, Other
• Tell the acceptance criteria your legal or asset management teams insist on before signing off on an STC
• Define the metrics your team will use to measure in-service success at 6 and 12 months Options: No repeat defects, Operational reliability target, Maintenance man-hours reduction, Performance or fuel metrics, Zero regulatory non-conformities, Other
• Provide the operational or warranty obligations your team requires to include in the acceptance package Options: Warranty period length, Liability limits, Spares provisioning, Repair procedure availability, Training requirements, Other
• Name the single acceptance requirement, if unmet, that would prevent final payment or formal closeout

Schedule, stakeholders, and the decision moment

• Suppose you had to commit to a go or no-go date today, what internal or external events determine that deadline
• Provide the approvers your team must brief at each milestone, and indicate who holds veto authority Options: VP Engineering, Program Manager, Maintenance Director, Legal/Contracts, CFO, Regulatory liaison, Other
• Compare already allocated budget to your expected full program cost Options: Allocated equals expected, Allocated covers initial phases only, Allocated covers <50% of expected, No budget allocated yet
• Are there procurement or contract clauses your legal team considers non-negotiable Options: IP ownership, Data access and rights, Payment terms, Exclusivity limits, Liability caps, Other
• Would a short exclusivity period in a proposal block you from engaging if schedule and price matched your targets Options: Yes, Maybe with limits, No
• When does your team expect to make a final selection of a certification partner Options: Immediately, Within 30 days, 30-90 days, 3-6 months, Unsure

Practical next steps and immediate blockers

• Pinpoint the single onboarding barrier that would stop your team from starting within your target window
• Share the documents or artifacts your team can provide within five business days to accelerate our technical review Options: As-built drawings, Structural analyses, Previous STC packages, Flight test data, Component certificates, DER reports, None available quickly
• Please indicate the day-to-day contact your team will assign for data access, drawings, and test coordination Options: Engineering lead, Program manager, Maintenance lead, Quality manager, Other
• Report any blackout periods in your maintenance schedule or fleet operations that would prevent tests or inspections in the next six months Options: No blackout periods, Blackout in next 1-3 months, Blackout in 3-6 months, Multiple variable blackout windows, Unsure
• Assuming you can supply the requested artifacts and assign a contact this week, will your team sign an engagement to start within 30 days Options: Yes, ready to sign, Maybe, need internal approvals, No, cannot commit
• Sketch what a successful first 30 days looks like for your team, and name who must be involved to make it happen

• Assumption and Technical Baseline Review
• Risk and Analysis Prioritization Workshop
• DER and Regulatory Liaison Alignment
• Test Program and Flight Test Scoping Review

• Procure or plan procurement for identified instrumentation and test support services.
• An evidence matrix is produced that defines submission content by certification gate.
• A clear escalation path for unresolved technical issues is agreed.
• Compile the regulator and DER position notes into a formal position log.
• Publish the evidence matrix and map it to the prioritized analysis plan.
• Record the escalation path and criteria for raising formal regulatory queries.
• Translate analysis requirements into test objectives and points
• A draft test program is produced with defined test points, instrumentation needs, and pass criteria.
• Preliminary schedule windows and critical dependencies are identified and captured for booking actions.
• A short list of mitigation actions for critical dependencies is agreed to prevent schedule slips.
• Publish the draft test program including test points, instrumentation list, and pass criteria.
• Initiate booking requests for targeted test windows and record provisional aircraft availability.
• Confirm engagement assumption and success criteria
• The technical baseline document is agreed and will be the single source of truth for downstream work.
• A prioritized gap list is produced with short descriptions and evidence required to close each gap.
• Regulatory and DER points of contact are captured and their expected level of engagement is noted.
• Publish the agreed technical baseline document including the prioritized gap list.
• Collect and share the missing airframe records and drawings identified in the gap list.
• Confirm DER and regulator contact availability and record the expected evidence each will require.
• Review prioritized gap list and classify required analyses
• A ranked analysis and test list is produced with LOE estimates and regulatory risk ratings for each item.
• The immediate work package for the next 4 to 8 weeks is agreed and ready for resourcing.
• Key dependencies and long-lead items are identified and flagged for scheduling action.
• Publish the prioritized analysis and test plan with LOE and risk ratings.
• Prepare scopes of work and cost estimates for the first-wave analyses.
• Identify and initiate procurement of any long-lead test services or lab time needed.
• Present prioritized analysis plan and evidence assumptions
• A documented record of regulator and DER positions is captured and accepted as the basis for analysis work.
• Review existing airframe data and configuration baseline
• Capture regulator and DER positions on methods and acceptance criteria
• Estimate level of effort and schedule impact per analysis
• Define pass criteria and acceptance thresholds
• Assign regulatory risk rating and sequencing constraints
• Validate regulatory history and current liaison contacts
• Map schedule windows, aircraft availability, and resource constraints
• Agree evidence matrix and minimum submission content per gate
• Identify critical test dependencies and mitigation actions
• Confirm escalation and decision pathways
• Prioritize the near-term work package
• Surface and prioritize technical gaps and risky assumptions

• Solution Experience — Certification Program Walkthrough

• Confirm the current state and its cost
• You confirm that the proposed gate-by-gate plan and verification activities eliminate the late-stage redesign risk identified in Discovery.
• Deliver a draft gate-by-gate certification schedule and regulatory risk matrix based on the provided airframe data before the follow-up session.
• Map gates to regulatory risk
• You agree to measurable acceptance criteria and regulator interaction points required at each gate.
• Provide complete aircraft drawings, previous regulator correspondence, and DER availability windows for the target airframe.
• Proof through a high-risk scenario
• Confirm the internal decision makers and budget threshold required to proceed to Mutual Commit.
• You identify the remaining evidence and decision criteria needed to move toward Mutual Commit.
• Schedule proposed flight-test windows and regulator touchpoint dates for the execution phase.
• Confirm success criteria and acceptance
• Validate this maps to your needs
• Agree next decision steps

• Solution Experience — Certification Program Walkthrough
• Solution Experience Deck
• Certification Solution Brief

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Submit STC regulatory application package
• Provide structural analysis report (FEA)
• Deliver damage-tolerance and fatigue substantiation
• Produce system safety assessment report
• Create installation and wiring installation drawings
• Develop flight test plan and procedures
• Execute flight test campaign and data collection
• Analyze flight test data and deliver report
• Perform conformity inspections and release findings
• Draft Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)
• Generate repair and installation manuals
• Support DER engineering approval and sign-off
• Prepare aftermarket component certification package
• Provide weight, balance, and performance analysis

Submit STC regulatory application package

• Which certification authority will receive the STC application? Options: FAA (14 CFR), EASA (Certification Specifications), Other national authority
• How many aircraft types/variants (by model and series) must be included in the single STC application? Options: One type only, Two types/variants, Three or more, Undetermined
• Describe the existing Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) items or certification basis paragraphs the modification affects
• Identify which supporting artifacts you will provide at application submission Options: Preliminary drawings, Preliminary structural substantiation, System safety assessment (SSA) draft, Flight test plan draft, Installation photos/diagrams
• When do you expect to submit the initial application package to the regulator? Options: Within 2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, Dependent on prior analyses
• Who in your organization will be the regulatory point of contact for application questions and clarifications?

Provide structural analysis report (FEA)

• Which finite element analysis (FEA) deliverables do you require (stress report, model files, mesh export, load case matrix)? Options: Stress and deformation report, FEA model files (neutral format), Load case matrix and assumptions, Mesh quality and justification
• How many primary structural load cases (e.g., limit, ultimate, gust) should be included in the FEA report? Options: 1-3, 4-6, 7+
• Specify which baseline structural drawings or 3D models you will provide as inputs for model correlation
• Describe the correlation approach you expect between FEA and physical data (e.g., modal survey, proof load test, strain gage correlation)
• Do you need the FEA report to reference specific certification standards or analysis methods (for example, FAR 25 or EASA CS 25 load factors, safe-life vs damage tolerance)? Options: Yes, No
• Provide the preferred delivery format for FEA artifacts (report PDF, neutral mesh, native solver files) Options: PDF report + native solver files, PDF report + neutral mesh (e.g., NASTRAN), PDF only

Deliver damage-tolerance and fatigue substantiation

• Which damage-tolerance regime do you require for substantiation (safe-life, damage-tolerance, fail-safe) for the affected structure? Options: Safe-life, Damage-tolerance, Fail-safe, Combination/other
• How many structural detail locations require fatigue crack growth analyses or strain-life calculations? Options: None, 1-5 details, 6-20 details, 20+
• Identify the service life or flight cycles to be substantiated (e.g., 60,000 cycles, 20 years)
• Which inspection intervals or threshold tasks do you expect to appear in the airworthiness limitations section based on the damage-tolerance work? Options: Initial and repetitive NDI intervals, Life-limit on part, No additional intervals, Undetermined
• Describe any existing fatigue test data, fleet damage history, or structural modifications that should be included in the fatigue substantiation
• Are there specific non-destructive inspection (NDI) methods required for substantiation acceptance (e.g., eddy current, ultrasound, borescope)? Options: Eddy current, Ultrasound, Borescope/visual, Other/None

Produce system safety assessment report

• Which system or subsystem safety standard should the assessment reference (for example, ARP4761-style functional failure conditions or equivalent)? Options: ARP4761-style assessment, Company-specific SSA approach, Other regulatory equivalent
• Identify the functional failure conditions and worst-case operating modes for the modified system that the safety assessment must cover
• Describe the integration interfaces that will require SSA focus (for example, electrical power bus, flight control mechanical linkages, avionics databus)
• Which quantitative thresholds or probability targets (e.g., catastrophic, hazardous, major) should be used to classify failure conditions in the report? Options: Regulatory catastrophic/hazardous/major thresholds, Company risk matrix, Other
• Do you require failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) worksheets and traceability to verification tests? Options: Yes, No
• Who will own action-item closure for any mitigations identified by the SSA (you or we)? Options: You own closure, We own closure, Shared ownership

Create installation and wiring installation drawings

• Which drawing standards and revision control should be used for installation drawings (for example, company drawing standard, regulatory drawing numbering)?
• How many distinct installation zones or shipsets (cabin, forward electronics bay, empennage) require drawing documentation? Options: Single shipset, 2-3 shipsets, 4+ shipsets
• Specify whether wiring installation drawings must include wiring diagrams, harness routing, and wire size/type callouts Options: Full wiring diagrams + harness routing, Harness routing only, Mechanical installation only
• Do you have existing wiring schematics or harness part numbers that must be reused or referenced? Options: Yes, No
• Which physical access and panel removal procedures should be reflected on the drawings to support conformity inspections?
• Provide the preferred drawing deliverable format for regulatory submission and shop use (PDF, CAD neutral, native CAD) Options: PDF + native CAD, PDF + neutral CAD export, PDF only

Develop flight test plan and procedures

• Which flight test objectives should the plan cover (handling qualities, performance, flutter clearance, systems functionality)? Options: Handling qualities, Performance and climb, Structural loads and gusts, Systems integration and functionality, Other
• Which aircraft serial numbers or fleet CPTs (controlled production tails) will be available for flight test?
• Which flight envelope expansion is required for certification (altitude, Mach, center-of-gravity extremes)? Options: Low speed envelope, High altitude/Mach envelope, C of G extremes, Undetermined
• What test instrumentation and data acquisition channels must be specified in the plan (strain gages, air data, GPS/IMU, video)? Options: Strain gages, Air data probes, GPS/IMU, High-def video, Other
• Describe any required ground or bench tests that must precede flight sorties (functional checks, taxi tests, rigging verification)
• Which acceptance criteria will define a successful flight test sortie for a given maneuver (e.g., no critical vibrations, system fault codes cleared)?

Execute flight test campaign and data collection

• How many flight hours or sorties do you anticipate for the complete test campaign? Options: <5 hours, 5-20 hours, 20+ hours, Undetermined
• Which test roles must you provide versus those we will provide (test pilot, flight test engineer, telemetry support)? Options: You provide test pilot, We provide test pilot, Shared/test pilot TBD
• When will aircraft availability windows for flight test be locked (dates or month ranges)?
• Are ferry flights or special permissions required to reposition aircraft for test that we should budget for? Options: Yes, No, Unknown
• Which ground support equipment and test instrumentation will you supply (portable data recorders, strain bridge amplifiers, telemetry link)?
• Identify any operational constraints for flight test (passenger-cabin limitations, maintenance curfews, noise abatement)

Analyze flight test data and deliver report

• Which data reduction standards and reference documents should guide the flight test analysis (for example, signal processing windows, filtering methods)?
• What key performance indicators do you expect reported from flight test (Vmcg, climb gradient, handling-qualities metrics)?
• Which time-aligned datasets must be delivered with the report (raw telemetry, reduced channels, synchronized video)? Options: Raw telemetry + reduced channels, Reduced channels only, Raw telemetry only
• Describe the threshold criteria for reporting anomalies that require immediate engineering disposition
• Who will approve the final flight test analysis report for regulator submission?
• Provide the required turnaround time for delivering the flight test report after the final sortie Options: <1 week, 1-3 weeks, 3-6 weeks

Perform conformity inspections and release findings

• Which assemblies and shipsets require conformity inspection (left/right wing, empennage, cabin modules)?
• How many conformity inspection checkpoints do you expect during production and pre-flight (initial, in-process, final)? Options: Initial only, Initial + in-process, Initial + final, All three
• Which inspection evidence formats do you require for release (photographic record, signed inspection checklist, calibrated measurement logs)? Options: Photos, Signed checklist, Measurement logs, Other
• Who provides the authorized inspector or certifying staff for conformity release (your quality staff, we provide an authorized inspector, DER inspection)? Options: You provide inspector, We provide inspector, DER provides sign-off
• What documentation will constitute a released conformity package for the shipset (signed checklist plus nonconformance dispositions)?
• What evidence will validate and close a conformity nonconformance raised during inspection (corrective action photos, re-measurement, DER approval)?

Draft Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)

• Which ICA sections must be included (scheduled maintenance tasks, inspection tasks, airworthiness limitations, replacement parts list)? Options: Scheduled maintenance tasks, Inspection tasks, Airworthiness limitations, Parts list
• How will ICA tasks be referenced to existing maintenance publications and zones (AMM chapters, IPC references)?
• Which format and revision control do you require for ICA delivery for both regulator and line maintenance use (PDF, ATA iSpec 2200)? Options: PDF + revision control, ATA iSpec 2200 deliverable, PDF only
• Which maintenance intervals or threshold values should be proposed based on the substantiation (flight hours, cycles, calendar time)?
• What acceptance criteria will confirm the ICA is complete for regulator review (inclusion of tasks, task descriptions, necessary measures and tools)?
• Do you require training materials or task cards derived from the ICA for line maintenance crews? Options: Yes, No

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Pricing & Payment Schedule
• Intellectual Property & Data Access Agreement
• Regulatory Engagement Commitment
• Resource & DER Assignment Confirmation
• Acceptance & Deliverables Signoff
• Change Order Agreement
• Insurance & Liability Schedule
• Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
• Export Control & ITAR Compliance Addendum

• Go-live Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• 90-day Regulatory and Maintenance Closeout (around day 90)
• Quarterly Operational Review — Sustainment

• Schedule targeted follow-up workshops for any high-frequency failure modes identified in the review.
• Create and circulate the corrective action tracker with target dates for each remediation item.
• Schedule regulator follow-up calls or written responses where needed and note expected reply dates.
• Status of all open regulatory findings
• Close all resolvable regulatory and maintenance items or capture a documented remediation plan with firm dates for residual items.
• Verify time-to-resolution and unscheduled removal rates are within Certification Scope thresholds or have corrective plans to reach them.
• Confirm maintenance and installation data updates have been distributed to line and shop teams.
• Publish a 90-day closeout report that lists closed items and remediation plans with deadlines.
• Update maintenance manuals and distribute confirmation receipts from named maintenance teams or depots.
• Log any remaining regulator engagements with expected reply dates and escalate if replies exceed the agreed timeline.
• Operational metrics dashboard
• Confirm whether reliability and repair-time metrics remain within Certification Scope targets or require further corrective action.
• Reduce backlog of open regulatory and maintenance items with clear owners and deadlines for the next quarter.
• Capture a prioritized list of lessons and enhancements to feed into future modification programs.
• Publish the quarterly operations dashboard with trend charts and a backlog tracker.
• Create a prioritized enhancement register with estimated effort and recommended timing for future programs.
• Reconfirm scope, success criteria, and owners
• Confirm the modification was installed and conformity inspections completed for aircraft that entered service.
• Document all early operational or regulatory blockers with named owners and target resolution dates.
• Agree the timeline and owner for the first measurement data pack to be delivered before the next meeting.
• Publish a deployment validation report listing installed serial numbers, conformity inspection records, and any deferred work.
• Open tracked tickets for each regulatory or maintenance blocker with target resolution dates.
• Deliver first-measurement data pack (flight hours, incident log, maintenance actions) at least 5 days before the next review.
• Present first 4-10 week operational data
• Determine whether in-service reliability incidents per 1,000 flight hours and unscheduled removal counts are on track versus Certification Scope targets.
• Document root cause for any off-target metric and agree corrective actions with completion dates.
• Ensure open regulatory findings have a documented response path and regulator follow-up date.
• Publish the first-measurement dashboard with normalized incident rates and open findings status.
• Maintenance non-conformance and inspection follow-up
• Trend analysis and recurring root causes
• Deployment and conformity validation
• Gap diagnosis and root-cause review
• Operational reliability metrics review
• Early operational signals
• Open issues burn-down and compliance monitoring
• Corrective actions and remediation plan
• Lessons learned and enhancement capture
• Documentation and training updates
• Open regulatory and maintenance issues triage
• Regulator engagement and open correspondence
• Confirm timeline to ongoing cadence
• Closure confirmation or remediation plan
• Agree next quarter priorities and checkpoint
• Immediate remediation actions