GM 21.A.101 Establishing the certification basis of changed aeronautical products

Foreword

This guidance material (GM) provides guidance for the application of the ‘Changed Product Rule (CPR)’, pursuant to point 21.A.101, Designation of the applicable certification specifications and environmental protection requirements, and 21.A.19, Changes requiring a new type certificate, for changes made to type-certified aeronautical products.

1.      INTRODUCTION

1.1.    Purpose.

This GM provides guidance for establishing the certification basis for changed aeronautical products pursuant to point 21.A.101, Designation of the applicable certification specifications and environmental protection requirements. The guidance is also intended to help applicants and approved design organisations to determine whether it will be necessary to apply for a new type certificate (TC) under point 21.A.19, Changes requiring a new type certificate. The guidance describes the process for establishing the certification basis for a change to a TC, for a supplemental type certificate (STC), or for a change to an STC, detailing the requirements (evaluations, classifications, and decisions) throughout the process.

1.2.    Applicability.

1.2.1           This GM is for an applicant that applies for changes to TCs under Subpart D, for STCs, or changes to STCs under Subpart E, or for changes to European Technical Standard Order Authorisations (ETSOAs) for auxiliary power units (APUs) under Subpart O. This GM is also for approved design organisations that classify changes and approve minor changes under their 21.A.263(c)(1) and (2) privileges.

1.2.2           This GM applies to major changes under point 21.A.101 for aeronautical products certified under Part 21, and the certification specifications (CSs) applicable to the changed product (CS-23, CS-25, CS-27, CS-29, CS-MMEL, CS-FCD, CS-CCD, etc.). References to ‘change’ include the change and areas affected by the change pursuant to point 21.A.101.

1.2.3           Minor changes are within the scope of 21.A.101 and this GM but are automatically considered to not be significant under the ‘does not contribute materially to the level of safety’ provision of point 21.A.101(b).

1.2.4           This GM also applies to changes to restricted type certificates.

1.2.5           The term ‘aeronautical product’, or ‘product’, means a type-certified aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller and, for the purpose of this GM, an ETSOA’d APU.

1.2.6           This GM primarily provides guidance for the designation of applicable airworthiness certification specifications and other airworthiness standards for the type-certification basis for the changed product. However, portions of this GM, as specified in GM1 21.A.101(g), can be applied by analogy to establish the operational suitability data (OSD) certification basis for the changed product. This GM is not intended to be used to determine the applicable environmental protection requirements (aircraft noise, fuel venting, and engine exhaust emissions and aeroplane CO₂ emissions requirements) for changed products, as they are designated through point 21.B.85.

1.2.7           This GM is not mandatory and is not an EU regulation. This GM describes an acceptable means, but not the only means, to comply with point 21.A.101. However, an applicant who uses the means described in this GM must follow it entirely.

1.3.    Reserved.

1.4.    GM Content

This GM contains 5 chapters and 10 appendices.

1.4.1           This chapter clarifies the purpose of this GM, describes its content, specifies the intended audience affected by this GM, clarifies which changes are within the scope of this GM, and references the definitions and terminology used in this GM.

1.4.2           Chapter 2 provides a general overview of points 21.A.101 and 21.A.19, clarifies the main principles and safety objectives, and directs an applicant to the applicable guidance contained in subsequent chapters of this GM.

1.4.3           Chapter 3 contains guidance for the implementation of point 21.A.101(b) to establish the certification basis for changed aeronautical products. It describes in detail the various steps for developing the certification basis, which is a process that applies to all changes to aeronautical products. Chapter 3 also addresses the point 21.A.19 considerations for identifying the conditions under which an applicant for a change is required to submit an application for a new TC, and it provides guidance regarding the stage of the process at which this assessment is performed.

1.4.4           Chapter 4 provides guidance about products excepted from the requirement of point 21.A.101(a).

1.4.5           Chapter 5 contains considerations for:

—    design-related operating requirements,

—    defining a baseline product,

—    predecessor standards,

—    using special conditions under point 21.A.101(d),

—    documenting revisions to the TC basis,

—    incorporating STCs into the type design,

—    removing changes,

—    determining a certification basis after removing an approved change, and

—    sequential changes.

1.4.6           Appendix A contains examples of typical type design changes for small aeroplanes, large aeroplanes, rotorcraft, engines, and propellers. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has categorised these examples into individual tables according to the classifications of design change: ‘substantial’, ‘significant’, and ‘not significant’.

1.4.7           Appendix B contains application charts for applying the point 21.A.101 process, including the excepted process.

1.4.8           Appendix C contains one method for determining the changed and affected areas of a product.

1.4.9           Appendix D contains additional guidance on affected areas that is not discussed in other parts of this GM.

1.4.10         Appendix E provides detailed guidance with examples for evaluating the ‘impracticality’ exception in the rule.

1.4.11         Appendix F provides guidance with examples on the use of relevant service experience in the certification process as one way to demonstrate that a later amendment may not contribute materially to the level of safety, allowing the use of earlier certification specifications.

1.4.12         Appendix G provides an example CPR decision record.

1.4.13         Appendix H provides examples of documenting a proposed certification basis list.

1.4.14         Appendix I lists the Part 21 points related to this GM.

1.4.15         Appendix J lists the definitions and terminology applicable for the application of the rule.

1.5.    Terms Used in this GM.

1.5.1           The following terms are used interchangeably and have the same meaning: ‘specifications’, ‘standards’, ‘certification specifications’ and ‘certification standards’. They refer to the elements of the type-certification basis for airworthiness or OSD certification basis.

1.5.2           The term ‘certification basis’ refers to the type-certification basis for airworthiness provided for in point 21.B.80 and the operational suitability data (OSD) certification basis provided for in point 21.B.82.

For more terms, consult Appendix J.

2.      OVERVIEW OF POINTS 21.A.19 AND 21.A.101

2.1.    Point 21.A.19.

2.1.1           Point 21.A.19 requires an applicant to apply for a new TC for a changed product if EASA finds that the change to the design, power, thrust, or weight is so extensive that a substantially complete investigation of compliance with the applicable type-certification basis is required.

2.1.2           Changes that require a substantial re-evaluation of the compliance findings of the product are referred to as ‘substantial changes’. For guidance, see paragraph 3.3 in Chapter 3 of this GM. Appendix A of this GM provides examples of changes that will require a new TC.

2.1.3           If EASA determines through point 21.A.19 that a proposed change does not require a new TC, see point 21.A.101 for the applicable requirements to develop the certification basis for the proposed change. For guidance, see Chapter 3 and the examples in Appendix A of this GM.

2.2.    Point 21.A.101.

2.2.1           Point 21.A.101(a).

Point 21.A.101(a) requires a change to a TC, and the areas affected by the change to comply with the certification specifications that are applicable to the changed product and that are in effect on the date of application for the change (i.e. the latest certification standards in effect at the time of application), unless the change meets the criteria for the exceptions identified in point 21.A.101(b) or (c), or unless an applicant chooses to comply with the certification specifications of later effective amendments* in accordance with point 21.A.101(f). The intent of point 21.A.101 is to enhance safety by incorporating the latest requirements into the certification basis for the changed product to the greatest extent practicable.

*NOTE: Certification specifications that were amended after the date of application.

2.2.2           Point 21.A.101(b).

Point 21.A.101(b) pertains to when an applicant may show that a changed product complies with an earlier amendment of a certification specification, provided that the earlier amendment is considered to be adequate and meets the criteria in point 21.A.101(b)(1), (2) or (3). When changes involve features or characteristics that are novel and unusual in comparison with the airworthiness standard at the proposed amendment, more recent airworthiness standards and/or special conditions will be applied for these features.

An applicant is considered to comply with the earlier amendment of the certification specifications consistent with point 21.A.101(b), when:

(a)      a change is not significant (see point 21.A.101(b)(1));

(b)     an area, system, part or appliance is not affected by the change (see point 21.A.101(b)(2));

(c)      compliance with a later amendment for a significant change does not contribute materially to the level of safety (see point 21.A.101(b)(3)); or

(d)     compliance with the latest amendment would be impractical (see point 21.A.101(b)(3)).

Earlier amendments may not precede the amendment level of the certification basis of the identified baseline product.

Points 21.A.101(b)(1)(i) and (ii) pertain to changes that meet the automatic criteria where the change is significant.

2.2.3           Point 21.A.101(c).

Point 21.A.101(c) provides an exception from the requirements of point 21.A.101(a) for a change to certain aircraft with less than the specified maximum weight. An applicant who applies for a change to an aircraft (other than rotorcraft) of 2 722 kg (6 000 lb) or less maximum weight, or to a non-turbine-powered rotorcraft of 1 361 kg (3 000 lb) or less maximum weight, can show that the changed product complies with the standards incorporated by reference in the type certificate. An applicant can also elect to comply or may be required to comply with the later standards. See paragraph 4.1 of this GM for specific guidance on this provision.

2.2.4           Point 21.A.101(d).

Point 21.A.101(d) provides for the use of special conditions, under 21.B.75, when the proposed certification basis and any later certification specifications do not provide adequate standards for the proposed change because of a novel or unusual design feature.

2.2.5           Point 21.A.101(e).

Point 21.A.101(e) provides the legal basis under which an applicant may propose to certify a change and the areas affected by the change against alternative requirements to the certification specifications established by EASA.

2.2.6           Point 21.A.101(f).

Point 21.A.101(f) requires that if an applicant chooses (elects) to comply with a certification specification or an amendment to the certification specifications that is effective after the filing of the application for a change to a TC, the applicant shall also comply with any other certification specifications that EASA finds are directly related. The certification specifications which are directly related must be, for the purpose of compliance demonstration, considered together at the same amendment level to be consistent.

2.2.7           Point 21.A.101(g).

Point 21.A.101(g) pertains to the designation of the applicable OSD certification basis when the application for a change to a type certificate for an aircraft includes, or is supplemented after the initial application to include, changes to the OSD. It implies that the same requirements of paragraphs (a) and (f) that are applicable to the establishment of the airworthiness type-certification basis also apply to the establishment of the OSD certification basis. For specific guidance, see GM1 21.A.101(g).

3.      PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING THE CERTIFICATION BASIS FOR CHANGED PRODUCTS

3.1.    Overview.

3.1.1           The applicant and EASA both have responsibilities under point 21.A.101(a) and (b). As an applicant for the certification of a change, the applicant must demonstrate that the change and areas affected by the change comply with the latest applicable certification specifications unless the applicant proposes exception(s) under point 21.A.101(b). An applicant proposing exception(s) should make a preliminary classification whether the change is ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’, and propose an appropriate certification basis. EASA is responsible for determining whether the applicant’s classification of the change, and proposal for the certification basis, are consistent with the applicable rules and their interpretation. The EASA determination does not depend on whether the TC holder or applicant for an STC is originating the change. The certification basis can vary depending on the magnitude and scope of the change. The steps below present a streamlined approach for making this determination.

3.1.2           The tables in appendix A of this GM are examples of classifications of typical type design changes. See paragraph 3.6.3 of this chapter for instructions on how to use those tables.

3.1.3           If a proposed change is not in the examples provided in appendix A, the applicant may use the following steps in conjunction with the flow chart in Figure 3-1 of this GM to develop the appropriate certification basis for the change. For clarification, the change discussed in the flow chart also includes areas affected by the change. See paragraph 3.9.1 of this GM for guidance about affected areas.

Figure 3-1. Developing a Proposed Certification Basis for a Changed Product Pursuant to point 21.A.101

3.2.    Step 1. Identify the proposed changes to an aeronautical product.

—    Identify the type design being changed (the baseline product).

—    Identify the proposed change.

—    Use high-level descriptors.

3.2.1           Identify the type design being changed (the baseline product).

Prior to describing the proposed change(s), it is important to clearly identify the specific type design configuration being changed.

Note: For additional guidance on the baseline product, see paragraph 5.3 of this GM.

3.2.2           Identify the proposed change.

3.2.2.1         The purpose of this process step is to identify and describe the change to the aeronautical product. Changes to a product can include physical design changes and functional changes (e.g. operating envelope or performance changes). An applicant must identify all changes and areas affected by the change, including those where they plan to use previously approved data. EASA considers all of these changes and areas affected by the change to be part of the entire proposed type design and they are considered as a whole in the classification of whether the proposed change is substantial, significant, or not significant. The change can be a single change or a collection of changes. In addition to the proposed changes, an applicant should consider the cumulative effect of previous relevant changes incorporated since the last time the certification basis was upgraded. An applicant for a change must consider all previous relevant changes and the amendment level of the certification specifications in the certification basis used for these changes.

3.2.2.2         When identifying the proposed changes, an applicant should consider previous relevant changes that create a cumulative effect, as these may influence the decisions regarding the classification of the change later in the process. By ‘previous relevant changes,’ EASA means changes where effects accumulate, such as successive thrust increases, incremental weight increases, or sectional increases in fuselage length. An applicant must account for any previous relevant changes to the area affected by the proposed change that did not involve an upgrade of the certification basis in the proposed change.

3.2.2.3         Example:

An applicant proposes a 5 per cent weight increase, but a previous 4 per cent and another 3 per cent weight increase were incorporated into this aircraft without upgrading the existing certification basis. In the current proposal for a 5 per cent weight increase, the cumulative effects of the two previous weight increases that did not involve an upgrade of the certification basis will now be accounted for as an approximate 12 per cent increase in weight. Note that the cumulative effects the applicant accounts for are only those incremental increases since the last time the airworthiness certification specifications in the type-certification basis applicable to the area affected by the proposed change were upgraded.

3.2.3           Use High-Level Descriptors.

To identify and describe the proposed changes to any aeronautical product, an applicant should use a high-level description of the change that characterises the intent of, or the reason for, the change. No complex technical details are necessary at this stage. For example, a proposal to increase the maximum passenger-carrying capacity may require an addition of a fuselage plug, and as such, a ‘fuselage plug’ becomes one possible high-level description of this change. Similarly, a thrust increase, a new or complete interior, an avionics system upgrade, or a passenger-to-cargo conversion are all high-level descriptions that characterise typical changes to the aircraft, each driven by a specific goal, objective, or purpose.

3.2.4           Evolutionary changes that occur during the course of a certification program may require re-evaluation of the certification basis, and those changes that have influence at the product level may result in re-classification of the change.

3.3.    Step 2. Verify the proposed change is not substantial.

3.3.1           Point 21.A.19 requires an applicant to apply for a new TC for a changed product if the change to design, power, thrust, or weight is so extensive that a substantially complete investigation of compliance with the applicable regulations is required. A new TC could be required for either a single extensive change to a previously type-certified product or for a changed design derived through the cumulative effect of a series of design changes from a previously type-certified product.

3.3.2           A ‘substantially complete investigation’ of compliance is required when most of the existing substantiation is not applicable to the changed product. In other words, an applicant may consider the change ‘substantial’ if it is so extensive (making the product sufficiently different from its predecessor) that the design models, methodologies, and approaches used to demonstrate a previous compliance finding could not be used in a similarity argument. EASA considers a change ‘substantial’ when these approaches, models, or methodologies of how compliance was shown are not valid for the changed product.

3.3.3           If it is not initially clear that a new TC is required, Appendix A of this GM provides some examples of substantial changes to aid in this classification. A substantial change requires an application for a new TC. See points 21.B.80, 21.B.82, 21.B.85 and 21.A.19. If the change is not substantial, proceed to step 3.

3.4.    Step 3. Will the applicant use the latest standards?

An applicant can use the latest certification specifications for their proposed change and the area affected by the change. If they use the latest certification specifications, they will have met the intent of point 21.A.101 and no further classification (significant or not significant) and justification is needed. Even though an applicant elects to use the latest certification specifications, the applicant will still be able to apply point 21.A.101 for future similar changes, and use the exceptions under point 21.A.101(b). However, the decision to comply with the latest certification specifications sets a new basis for all future related changes to the same affected area for that amended TC.

—    If using the latest certification specifications, an applicant should proceed to Step 6 (in paragraph 3.9 of this GM).

—    If not using the latest certification specifications, an applicant should proceed to Step 4 below.

3.5.    Step 4. Arrange changes into related and unrelated groups.

3.5.1           An applicant should now determine whether any of the changes identified in Step 1 are related to each other. Related changes are those that cannot exist without another, are co-dependent, or a prerequisite of another. For example, a need to carry more passengers could require the addition of a fuselage plug, which will result in a weight increase, and may necessitate a thrust increase. Thus, the fuselage plug, weight increase, and thrust increase are all related, high-level changes needed to achieve the goal of carrying more passengers. A decision to upgrade the flight deck to more modern avionics at the same time as these other changes may be considered unrelated, as the avionics upgrade is not necessarily needed to carry more passengers (it has a separate purpose, likely just modernisation). The proposed avionics upgrade would then be considered an unrelated (or a stand-alone) change. However, the simultaneous introduction of a new cabin interior is considered related since occupant safety considerations are impacted by a cabin length change. Even if a new cabin interior is not included in the product-level change, the functional effect of the fuselage plug has implications on occupant safety (e.g. the dynamic environment in an emergency landing, emergency evacuation, etc.), and thus the cabin interior becomes an affected area. Figure 3-2 below illustrates the grouping of related and unrelated changes using the example of increasing the maximum number of passengers.

Note: An applicant who plans changes in sequence over time should refer to the discussion on ‘sequential design changes’ in paragraph 5.13 of this GM.

Figure 3-2. Related and Unrelated Changes for Example of Increasing the Maximum Number of Passengers

The Aeronautical Product

3.5.2           Once the change(s) is (are) organised into groupings of those that are related and those that are unrelated (or stand-alone), an applicant should proceed to Step 5 below.

3.6.    Step 5. Is each group of related changes or each unrelated (stand-alone) change a significant change?

3.6.1           The applicant is responsible for proposing the classification of groups of related changes or unrelated changes as ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’. Significant changes are product-level changes that could result from an accumulation of changes, or occur through a single significant change that makes the changed product distinct from its baseline product. The grouping of related and unrelated changes is particularly relevant to EASA’s significant Yes/No decision (point 21.A.101(b)(1)) described in Step 1 of Figure 3-1. EASA evaluates each group of related changes and each unrelated (stand-alone) change on its own merit for significance. Thus, there may be as many evaluations for significance as there are groupings of related and unrelated changes. Step 1 of Figure 3-1 explains the accumulation of changes that an applicant must consider. Additionally, point 21.A.101(b)(1) defines a change as ‘significant’ when at least one of the three automatic criteria applies:

3.6.1.1         Changes where the general configuration is not retained (significant change to general configuration).

A change to the general configuration at the product level is one that distinguishes the resulting product from other product models, for example, performance or interchangeability of major components. Typically, for these changes, an applicant will designate a new product model, although this is not required. For examples, see appendix A of this GM.

3.6.1.2         Changes where the principles of construction are not retained (significant change to principles of construction).

A change at the product level to the materials and/or construction methods that affects the overall product’s operating characteristics or inherent strength and would require extensive reinvestigation to demonstrate compliance is one where the principles of construction are not retained. For examples, see appendix A of this GM.

3.6.1.3         Product-level changes that invalidate the assumptions used for certification of the baseline product.

Examples include:

—         change of an aircraft from an unpressurised to pressurised fuselage,

—         change of operation of a fixed-wing aircraft from land-based to water-based, and

—         operating envelope expansions that are outside the approved design parameters and capabilities.

For additional examples, see appendix A of this GM.

3.6.2           The above criteria are used to determine whether each change grouping and each stand-alone change is significant. These three criteria are assessed at the product level. In applying the automatic criteria and the examples in appendix A of this GM, an applicant should focus on the change and how it impacts the existing product (including its performance, operating envelope, etc.). A change cannot be classified or reclassified as a significant change on the basis of the importance of a later amendment.

3.6.3           Appendix A of this GM includes tables of typical changes (examples) for small aeroplanes, transport aeroplanes, rotorcraft, engines, and propellers that meet the criteria for a significant design change. The Appendix also includes tables of typical design changes that EASA classifies as not significant. The tables can be used in one of two ways:

3.6.3.1         To identify the classification of a proposed design change listed in the table, or

3.6.3.2         In conjunction with the three automatic criteria, to help classify a proposed design change not listed in the table by comparison to determinations made for changes with similar type and magnitude.

3.6.4           In many cases, a significant change may involve more than one of these criteria and will be obvious and distinct from other product improvements or production changes. There could be cases where a change to a single area, system, component, or appliance may not result in a product-level change. There could also be other cases where the change to a single system or component might result in a significant change due to its effect on the product overall. Examples may include the addition of winglets or leading-edge slats, or a change to primary flight controls of a fly-by-wire system.

3.6.5           If an unrelated (stand-alone) change or a grouping of related changes is classified as —

Significant (point 21.A.101(a)):

You must comply with the latest airworthiness standards for certification of the change and areas affected by change, unless you justify use of one of the exceptions provided in point 21.A.101(b)(2) or (3) to show compliance with earlier amendment(s). The final certification basis may consist of a combination of the requirements recorded in the certification basis ranging from the original aircraft certification basis to the most current regulatory amendments

Not Significant (point 21.A.101(b)(1)):

You may comply with the existing certification basis unless the standards in the proposed certification basis are deemed inadequate. In cases where the existing certification basis is inadequate or no regulatory standards exist, later requirements and/or special conditions will be required. See paragraph 3.11 of this GM for a detailed discussion.

3.6.6           A new model designation to a changed product is not necessarily indicative that the change is significant under point 21.A.101. Conversely, retaining the existing model designation does not mean that the change is not significant. Significance is determined by the magnitude of the change.

3.6.7           EASA determines the final classification of whether a change is significant or not significant. To assist an applicant in its assessment, EASA has predetermined the classification of several typical changes that an applicant can use for reference, and these examples are listed in appendix A of this GM.

3.6.8           At this point, the determination of significant or not significant for each of the groupings of related changes and each stand-alone change is completed. For significant changes, an applicant that proposes to comply with an earlier certification specification should use the procedure outlined in paragraph 3.7 below. For changes identified as not significant, see paragraph 3.8 below.

3.7.    Proposing an amendment level for a significant change.

3.7.1           Without prejudice to the exceptions provided for in point 21.A.101(b) or (c), if the classification of a group of related changes or a stand-alone unrelated change is significant, all areas, systems, components, parts, or appliances affected by the change must comply with the certification specifications at the amendment level in effect on the date of application for the change, unless the applicant elects to comply with certification specifications that have become effective after that date (see point 21.A.101(a)).

3.7.2           In certain cases, an applicant will be required by EASA to comply with certification specifications that have become effective after the date of application (see point 21.A.101(a)):

3.7.2.1         If an applicant elects to comply with a specific certification specification or a subset of certification specifications at an amendment which has become effective after the date of application, the applicant must comply with any other certification specification that EASA finds is directly related (see point 21.A.101(f)).

3.7.2.2         In a case where the change has not been approved, or it is clear that it will not be approved under the time limit established, the applicant will be required to comply with an upgraded certification basis established according to points 21.B.80, 21.B.82 and 21.B.85 from the certification specifications that have become effective since the date of the initial application.

3.7.3           Applicants can justify the use of one of the exceptions in point 21.A.101(b)(2) or (3) to comply with an earlier amendment, but not with an amendment introduced earlier than the existing certification basis. See paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 of this GM. Applicants who elect to comply with a specific certification specification or a subset of certification specifications at an earlier amendment will be required to comply with any other certification specification that EASA finds are directly related.

3.7.4           The final certification basis may combine the latest, earlier (intermediate), and existing certification specifications, but cannot contain certification specifications preceding the existing certification basis.

3.8.    Proposing an amendment level for a not significant change.

3.8.1           When EASA classifies the change as not significant, the point 21.A.101(b) rule allows compliance with earlier amendments, but not prior to the existing certification basis. Within this limit, the applicant may propose an amendment level for each certification specification for the affected area. However, each applicant should be aware that EASA will review their proposals for the certification basis to ensure that the certification basis is adequate for the proposed change under Step 8. (See paragraph 3.11 of this GM.)

3.8.2           Even for a not significant change, an applicant may elect to comply with certification specifications which became applicable after the date of application. Applicants may propose to comply with a specific certification specification or a subset of certification specifications at a certain amendment of their choice. In such a case, any other certification specifications of that amendment that are directly related should be included in the certification basis for the change.

3.9.    Step 6. Prepare the proposed certification basis list.

As part of preparing the proposed certification basis list, an applicant must identify any areas, systems, parts or appliances of the product that are affected by the change and the corresponding certification specifications associated with these areas. For each group, the applicant must assess the physical and/or functional effects of the change on any areas, systems, parts or appliances of the product. The characteristics affected by the change are not only physical changes, but also functional changes brought about by the physical changes. Examples of physical aspects are structures, systems, parts and appliances, including software in combination with the affected hardware. Examples of functional characteristics are performance, handling qualities, aeroelastic characteristics, and emergency egress. The intent is to encompass all aspects where there is a need for re-evaluation, that is, where the substantiation presented for the product being changed should be updated or rewritten. Appendix H of this GM contains two examples of how to document a proposed certification basis list.

3.9.1           An area affected by the change is any area, system, component, part, or appliance of the aeronautical product that is physically and/or functionally changed.

3.9.2           Figure 3-33 of this GM illustrates concepts of physical and functional changes of an affected area. Appendix C of this GM contains a method used to define the change and areas affected by the change. This Appendix is meant to assist applicants when they propose large, complex changes. For each change, it is important for the applicant to properly assess the effects of such change on any areas, systems, parts or appliances of the product because areas that have not been physically changed may still be considered part of the affected area. If a new compliance finding is required, regardless of its amendment level, it is an affected area.

Figure 3-3. Affected Areas versus Not Affected Areas

The Aeronautical Product

3.9.3           An area not affected by a change can remain at the existing certification basis, provided that the applicant presents to EASA an acceptable justification that the area is not affected.

3.9.4           For sample questions to assist in determining affected areas, see paragraph D.1 of appendix D of this GM.

3.9.5           Consider the following aspects of a change: Physical aspects.

The physical aspects include direct changes to structures, systems, equipment, components, and appliances, and may include software/airborne electronic hardware changes and the resulting effects on systems functions.

3.9.5.1         Performance/functional characteristics.

The less obvious aspect of the word ‘areas’ covers general characteristics of the type-certified product, such as performance features, handling qualities, emergency egress, structural integrity (including load carrying), aeroelastic characteristics, or crashworthiness. A product-level change may affect these characteristics. For example, adding a fuselage plug could affect performance and handling qualities, and thus the certification specifications associated with these aspects would be considered to be part of the affected area. Another example is the addition of a fuel tank and a new fuel conditioning unit. This change affects the fuel transfer and fuel quantity indication system, resulting in the aircraft’s unchanged fuel tanks being affected. Thus, the entire fuel system (changed and unchanged areas) may become part of the affected area due to the change to functional characteristics. Another example is changing turbine engine ratings and operating limitations, affecting the engine rotors’ life limits.

3.9.6           All areas affected by the proposed change must comply with the latest certification specifications, unless the applicant shows that demonstrating compliance with the latest amendment of a certification specification would not contribute materially to the level of safety or would be impractical. Step 7 below provides further explanation.

3.9.7           The applicant should document the change and the area affected by the change using high-level descriptors along with the applicable certification specifications and their proposed associated amendment levels. The applicant proposes this change to the certification basis that EASA will consider for documentation in the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) or STC, if they are different from that recorded for the baseline product in the TCDS.

3.10.  Step 7. Do the latest standards contribute materially to the level of safety and are they practical?

Pursuant to point 21.A.101(a), compliance with the latest certification specifications is required. However, exceptions may be allowed pursuant to point 21.A.101(b)(3). The applicant must provide justification to support the rationale for the application of earlier amendments for areas affected by a significant change in order to document that compliance with later standards in these areas would not contribute materially to the level of safety or would be impractical. Such a justification should address all the aspects of the area, system, part or appliance affected by the significant change. See paragraphs 3.10.1 and 3.10.1.4 of this GM.

3.10.1         Do the latest standards contribute materially to the level of safety?

Applicants could consider compliance with the latest standards to ‘not contribute materially to the level of safety’ if the existing type design and/or relevant experience demonstrates a level of safety comparable to that provided by the latest standards. In cases where design features provide a level of safety greater than the existing certification basis, applicants may use acceptable data, such as service experience, to establish the effectiveness of those design features in mitigating the specific hazards by a later amendment. Applicants must provide sufficient justification to allow EASA to make this determination. An acceptable means of compliance is described in appendix E of this GM. Justification is sufficient when it provides a summary of the evaluation that supports the determination using an agreed evaluation method, such as that in appendix E of this GM. This exception could be applicable in the situations described in the paragraphs below.

Note: Compliance with later standards is not required where the amendment is of an administrative nature and made only to correct inconsequential errors or omissions, consolidate text, or to clarify an existing requirement.

3.10.1.1       Improved design features.

Design features that exceed the existing certification basis standards, but do not meet the latest certification specifications, can be used as a basis for granting an exception under point 21.A.101(b)(3) since complying with the latest amendment of the certification specifications would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the product. If EASA accepts these design features as justification for an exception, the applicant must incorporate them in the amended type design configuration and record them, where necessary, in the certification basis. The description of the design feature would be provided in the TCDS or STC at a level that allows the design feature to be maintained, but does not contain proprietary information. For example[24], an applicant proposes to install winglets on a Part 25 aeroplane, and part of the design involves adding a small number of new wing fuel tank fasteners. Assuming that the latest applicable amendment of § 25.981 is Amendment 25-102, which requires structural lightning protection, the applicant could propose an exception from these latest structural lightning protection requirements because the design change uses new wing fuel tank fasteners with cap seals installed. The cap seal is a design feature that exceeds the requirement of § 25.981 at a previous amendment level, but does not meet the latest Amendment 25-102. If the applicant can successfully substantiate that compliance with Amendment 25-102 would not materially increase the level of safety of the changed product, then this design feature can be accepted as an exception to compliance with the latest amendment.

3.10.1.2       Consistency of design.

This provision gives the opportunity to consider the consistency of design. For example, when a small fuselage plug is added, additional seats and overhead bins are likely to be installed, and the lower cargo hold extended. These components may be identical to the existing components. The level of safety may not materially increase by applying the latest certification specifications in the area of the fuselage plug. Compliance of the new areas with the existing certification basis may be acceptable.

3.10.1.3       Service experience.

3.10.1.3.1    Relevant service experience, such as experience based on fleet performance or utilisation over time (relevant flight hours or cycles), is one way of showing that the level of safety will not materially increase by applying the latest amendment, so the use of earlier certification specifications could be appropriate. Appendix F of this GM provides additional guidance on the use of service experience, along with examples.

3.10.1.3.2    When establishing the highest practicable level of safety for a changed product, EASA has determined that it is appropriate to assess the service history of a product, as well as the later airworthiness standards. It makes little sense to mandate changes to well-understood designs, whose service experience has been acceptable, merely to comply with new standards. The clear exception to this premise is if the new standards were issued to address a deficiency in the design in question, or if the service experience is not applicable to the new standards.

3.10.1.3.3    There may be cases for rotorcraft and small aeroplanes where relevant data may not be sufficient or not available at all because of the low utilisation and the insufficient amount and type of data available. In such cases, other service history information may provide sufficient data to justify the use of earlier certification specifications, such as: warranty, repair, and parts usage data; accident, incident, and service difficulty reports; service bulletins; airworthiness directives; or other pertinent and sufficient data collected by the manufacturers, authorities, or other entities.

3.10.1.3.4    EASA will determine whether the proposed service experience levels necessary to demonstrate the appropriate level of safety as they relate to the proposed design change are acceptable.

3.10.1.4       Secondary changes.

3.10.1.4.1    The change proposed by the applicant can consist of physical and/or functional changes to the product. See Figure 3-4 below. There may be aspects of the existing type design of the product that the applicant may not be proposing to change directly, but that are affected by the overall change. For example, changing an airframe’s structure, such as adding a cargo door in one location, may affect the frame or floor loading in another area. Further, upgrading engines with new performance capabilities could require additional demonstration of compliance for minimum control speeds and aeroplane performance certification specifications. For many years, EASA has required applicants to consider these effects, and this practice is unchanged under the procedures of point 21.A.101.

Figure 3-4. Change-Affected Areas with Secondary Changes

The Aeronautical Product

3.10.1.4.2    For each change, it is important that the effects of the change on other systems, components, equipment, or appliances of the product are properly identified and assessed. The intent is to encompass all aspects where there is a need for re-evaluation, that is, where the substantiation presented for the product being changed should be reviewed, updated, or rewritten.

3.10.1.4.3    In assessing the areas affected by the change, it may be helpful to identify secondary changes. A secondary change is a change to physical and/or functional aspects that is part of, but consequential to, a significant physical change, whose only purpose is to restore, and not add or increase, existing functionality or capacity. The term ‘consequential’ is intended to refer to:

—         a change that would not have been made by itself; it achieves no purpose on its own;

—         a change that has no effect on the existing functionality or capacity of areas, systems, structures, components, parts, or appliances affected by the change; or

—         a change that would not create the need for: (1) new limitations or would affect existing limitations; (2) a new aircraft flight manual (AFM) or instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) or a change to the AFM or ICA; or (3) special conditions, equivalent safety findings, or deviations.

3.10.1.4.4    A secondary change is not required to comply with the latest certification specifications because it is considered to be ‘not contributing materially to the level of safety’ and, therefore, eligible for an exception under point 21.A.101. Determining whether a change meets the description for a secondary change, and is thus eligible for an exception, should be straightforward. Hence, the substantiation or justification need only be minimal. If this determination is not straightforward, then the proposed change is not a secondary change.

3.10.1.4.5    In some cases, a secondary area of change that restores functionality may in fact contribute materially to the level of safety by meeting a later amendment. If this is the case, it is not considered a secondary change.

3.10.2         Are the latest specifications practical?

The intent of point 21.A.101 is to enhance safety by applying the latest certification specifications to the greatest extent practicable. The concepts of contributing materially and practicality are linked. If compliance with the latest certification specifications does contribute materially to the level of safety, then the applicant may assess the incremental costs to see whether they are commensurate with the increase in safety. The additional resource requirements could include those arising from changes required for compliance and the effort required to demonstrate compliance, but excluding resource expenditures for prior product changes. The cost of changing compliance documentation and/or drawings is not an acceptable reason for an exception.

3.10.2.1       Applicants should support their position that compliance is impractical with substantiating data and analyses. While evaluating that position and the substantiating data regarding impracticality, EASA may consider other factors (e.g. the costs and safety benefits for a comparable new design).

3.10.2.2       A review of large aeroplane projects showed that, in certain cases where EASA allowed an earlier amendment of applicable certification specifications, the applicants made changes that nearly complied with the latest amendments. In these cases, the applicants successfully demonstrated that full compliance would require a substantial increase in the outlay or expenditure of resources with a very small increase in the level of safety. These design features can be used as a basis for granting an exception under point 21.A.101(b)(3) on the basis of ‘impracticality.’

3.10.2.3       Appendix E of this GM provides additional guidance and examples for evaluating the impracticality of applying the latest certification specifications to a changed product for which compliance with the latest certification specifications would contribute materially to the level of safety of the product.

3.10.2.3.1    The exception of impracticality is a qualitative and quantitative cost–safety benefit assessment for which it is difficult to specify clear criteria. Experience to date with applicants has shown that a justification of impracticality is more feasible when both the applicant and EASA agree during a discussion at an early stage that the effort (in terms of cost, changes to manufacturing, etc.) required to comply would not be commensurate with a small incremental safety gain. This would be clear even without the need to perform any detailed cost–safety benefit analysis (although an applicant could always use cost analysis to support an appropriate amendment level). However, there should be enough detail in the applicant’s rationale to justify the exception.

Note: An applicant should not base an exception due to impracticality on the size of the applicant’s company or their financial resources. The applicant must evaluate the costs to comply with a later amendment against the safety benefit of complying with the later amendment.

3.10.2.3.2    For example, a complex redesign of an area of the baseline aircraft may be required to comply with a new requirement, and that redesign may affect the commonality of the changed product with respect to the design and manufacturing processes of the existing family of models. Relevant service experience of the existing fleet of the baseline aircraft family would be required to show that there has not been a history of problems associated with the hazard that the new amendment in question was meant to address. In this way, the incremental cost/impact to the applicant is onerous, and the incremental safety benefit realised by complying with the later amendment would be minimal. This would be justified by demonstrated acceptable service experience in relation to the hazard that the new rule addresses.

3.11.  Step 8. Ensure the proposed certification basis is adequate.

EASA considers a proposed certification basis for any change (whether it is significant or not significant) to be adequate when:

—    the certification standards provide an appropriate level of safety for the intended change, and

—    the change and the areas affected by the change do not result in unsafe design features or characteristics for the intended use.

3.11.1         For a change that contains new design features that are novel and unusual for which there are no later applicable certification specifications at a later amendment level, EASA will designate special conditions pursuant to point 21.B.75. EASA will impose later certification specifications that contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this feature, if they exist, in lieu of special conditions. An example is adding a flight-critical system, such as an electronic air data display on a CS-25 large aeroplane whose existing certification basis does not cover protection against lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). In this case, EASA will require compliance with the certification specifications for lightning and HIRF protection, even though EASA determined that the change is not significant.

3.11.2         For new design features or characteristics that may pose a potential unsafe condition for which there are no later applicable certification specifications, new special conditions may be required to address points 21.B.107(a)(3) or 21.B.111(a)(3).

3.11.3         In cases where inadequate or no standards exist for the change to the existing certification basis, but adequate standards exist in a later amendment of the applicable certification specifications, the later amendment will be made part of the certification basis to ensure the adequacy of the certification basis.

3.11.4         EASA determines the final certification basis for a product change. This may consist of a combination of those standards ranging from the existing certification basis of the baseline product to the latest amendments and special conditions.

4.      Excepted Products under point 21.A.101(c)

4.1.    Excepted products.

For excepted products as defined in paragraph 4.1.1 below, the starting point for regulatory analysis is the existing certification basis for the baseline product.

4.1.1           Point 21.A.101(c) provides an exception to the compliance with the latest certification specifications required by point 21.A.101(a) for aircraft (other than rotorcraft) of 2 722 kg (6 000 lb) or less maximum weight, or to a non-turbine rotorcraft of 1 361 kg (3 000 lb) or less maximum weight. In these cases, the applicant may elect to comply with the existing certification basis. However, the applicant has the option of applying later, appropriate certification specifications.

4.1.2           If EASA finds that the change is significant in an area, EASA may require the applicant to comply with a later certification specification and with any certification specification that EASA finds is directly related. Starting with the existing certification basis, EASA will progress through each later certification specification to determine the amendment appropriate for the change. However, if an applicant proposes, and EASA finds, that complying with the later amendment or certification specification would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the changed product or would be impractical, EASA may allow the applicant to comply with an earlier amendment appropriate for the proposed change. The amendment may not be earlier than the existing certification basis. For excepted products, changes that meet one or more of the following criteria, in the area of change, are automatically considered significant:

4.1.2.1         The general configuration or the principles of construction are not retained.

4.1.2.2         The assumptions used for certification of the area to be changed do not remain valid.

4.1.2.3         The change contains new features (not foreseen in the existing certification basis and for which appropriate later certification specifications exist). In this case, EASA will designate the applicable certification specifications, starting with the existing certification basis and progressing to the most appropriate later amendment level for the change.

4.1.2.4         The change contains a novel or unusual design feature. In this case, EASA will designate the applicable special conditions appropriate for the change, pursuant to point 21.A.101(d).

4.1.3           The exception for products under point 21.A.101(c) applies to the aircraft only. Changes to engines and propellers installed on these excepted aircraft are assessed as separate type-certified products using point 21.A.101(a) and (b).

5.      Other Considerations

5.1.    Design-related requirements from other aviation domains.

Some implementing rules in other aviation domains (air operations, ATM/ANS) (e.g. Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations or Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/640 on additional airworthiness specifications for a given type of operations (Annex I (Part‑26)) impose airworthiness standards that are not required for the issue of a TC or STC (e.g. CS-26, CS-ACNS, etc.). If not already included in the certification basis, any such applicable airworthiness standard may be added to the type certification basis by mutual agreement between the applicant and EASA. The benefit of adding these airworthiness standards to the type certification basis is to increase awareness of these standards, imposed by other implementing rules, during design certification and future modifications to the aircraft. The use of exceptions under point 21.A.101(b) is not intended to alleviate or preclude compliance with operating regulations.

5.2.    Reserved.

5.3.    Baseline product.

A baseline product consists of one unique type design configuration, an aeronautical product with a specific, defined, approved configuration and certification basis that the applicant proposes to change. As mentioned in paragraph 3.2.1 of this GM, it is important to clearly identify the type design configuration to be changed. EASA does not require an applicant to assign a new model name for a changed product. Therefore, there are vastly different changed products with the same aircraft model name, and there are changed products with minimal differences that have different model names. Since the assignment of a model name is based solely on an applicant’s business decision, the identification of the baseline product, for the purposes of point 21.A.101, is, as defined below.

The baseline product is an approved type design that exists at the date of application and is representative of:

—    a single certified build configuration, or

—    multiple approvals over time (including STC(s) or service bulletins) and may be representative of more than one product serial number.

Note: The type design configuration, for this purpose, could also be based on a proposed future configuration that is expected to be approved at a later date but prior to the proposed changed product.

5.4.    Predecessor standards.

The certification specifications in effect on the date of application for a change are those in CS-22, CS-23, CS-25, CS-27, CS-29, CS-CCD, CS-FCD, CS-MMEL, etc., issued by EASA after 2003. However, the type-certification basis of some ‘grandfathered’ products, i.e. those with a pre-EASA TC deemed to have been issued in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 (see Article 3), may consist of other standards issued by or recognised in the EU Member States. These standards may include Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) issued by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) or national regulations of an EU Member State (e.g. BCARs) or national regulations of a non-EU State of Design with which an EU Member State had concluded a bilateral airworthiness agreement (e.g. US FARs, CARs etc.). Consequently, when using one of the exception routes allowing electing to comply with earlier standards, the predecessor standards may be applicable. Such predecessor standards are not recognised under point 21.A.101(a), but may be allowed under point 21.A.101(b) or (c).When choosing the amendment level of a standard, all related standards associated with that amendment level would have to be included.

5.5.    Special conditions, point 21.A.101(d).

Point 21.A.101(d) allows for the application of special conditions, or for changes to existing special conditions, to address the changed designs where neither the proposed certification basis nor any later certification specifications provide adequate standards for an area, system, part or appliance related to the change. The objective is to achieve a level of safety consistent with that provided for other areas, systems, parts or appliances affected by the change by the other certification specifications of the proposed certification basis. The application of special conditions to a design change is not, in itself, a reason to classify it as either a substantial change or a significant change. Whether the change is significant, with earlier certification specifications allowed through exceptions, or not significant, the level of safety intended by the special conditions must be consistent with the agreed certification basis.

5.6.    Reserved.

5.7.    Reserved.

5.8.    Reserved.

5.9.    Documentation.

5.9.1           Documenting the proposal.

In order to efficiently determine and agree upon a certification basis with EASA, the following information is useful to understand the applicant’s position:

—    The current certification basis of the product being changed, including the amendment level.

—    The amendment level of all the applicable certification specifications at the date of application.

—    The proposed certification basis, including the amendment levels.

—    Description of the affected area.

—    Applicants who propose a certification basis that includes amendment levels earlier than what was in effect at the date of application should include the exception as outlined in point 21.A.101(b) and their justification if needed.

Please see appendix H for examples of optional tools an applicant can use to document your proposed certification basis.

5.9.2           Documenting the significant/not significant decision.

5.9.2.1         EASA determines whether the changes are significant or not significant, and this decision is documented in the Certification Review Item(s). However, EASA provides an optional decision record for the applicant to make a predetermination to facilitate EASA decision. This form is provided in appendix G of this GM and follows the flow chart in Figure 3-1 of this GM. If it is used, the applicant should submit it along with the certification plan.

5.9.2.2         Changes that are determined to be significant changes under point 21.A.101, the exceptions, and the agreement of affected and unaffected areas is typically documented through the Certification Review Item (CRI) A‑01 process. An example tool is provided in appendix H of this GM.

5.9.3           Documenting the certification basis.

5.9.3.1         EASA will amend the certification basis for all changes that result in a revision to the product’s certification basis on the amended TCDS or STC. In case of a significant change, EASA will document the resulting certification basis in CRI A‑01.

5.9.3.2         EASA will document the certification basis of each product model on all STCs, including approved model list STCs.

5.10.  Incorporation of STCs into the Type Design.

The incorporation of STCs into the product type design may generate an additional major change when that change is needed to account for incompatibility between several STCs that were initially not intended to be applied concurrently.

5.10.1         If the incorporation of the STC(s) does not generate an additional major change, the incorporation is not evaluated pursuant to point 21.A.101. The existing certification basis should be updated to include the later amendments of the STC(s) being incorporated.

5.10.2         If the incorporation of the STC(s) generates an additional major change, the change must be evaluated pursuant to point 21.A.101, and the existing certification basis should be updated to include the amendments resulting from the application of point 21.A.101.

5.11.  Removing changes.

Approved changes may be removed after incorporation in an aeronautical product. These changes will most commonly occur via an STC or a service bulletin kit.

5.11.1                   The applicant should identify a product change that they intend at its inception to be removable as such, and should develop instructions for its removal during the initial certification. EASA will document the certification basis for both the installed and removed configuration separately on the TCDS or STC.

5.11.2                   If specific removal instructions and a certification basis corresponding to the removed condition are not established at the time of the initial product change certification, the removal of changes or portions of those changes may constitute a significant change to type design. A separate STC or an amended TC may be required to remove the modifications and the resulting certification basis established for the changed product.

5.12.  The certification basis is part of the change.

A new change may be installed in a product during its production or via a service bulletin or STC. In terms of point 21.A.101, each of the approved changes has its own basis of certification. If an applicant chooses to remove an approved installation (e.g. an interior installation, avionics equipment) and install a new installation, a new certification basis may be required for the new installation, depending on whether the change associated with the new installation is considered significant compared to the baseline configuration that the applicant chooses. If the new installation is a not significant change, the unmodified product’s certification basis may be used (not the previous installation certification basis), provided the certification basis is adequate. For example, a large aeroplane is certified in a ‘green’ configuration. The aeroplane certification basis does not include CS 25.562. An interior is installed under an STC, and the applicant elects to include CS 25.562 (dynamic seats) in the certification basis to meet specific operational requirements. At a later date, the aeroplane is sold to another operator who does not have the same operational requirements. A new interior is installed; there will be no requirement for CS 25.562 to be included in the new certification basis.

5.13.  Sequential changes — cumulative effects.

5.13.1         Any applicant who intends to accomplish a product change by incorporating several changes in a sequential manner should identify this to EASA up front when the first application is made. In addition, the cumulative effects arising from the initial change, and from all of the follow-on changes, should be included as part of the description of the change in the initial proposal. The classification of the intended product change will not be evaluated solely on the basis of the first application, but rather on the basis of all the required changes needed to accomplish the intended product change. If EASA determines that the current application is a part of a sequence of related changes, then EASA will re-evaluate the determination of significance and the resulting certification basis as a group of related changes.

5.13.2         Example: Cumulative effects — advancing the certification basis.

The type certificate for aeroplane model X lists three models, namely X-300, X-200, and X-100. The X-300 is derived from the X-200, which is derived from the original X-100 model. An applicant proposes a change to the X-300 aeroplane model. During the review of the X-300 certification basis and the certification specifications affected by the proposed change, it was identified that one certification specification, CS 25.571 (damage tolerance requirements), remained at the same amendment level as the X-100 original certification basis (exception granted on the X-200). Since the amendment level for this particular certification specification was not changed for the two subsequent aeroplane models (X-200 and X-300), the applicant must now examine the cumulative effects of these two previous changes that are related to the proposed change and the damage tolerance requirements to determine whether the amendment level needs to advance.