Policy Letter (PL) No. 500-002 Issue 1
Establishing the Certification Basis of Changed Aeronautical Products - Interpretation and Policy
|File No.:||5009-32-0||PL No.:||500-002|
|RDIMS No.:||386318-V2||Issue No.:||01|
|Issuing Branch:||Aircraft Certification||Effective Date:||2003-06-10|
The purpose of this PL is to provide Transport Canada Civil Aviation's (TCCA) interpretation of, and policy for, establishing the certification basis for changed aeronautical products per the implementation of the Changed Product Rule (CPR) as published in Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapters 511 and 513. The policy presented here is a harmonized interpretation, agreed to by TCCA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).
This PL is applicable to Headquarters (HQ) and Regional Aircraft Certification personnel. It is also applicable to Aircraft Certification Delegates-Design Approval Representatives (DAR), Design Approval Organizations (DAO) or Airworthiness Engineering Organizations (AEO).
This PL does not have a terminating action. It will however, be reviewed periodically for suitability of content.
- Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part V, Airworthiness, Subpart 11-Approval of the Type Design of an Aeronautical Product;
- Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part V, Airworthiness, Subpart 13-Approval of Modification and Repair Designs;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 511-Approval of the Type Design of an Aeronautical Product;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 513-Approval of Modification and Repair Designs;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 516-Aircraft Emissions;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 522-Gliders and Powered Gliders;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 523-VLA-Very Light Aeroplanes;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 523-Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter Category Aeroplanes;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 525-Transport Category Aeroplanes;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 527-Normal Category Rotorcraft;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 529-Transport Category Rotorcraft;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 531-Manned Free Balloons;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 533-Aircraft Engines;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 535-Propellers;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 537-Aircraft Appliances and Other Aeronautical Products;
- Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 541-Airships;
- Airworthiness Manual Advisory (AMA) 500/16-Establishing the Certification Basis of Changed Aeronautical Products;
- Staff Instruction (SI) 500-003-Establishing the Certification Basis of Changed Aeronautical Products-Procedures;
- Staff Instruction (SI) 500-004-Special Conditions-Airworthiness (SCA);
- Transport Canada Technical Publication (TP) 12995-Delegations Handbook for Designated Engineers and Design Approval Representatives;
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 21-Certification Procedures for Products and Parts (FAR 21); and
- Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), Joint Aviation Requirements 21-Certification Procedures for Aircraft and Related Products and Parts (JAR 21).
There are no documents cancelled by this PL.
The amendments proposed as part of CPR are required to address the trend toward fewer aeronautical products that are of a completely new design, and more existing aeronautical products with multiple changes incorporated to previously approved designs. At present, the regulations of Canadian and other major regulatory authorities permit an aeronautical product type design holder to change the design of an aeronautical product without updating the design of the entire product to the standards in force at the time of the application for the change. The result is often a series of small changes to a design, which do not constitute an extensive change from the immediately preceding design. The cumulative effect of the series of changes, however, may result in a very different current version of the aeronautical product from the original type certificated version. As a result, many changed aeronautical products have not been required to demonstrate compliance with the latest airworthiness design standards. The changes to the Canadian regulations form part of an international agreement with the FAA and the JAA to harmonize procedures for aeronautical product design and certification to prevent the continuation of this situation.
CPR amends the procedural regulations in CAR Part V Subparts 11 and 13. With certain exceptions, the proposed revisions will introduce procedures requiring applicants for approval of proposed design changes to aeronautical products (excluding appliances), to incorporate the latest design standards to the greatest extent practical. The design standards themselves are not affected by this regulatory change. The process for determining the design standards to apply to a changed aeronautical product however, has changed. The intent of these proposed revisions is to reinforce the existing high level of Canadian aviation safety and to support the further enhancement of that level of safety. Ensuring that changes to Canadian aeronautical product designs are subject to scrutiny will provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the most recent design standards.
Section 2.0(c) of AMA 500/16 provides a table that identifies the correspondence between FAR 21, JAR 21, and the Canadian CARs regulatory numbering practices for CPR. This table allows a reader to determine corresponding requirements between each Authority's regulations.
In addition to this PL, TCCA has related documents that will assist in establishing the certification basis of changed aeronautical products:
- Staff Instruction (SI) 500-003 provides the process by which TCCA staff and delegates shall establish the certification basis for changed aeronautical products and identifies the required documentation and deliverables;
- AMA 500/16 provides an applicant with general information and explanatory material on how to establish the certification basis for changed aeronautical products. This document has been jointly developed with the FAA and the JAA to ensure that consistent international guidance material is available. However, this AMA should be used with the SI and this PL to ensure that all requirements and specific processes are understood.
Sections 4.1 through 4.11 of this PL present an agreed interpretation for establishing the certification basis of a changed aeronautical product. In the majority of cases, the interpretation presented applies equally to Chapters 511 and 513 of the CARs.
Relevant references are sections 511.14 and 513.14 of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.19.
The intent of evaluating extensive design changes has not been altered because of CPR. The revision to section 511.14 of the CARs has removed the design change examples that had been published 1st December 1998 to eliminate the legal presumption that such changes are automatically extensive. These design changes are now evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Care should be exercised to avoid a classification based entirely on previous cases without recognizing the merit of each proposed design change.
The newly introduced section 513.14 of the CARs introduces the same provisions for requiring a new type certificate as the revised section 511.14.
The Minister assesses the scope and nature of the proposed design change against the degree of investigation needed to establish compliance with the regulations. The Minister, based on these elements, makes the final decision on the requirement for a new Type Certificate. If the proposed design change is:
- Extensive, an application under section 511.05 of the CARs for a new type certificate will be required; or
- Not extensive, the requirements of sections 511.13 or 513.07 of the CARs are applied.
Relevant references are subsections 511.13(1) and 513.07(1), and paragraph 513.07(9)(b) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(a)
As used in section 511.13 and 513.07 of the CARs, a "change to a type design" refers to:
- Major changes in type design per subsection 511.12(1) of the CARs. Minor changes approved per subsection 511.12(2) of the CARs are not affected by this rule;
- A change in the approved type design that results in the issuance of an amended type certificate, a supplemental type certificate (STC) or Limited STC (LSTC), or an amended STC (where formal applications are filed); or
- A change in the approved type design, accomplished under a system agreed to by the Minister, that does not necessarily result in the type certificate or supplemental type certificate being reissued or amended (e.g. type certificate holder production line changes).
As used in subsection 511.12(1) of the CARs and Information Note (i) of subsection 511.13(1) of the AWM, and in section (a) above, the interpretation of "major" that applies is that of "major modification" as provided by section 101.01 of the CARs. Major modification means an alteration to the type design of an aeronautical product in respect of which a type certificate has been issued that has other than a negligible effect on the weight and center-of-gravity limits, structural strength, performance, power plant operation, flight characteristics or other qualities affecting its airworthiness or environmental characteristics.
Subsections 511.13(1) and 513.07(1) of the CARs do not make the distinction between significant and not-significant changes. The default approach for all major changes is to comply with the latest requirements, unless the exceptions of subsections 511.13(3) to 511.13(6), or 513.07(3) to 513.07(6) are shown to apply.
The airworthiness requirements referred to as "in force on the date of the application", are the standards of Chapters 511, 513, 522, 523, 523-VLA, 525, 527, 529, 531, 533, 535 and 541 of the AWM. Predecessor regulations such as the FAA Civil Air Regulations and the FAA Civil Aeronautics Manuals, or FAA Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) are not recognized under subsections 511.13(1) or 513.07(1) of the CARs, but may be allowed under subsections 511.13(3) to 511.13(6), or 513.07(3) to 513.07(6). Section 4.11 of this PL provides information on the standards of airworthiness that are applicable to the issuance of a repair design approval in respect of an aeronautical product or a change to a type certified aircraft appliance.
Paragraph 513.07(9)(b) of the CARs allows use of standards of airworthiness that will provide a level of safety equivalent to the level provided by the standards of subsection 513.07(1). This paragraph allows an applicant to specify a certification basis using standards of airworthiness other than those of Part V of the CARs, for those cases where TCCA has not certified or approved that aeronautical product. Use of this paragraph requires a bilateral airworthiness agreement or similar arrangement and it must be approved by TCCA prior to its use.
A design change to an engine or propeller that is made at the type certificate level of these aeronautical products is processed independently of the aircraft. However, the effect of such design change on the engine or propeller should also be assessed at the aircraft level, and a separate classification may need to be established. A significant change at the engine or propeller level may not necessarily be significant at the aircraft level. In this case a dual certification activity will be required: one for the engine or propeller, and the other for the aircraft.
Relevant references are subsections 511.13(3), 511.13(5), 511.13(9), 513.07(3), 513.07(5) and paragraph 513.07(9)(a) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(b)(1).
Establishment of the certification basis for a changed product is the responsibility of the Minister, as identified in subsections 511.13(3) and 513.07(3) of the CARs. It is the applicant's burden to justify that they may demonstrate compliance with earlier, instead of the latest, requirements. In the case of a not-significant design change, per subsections 511.13(3) and 513.07(3), the regulations allow continued compliance with the existing certification basis without further approval by the Minister, except in the following cases:
- Where a design change is considered novel or unusual for the proposed or existing certification basis, and where the issuance of Special Conditions per subsections 511.13(7) or 513.07(7) of the CARs is warranted;
- Where it is deemed that the existing certification basis is not adequate and the applicant did not volunteer to include a later amendment of a standard of airworthiness to make the certification basis appropriate for the design change. This situation reverts to the normal negotiation process with the applicant; or
- Where the applicant elects to comply with later amendments to the existing certification basis under subsection 511.13(9) or paragraph 513.07(9)(a) of the CARs. The purpose of consulting the Minister is to ensure that the applicant also complies with any other regulations directly related or relevant to the selected later amendments (i.e. the applicant does not pick and choose without a full understanding of inter-related regulations).
AMA 500/16 presents examples of design changes for which the Minister has pre-determined a classification of significant or not-significant. Applicants may use these examples as a threshold for assessing the classification of their proposed design change. Applicants should consult with TCCA those proposed design changes that do not correspond with any of the examples in Appendix A, so that the Minister may make a determination. The burden of substantiating that a design change is not-significant rests with the applicant; the Minister makes the final determination on the design change classification.
If the Minister determines that a change to an aeronautical product is not-significant and, therefore an applicant may comply with an earlier amendment of a standard required under subsections 511.13(1) or 513.07(1) of the CARs, those standards may not precede:
- A standard that is recorded in the type certificate data sheet; or
- An applicable standard specified in the special retroactive requirements in sections 523.2, 525.2, 527.2 or 529.2 of the AWM.
Relevant references are paragraphs 511.13(3)(a), 511.13(3)(b), 513.07(3)(a) and 513.07(3)(b) of the CARs, FAR/JAR 21.101(b)(1)(i) and 21.101(b)(1)(ii).
The "automatic" criteria for determining if a proposed design change is significant are defined by paragraphs 511.13(3)(a) and (b), and 513.07(3)(a) and (b) of the CARs, and are evaluated at the overall product level. A product level change is defined as a change or combination of changes that makes the product distinct from other models of the product (e.g. range, payload, or speed). Product level change is defined at the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller level. The cumulative effect of these changes could result in a product significantly or substantially different from the original product or model, when considered from the last time the latest regulations were applied. A design change to an area, system, component, equipment, or appliance could be considered a significant change if it affects the product as described below.
A significant change is a product level change to the type design, to the extent that it affects one or more of the following three criteria, but not to the extent of being considered a substantial change:
- General configuration or general characteristic changes that are likely to require a new model designation to distinguish the changed product from other products;
- Principles of construction changes in the materials and/or construction methods which affect the overall product's operating characteristics or inherent strength and are likely to require extensive re-investigation to show compliance; or
- Assumptions used for the certification criteria associated with product development, compliance demonstration, performance or operating envelope, which by themselves are so different that the original assumptions are invalidated and the existing substantiation cannot be extrapolated to cover the changed product:
- Design assumptions are made during the development of the type certified product and include such criteria as passenger capacity, maximum operating altitude, aircraft configuration, flight loads, expected life limits and environmental operating range, such as flight into known icing, HIRF, etc.
- Engineering assumptions include such things as wing loading, structural load paths, structural strength and stiffness, basic type of propulsion methods, and the principles or philosophy of the operation of systems. Changes to these require an examination of whether the extent of the changes has invalidated the certification assumptions. Where the physics, kinematics, or other scientific principles involved in the change are different from the original product, the assumptions may not remain valid if they cannot be analyzed by extrapolation of the original product's data.
The three criteria must be considered in every design change. However, previous relevant design changes to that product and revisions to the applicable regulations must also be reviewed. An amendment to the standards (i.e. the AWM) by itself cannot drive a not-significant change to become a significant change.
It is the applicant's burden to substantiate that a proposed design change is not-significant.
Subsections 511.13(3) and 513.07(3) of the CARs allow an applicant to comply with earlier regulations for a design change that the Minister determines to be "not-significant". While the rule stipulates that the Minister makes the determination of significant, an applicant may be allowed to do this on behalf of the Minister, provided the applicant:
- Is an appropriately authorized delegate for this purpose; and
- Uses a classification system for determination of significant, or not-significant, which is specifically approved by the Minister as part of their Design Approval Procedures Manual (DAPM) or Engineering Procedures Manual (EPM).
The Minister will make the classification for applicants who are not authorized delegates or are unsure how a proposed design change should be classified.
Relevant references are paragraphs 511.13(4)(a) and 513.07(4)(a) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(b)(2).
The burden of substantiating that areas, systems, components, equipment, or appliances are not affected by the design change is with the applicant. The Minister makes the final decision.
To determine the affected areas there will normally be a review of the proposed certification basis and certification plan. The certification plan must provide a detailed description of the change. Once the change is understood the proposed certification basis can be reviewed to determine, regulation-by-regulation, which ones are applicable. The regulations and areas that are not identified in the proposed certification basis and certification plan are considered not-affected.
Relevant references are paragraphs 511.13(4)(b) and 513.07(4)(b) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(b)(3).
In this case, the change has been classified as significant and compliance with the latest standards is required. However, compliance with an earlier amendment of a standard may be allowed, if the applicant can substantiate that compliance with the latest standards would not contribute materially to the level of safety. Only after the change has been evaluated and found to contribute materially, may the applicant determine if it would be practical. Unlike the "automatic" criteria of paragraphs 511.13(3)(a) and (b), and 513.07(3)(a) and (b) of the CARs, which are applied at the product level, this exception is applied on a regulation-by-regulation basis.
The burden of showing that the change does not contribute materially to the level of safety, or that it would not be practical, remains with the applicant. However, the final decision rests with the Minister.
Appendix B of AMA 500/16 provides a generally accepted procedure for evaluating the practicality of applying the latest standards to a changed product. The applicant may present other methods to the Minister to determine their acceptability.
Relevant references are subsections 511.13(6) and 513.07(6) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(c).
The wording used in subsections 511.13(6) and 513.07(6) of the CARs makes the assumption that for excepted products-which are products consisting of aircraft other than a rotorcraft, of a maximum weight of 2,720 kg (6,000 lbs) or less, or of a non-turbine rotorcraft of a maximum weight of 1,360 kg (3,000 lbs) or less-the design change will be not-significant. This means that these excepted products may continue to comply with the certification basis defined in the type certificate data sheet without prior approval of the Minister. Exceptions to this are in the following cases:
- Where a design change is considered novel or unusual for the proposed or existing certification basis, and where the issuance of Special Conditions per subsections 511.13(7) or 513.07(7) of the CARs is warranted;
- Where it is deemed that the existing certification basis is not adequate and the applicant did not volunteer to include a later amendment of a standard of airworthiness to make the certification basis appropriate for the design change. This situation reverts to the normal negotiation process with the applicant;
- Where the applicant elects to comply with later amendments to the existing certification basis under subsection 511.13(9) or paragraph 513.07(9)(a) of the CARs. The purpose of consulting the Minister is to ensure that the applicant also complies with any other regulations directly related or relevant to the selected later amendments (i.e. the applicant does not pick and choose without a full understanding of inter-related regulations); or
- Where the Minister determines that the design change is significant.
Where the Minister determines that the change is a significant design change, the Minister will designate the applicable airworthiness requirements at the appropriate amendment level, starting with the existing certification basis and progressing to a later amendment that is considered appropriate for the proposed design change. The applicant may provide the Minister with substantiation, in a manner similar to paragraphs 511.13(4)(b) and 513.07(4)(b) of the CARs, if the applicant determines that compliance with such designated amendments to the existing certification basis would not contribute materially to the level of safety or would not be practical. The final decision on the certification basis rests with the Minister.
Engines and propellers installed on excepted products are not excepted under subsection 511.13(6) and 513.07(6) of the CARs. Design changes to engines and propellers installed on the excepted aircraft are assessed as separate products using subsections 511.13(1) and 511.13(3) to (5), or 513.07(1) and 513.07(3) to (5) of the CARs. A design change on an engine or propeller at the type certificate level can be processed independently of the aircraft. However, the effect of such design change on the engine or propeller should also be assessed at the aircraft level, and a separate classification may need to be established. A significant change at the engine or propeller level may not necessarily be significant at the aircraft level. In this case a dual certification activity will be required: one for the engine or propeller, and the other for the aircraft.
The exception under subsections 511.13(6) and 513.07(6) of the CARs for excepted aircraft may also be applied to the following aeronautical products, if they comply with the defined maximum weight threshold:
- Manned free balloons under Chapter 531 of the AWM;
- Very Light Aeroplanes under Chapter 523-VLA of the AWM;
- Gliders and Power Gliders under Chapter 522 of the AWM; and
- Airships under Chapter 541 of the AWM.
Relevant references are subsections 511.13(7) and 513.07(7) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(d).
As defined in SI 500-004, the intent and means of applying Special Conditions has not changed. Special Conditions still address novel and unusual design features that are not considered by the existing or proposed regulations, or where the existing regulations are inadequate. Special Conditions can be applied to both significant and not-significant design changes.
Special Conditions are not to be issued for general upgrading of the applicable airworthiness standards to achieve a higher level of safety than that of the existing or proposed certification basis. The need for a higher level of safety in all type designs is to be achieved through the rulemaking process (i.e. through retroactive rules, operating rules, or airworthiness directives).
If the existing or proposed certification basis does not contain a standard to address the proposed design change, TCCA may issue a Special Condition to address the missing standards. The Special Condition can direct compliance with a later standard that achieves a level of safety equivalent to that established by the agreed standards in the certification basis (existing, later or latest requirements).
If TCCA deems that a higher level of safety is warranted and the applicant refuses to comply with later standards that can provide the desired level of safety, TCCA can refuse to issue a certificate on the grounds of public interest under Section 6.71 of the Aeronautics Act, which is invoked by subsections 511.12(4) and 513.11(1) or (2) of the CARs. Public interest is served by TCCA exercising judgement that a proposed design change may have an unsafe feature or condition when certified and installed to earlier airworthiness standards (a proven matter of safety).
Relevant references are sections 511.06 and 513.06, and subsections 511.13(10) and 513.07(10) of the CARs, and FAR/JAR 21.101(e).
The effective period of an application for a type certificate, as defined by subsection 511.06(1) of the CARs has not changed. The provisions for extension of the effective period as defined in subsection 511.06(2) has not changed, though subsection 511.13(10) has been added for clarification.
The effective period of an application for, or a change to, an STC or an LSTC has changed. The CARs now specify an effective period for these applications that is the same as an application for a type certificate. Subsection 513.06(1) introduces effective periods while subsections 513.06(2) and 513.07(10) introduce provisions for the extension of effective periods.
Relevant references are section 513.08 and subsections 511.13(8), 513.07(8) and 513.07(11) of the CARs, and FAR 21.101(f).
An applicant may propose a certification basis. The burden is on the Minister however, to develop the certification basis for changes to restricted category and military surplus aircraft, including the engines and propellers installed on these aircraft. The airworthiness standards for design changes are those standards that the Minister finds appropriate for that category of aircraft.
- For aircraft whose certification basis are predecessor regulations, the applicable standards will now be those that are "in force on the date of application", which in this case is not the latest amendments to the standards but rather is referring to the physical regulatory documents which exist today (i.e. Chapters 523, 525, 527, 529, 531, 533 and 535 of the CARs).
- Aeronautical products identified in subsections 511.13(8) and 513.07(8) of the CARs that would qualify under the maximum weight threshold of excepted aircraft are to be treated under subsections 511.13(8) and 513.07(8), and not as an excepted aircraft.
The main consideration when establishing the applicable airworthiness requirements for a proposed design change should be the intended role of a restricted category aircraft. Restricted category aircraft perform aerial work that is considered special purpose operations and therefore are certified to a level of safety that is appropriate for the intended role or function of the aircraft. It is recognized that certain airworthiness standards applied on a non-restricted aircraft may be deemed unnecessary or prohibitive relative to the intended role of the aircraft. In addition, most restricted category aircraft will have operational limitations on their flight authority during operation, such as no flights over populated areas or day time Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flights only, as another means of ensuring public safety.
The airworthiness standards applicable to a design change on a restricted category aircraft should be the latest amendments that bring practical safety benefits for the intended role of the aircraft. As such, continued compliance with the existing certification basis may be allowed.
Relevant references are subsections 511.13(2) and 513.07(2) of the CARs.
Under the FAA and JAA implementation, CPR does not apply to aeronautical products approved using a Technical Standard Order (TSO). Therefore, TCCA has excluded appliance type certificates for a harmonized implementation. The applicable standards of airworthiness for the issuance of a change to an aircraft appliance are those recorded in the appliance type certificate and any prescribed special conditions.
The applicable standards of airworthiness for the issuance of a repair design approval in respect of an aeronautical product, are those standards recorded in the type certificate data sheet and any prescribed special conditions.
While not explicitly stated in the regulations, CPR is not applicable to replacement parts that are approved under an FAA Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) or a TCCA issued Part Design Approval (PDA). For these approvals, the certification basis shall be that of the type certificated part that is being replaced.
A delegate may, subject to meeting the specified conditions in 5.2 and 5.3 below, determine if a change to an aeronautical product is:
- Not-significant, using the criteria of subsections 511.13(3) or 513.07(3) of the CARs and the examples in Appendix A of AMA 500/16 as guidance:
- Using the provisions of sections 511.13 or 513.07 of the CARs, the basis of certification will be the existing regulations that are recorded in the aeronautical product's type certificate data sheet and any standards that the delegate elects to comply with per subsection 511.13(9) or paragraph 513.07(9)(a). If the existing certification basis is found to be inadequate for a particular change, the delegate must contact TCCA to make the certification basis finding; and
- TCCA may accept the delegate's determination that the change is not-significant without further evaluation and rely on the approved delegation system and TCCA's oversight of that system to monitor and validate decisions made by the delegate.
- Significant, using the criteria of paragraphs 511.13(6)(a) or 513.07(6)(a) of the CARs and the examples in Appendix A of AMA 500/16 as guidance:
- Using the provisions of sections 511.13 or 513.07 of the CARs, discussion with TCCA will be required, regardless if the project is fully delegated or not, to determine the certification basis for the change. In accordance with subsection 511.05(2) and 513.04(1) of the AWM, the delegate may submit proposed applicable standards as part of their application; however, TCCA will make the final determination of the certification basis.
- TCCA may accept the delegate's determination that the change is significant without further discussion or evaluation, for those cases where the delegate elects to comply with the latest standards without exception, and rely on the approved delegation system and TCCA's oversight of that system to monitor and validate decisions made by the delegate.
While this privilege is exercised on behalf of the Minister, no change is required to a delegate's letter of authorization. However the privilege shall be documented in the delegate's EPM or DAPM as required in section 5.3 below. Delegates may exercise this privilege when TCCA receives an acknowledgement letter that confirms that the delegate will follow the procedures specified in the Delegations Handbook until their EPM or DAPM is submitted and approved.
To enable the privilege to make a determination that a change to an aeronautical product is either significant or not-significant:
- DARs shall complete either the TCCA offered CPR specialist training, or other training that is acceptable to TCCA;
- Personnel within an AEO or a DAO who will be exercising this privilege shall complete the TCCA offered CPR specialist training or other training that is acceptable to TCCA;
- Delegates who have not completed the requisite CPR training per (a) or (b) may only make a recommendation to TCCA that a change to an aeronautical product is significant or not-significant. The delegate shall contact TCCA before the initiation of all delegated and non-delegated projects (i.e. before or at the time of formal application), so that TCCA may make this determination. This contact may not be required if the delegate agrees, and it is documented in their approved DAPM or EPM, that they will apply the latest amendments without exception to all projects; and
- Other individuals within an AEO or a DAO who are not delegates but may have a non-technical role in the documenting of the determination (such as a non-delegated Airworthiness Manager or the Chair of an Airworthiness Control Committee), should as a minimum complete the TCCA Managers Awareness training.
The delegate must document within their approved DAPM or EPM the classification system and procedures that they will use to make a determination of significant or non-significant. As a minimum this shall include:
- A description of the privilege in the authorized function section of the manual;
- A description of how the delegate will apply the classification system and use the examples of Appendix A of AMA 500/16 to make a determination of significant or not-significant. This should address the interaction with TCCA when the examples of Appendix A are not adequate to make a determination. The procedures should account for those cases where a determination of significant is made and it is the delegate's intent to apply the latest amendments without exception;
- A description of the procedures that the delegate will use to implement the requirements of sections 511.13 and 513.07 of the CARs in making this determination, including the role and activities that the delegate will undertake and how the required interaction with TCCA will be achieved;
- A description of the CPR decision record that the delegate will use to document the significant or not-significant determination; and
- For projects involving multiple delegates, consisting of different delegation specialties, or for joint TCCA and delegate projects, the determination of significant or not-significant should be unanimous. Otherwise, an issue paper process shall be used to document how the final determination was realized.
TCCA has established a national standardization team that is managed by the Policies and Procedures section of the Regulatory Standards Division (AARDH/P) in Headquarters. The national standardization team will serve as a resource if difficulties are encountered when establishing a certification basis for a changed product. They will also periodically review decisions made to ensure national consistency.
- The initial point of contact for applicants will be their regional Aircraft Certification office or their Project Manager (AARDE) in Headquarters.
- Aircraft Certification personnel will contact the national standardization team.
The national standardization team will make the determination using the corporate knowledge of its members and the recommendation of the Aircraft Certification personnel who made the request. Questions on the Changed Product Rule that relate to process, interpretation, documentation, implementation, training or related resource issue should be directed to the national standardization team.
The national standardization team may be contacted by email at TCCA-CPR@tc.gc.ca or by mail to:
Manager, Policies and Procedures
Aircraft Certification, Regulatory Standards
Place de Ville, Tower C (AARDH/P)
330 Sparks Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8
The responsible officer indicated below may be contacted for information regarding this PL:
Policy Standards Coordinator (AARDH/P)
Phone: (613) 990-3923
Facsimile: (613) 996-9178
Original signed by Maher Khouzam
Chief, Regulatory Standards
Aircraft Certification Branch
- Date modified: