Validation methodology
How the applicability answer is reached — and where it stops.
You sign for the determination, so you are entitled to inspect how it was produced. This page sets out the sources, the decision chain, the known limits, and the point at which engineering judgement takes over.
What we work from
Directives issued by EASA, the FAA, TCCA, and ANAC, held with the authority's own reference and source link, plus the cross-authority comply-once relationships between them. Coverage as of 1 September 2026:
- 18,499
- EASA directives
- 27,632
- FAA directives
- 17,726
- EASA ↔ FAA comply-once links
The decision chain
Each step is recorded, so any single determination can be reconstructed later — which is what an auditor asks for.
1 · Authority record
Every directive is taken from the issuing authority's own publication — EASA, FAA, TCCA, ANAC — and kept with its source reference and the date it was last synchronised. We do not retype or paraphrase the requirement.
2 · Aircraft identity
A registration is resolved to type, TCDS reference, and serial/MSN from the national registry where we have ingested one. Where we have not, the same details are entered directly from your records.
3 · Configuration state
Applicability usually turns on configuration, not type alone: engine and propeller variant, serial ranges, embodied modifications and STCs. This state comes from your records — it is the input we cannot source from a public register.
4 · Applicability match
Each directive's effectivity is evaluated against that aircraft's actual state, producing an applies / does-not-apply outcome with the reason recorded on both sides. Exclusions are kept, not discarded — the reason an AD does not apply is audit evidence too.
5 · Cross-authority deduplication
Where an EASA and an FAA directive address the same unsafe condition, the comply-once relationship is linked so the same action is not tracked twice under two references.
6 · Engineer confirmation
The result is a proposal for review. A qualified person confirms each determination and signs it off. Nothing closes itself.
Known limitations
Stated plainly, because a method you cannot audit is not evidence.
Registry coverage is not universal
Automatic tail-number resolution depends on the national registries we have ingested, and that list is still growing. Outside them, aircraft details are entered directly — the applicability result is the same, the lookup step is manual.
Configuration is only as good as your records
If an embodied modification or STC is not reflected in the data you hold, it cannot be reflected in the determination. Serial-range and mod-dependent directives are the most sensitive to this.
Authority publication lag
Directives are as current as the last synchronisation, and every figure and record on this site carries its own date. A directive issued after that date is not yet in the picture.
Ambiguous effectivity requires judgement
Some effectivity statements cannot be resolved mechanically — they depend on inspection findings, operator-specific approvals, or an interpretation of intent. These are surfaced for an engineer to decide, not guessed.
Non-AD requirements are out of scope
This engine covers airworthiness directives. Service bulletins, maintenance-programme tasks, and operator-specific requirements are not applicability-matched here.
Where a qualified engineer must confirm
Aviagent proposes; your engineers confirm — no automated closures, ever.
Applicability decisions, compliance-method selection, and sign-off remain with your qualified personnel. That is not only how the product is built — under EASA Part-CAMO it is how the responsibility is required to sit. Aviagent is the documentation and evidence layer above your CAMO operation: it collects the sources, links the relationships, and keeps the trail defensible. The judgement stays with your team.