Module 5: DOA APPLICANT

Item # Topic

Has the applicant familiarised themselves with the content of the corresponding
Item 1 information paper?
Is there any need for a pre-application meeting?

Has the information paper been discussed and disseminated across the
Item 2
organisation?

Has the applicant defined an activity plan to estimate its own milestones and
Item 3
deliverables for the DOA Investigation?
General

Has the applicant identified the strategy to support the achievement of the various
Item 4
milestones of the Initial Investigation Process?

Item 5 Has the applicant provided a detailed description of facilities, means and tools?

Does the core project team possess the essential knowledge and experience to
Item 6
setup a Design Assurance System?

Item 7 Has the applicant defined its Organisational chart?

tion and DOA Staff
Organisation and DOA Staff

Has the necessary experience, training, qualifications requirements been defined

Item 8
for the Key Staff and other (internal and external) DOA staff?

Is the DOA staff in sufficient number and experience to perform design activities
Item 9
within the intended scope of work?

Has the applicant identified the expected Terms of Approval and corresponding
Item 10
Limitations?
Terms of Approval

Does the level of expectation seem realistic, or instead optimistic, when you
Item 11
consider the intended scope versus available resources and desired timeline?

In obtaining the intended scope during initial DO Approval, will pilot projects be
Item 12
available as evidence of needed competence and process readiness?
 Has the applicant defined the structure of the Handbook and its table of contents?
Item 13
And personnel involved in the drafting process?

Has the applicant defined the PART 21 requirements consistently with the expected
Item 14
Terms of Approval?
Handbook

Which validations means have been defined by the applicant for the Handbook?
Item 15
(e.g. peer review, independent review, simulation…)?
APPLICANT READINESS CHECKLIST

Guidance

The applicant shall review and understand the content of the information paper in order to
complete this checklist at the expected level of quality.
In case further clarification is needed, the applicant may seek for a pre-application meeting by
sending an email to the address doa@easa.europa.eu. The applicant should anticipate the specific
points for which supported is requested. Pre-application meetings are not meant to illustrate the
whole content of the information paper.

DOA Staff (especially personnel involved in the DOA investigation process) should be made aware of
the content of the information paper, as the process does require a collaborative effort/leadership
from the organisation. Minutes of Meetings could be used as an evidence.
Organisation Top management should be made aware of such (financial and manpower) effort and
provide a commitment statement.

The applicant shall define a high-level planning encompassing the various milestones (Check Points)
of the initial investigation (further details may be needed if certification exercises are running in
parallel.

The applicant shall define the set of actions to support fulfillement of the various Check Points. E.g.
selection/appointement of personnel, validation means for the Handbook, internal audit plan,
assessment of suppliers….This implementation planning shall also foresee the lead time necessary
to setup specific tooling, namely IT or communication tools, on which the organization will depend
on to establish and operate its processes.

The applicant should provide a detailed description of the means and tools needed by the staff to
support the design work, e.g. sofware, mock ups, production facilities, office facilities,
documentation archiving…

The applicant shall acknowledge the importance of theoretical knowledge and professional
experience from the 'core' project team, who will be responsible for developing the Design
Assurance System (DAS). Previous experience in setting up and/or maintaining a DAS will help them
to avoid the pitfalls of a DOA initial investigation. Experience in the description of processes in the
handbook, the implementation of these processes using forms and tools, the selection and training
of nominees, among others, is therefore advisable.

The applicant shall document the organisation chart of the company and of the DOA. Key staff shall
be identified, especially Form 4 holders, CVEs and other personnel making decision affecting
airworthiness.
The Head of Design Organisation shall be vested with the necessary authority, derived from his/her
position or confirmed by company top management, to allow him/her to provide the necessary
resources and commit the company in necessary activities. This may include budget for staffing,
consulting, training or other necessary resources, activities or management decisions.
Cooperation with suppliers shall be also anticipated along with criteria for their selection .
(see Module 3 PART 2 and PART 3)
The applicant shall document experience, training and qualification requirements.
These requirements shall be in place for all DOA staff and calibrated on:
1) scope of work;
2) role and level responsibilities.
The applicant shall start drafting a process aiming at verifying how any candidate fulfills the
requirements designed for the specific post.

The applicant shall demonstrate fulfilment of this item by putting in place a system to correlate
projects estimated hours vs capacity and planned activities.
The overall DOA staff number is also to be provided and calculated by using the filling instruction of
EASA Form 80.
There should be an assurance from company management that the necessary human resources will
be available, as planned, up until and beyond obtaining the DO Approval.

The applicant shall make use of the DOA scope of work tool for translating the actual business
needs in Design activities, scopes, areas,technical disciplines and limitations&privileges.

DOA staff (Design Engineers, CVEs,...) authorisation/field of competence shall be linked to the
technical disciplines. This connection shall be documented.

The applicant must have a reasonable level of expectation regarding the timeline and deadline for
obtaining the DO Approval, and thereafter regarding the usage of the DOA privileges on
certification projects. This should not be affected by business pressure in a way that would
negatively influence the consistent build-up of an effective, efficient and ever-compliant Design
Assurance System. There may be room for considering a 'stepped approach' in obtaining the DOA
scope, e.g. starting with a reduced scope to enable the company to develop the first intended
projects and thereafter extending this scope as new projects happen.

The opportunity of actual or dummy certification projects to be used as demonstrators (pilots) of the
capability and readiness of the organization, namely projects which can show the competence in
technical domains to be included in the DOA Terms of Approval, may be helpful to obtain positive
feedback from EASA PCMs and subject matter Experts. This may also facilitate the competence
assessment interviews of nominated CVEs.
The applicant shall describe the structure of the Handbook and provide its table of contents.
In addition, personnel involved in the drafting process of the Handbook should be clearly identified
and experience in the allocated process proven to the Agency. The content of the Handbook must
cover the applicable Part 21 requirements as mentioned in next item.

The applicant shall provide the PART 21 CCL, filtered on the expected design activities. The oucome
of the process will enable the identification of the set of requirements to be addressed by the
Handbook.

The applicant shall describe the strategy for the validation of the Handbook to ensure a mature
draft is proposed to the Agency for review. All deliverables shall be accepted by the person
responsible for the content of the Handbook, usually the Head of Airworthiness Office, and reviewed
internally so as to ensure that Handbook, procedures and forms are:
- Accurate in their description of the process steps and include the necessary explanations;
- Identify the roles involved in their execution and possible contributors (“who does what”);
- Implementable via the forms and tools that the organization has in place or will develop;
- Worded in such a way that both the reviewers in the Agency as well as the working staff will
comprehend;
- As possible, submitted in a process approach, i.e. procedure and its supporting forms submitted
together;
- Controlled in their sequential draft versions to avoid overlooking comments provided by the
Agency and content already reviewed.
 Version 01

Applicant answer