We're building an AI copilot that navigates the full FAA and EASA regulatory corpus—so certification teams can focus on engineering judgment, not document archaeology.
Workspace
Recent
We're showing 25.571 compliance via similarity to the 737 DT analysis. The new wing skin uses Al 7475-T7351 instead of 2024-T3. What MMPDS data do I need and which ACs cover the methodology delta?
For the material substitution from 2024-T3 to 7475-T7351, you need:
MMPDS Data Required
MMPDS-17 Table 9.3.6.2 for 7475-T7351 plate da/dN curves, and Table 9.3.6.4 for fracture toughness KIC values at the relevant thickness.
Applicable Advisory Circulars
AC 25.571-1D §6.2 covers the similarity methodology. For the material change specifically, AC 20-107B §7 addresses composite-to-metal substitution substantiation.
Regulatory Knowledge Engine
Certifly will ingest the entire regulatory corpus—14 CFR Parts 21/23/25, EASA CS-23/CS-25, Advisory Circulars, Special Conditions, and ASTM F44 standards—and map the relationships between them.
Ask about FAR 25.571, and the system surfaces AC 25.571-1D, the relevant ASTM crack growth standards, and MMPDS material data. It won't just search—it will trace the regulatory chain.
FAR 25.571
Damage Tolerance & Fatigue
AC 25.571-1D
Advisory Circular
CS 25.571
EASA Equivalent
AC 20-107B
Composite Structures
ASTM E647
Crack Growth Testing
MMPDS-17
Material Properties
SC 25-529
Special Condition
Cross-references resolved automatically · 6 connected regulations
| Reg. | Title | MOC | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25.301 | Loads Linked to AC 25.301-1, AC 23.629-1B. Awaiting flight loads survey data. | MC 1 — Analysis | Draft |
| 25.303 | Factor of Safety Standard 1.5x ultimate factor. No special conditions required. | MC 1 — Analysis | Draft |
| 25.305 | Strength & Deformation Linked to AC 25.305-1. Static test plan under ODA review. | MC 2 — Ground Test | In Review |
| 25.307 | Proof of Structure Full-scale static test approach. Linked to 25.305 test program. | MC 2 — Ground Test | Draft |
| 25.571 | Damage Tolerance Linked to AC 25.571-1D, ASTM E647, and 3 special conditions. Similarity to 737 DT analysis approved. | MC 4 — Similarity | Complete |
| 25.603 | Material Suitability MMPDS-17 material data package in progress. 7475-T7351 qualification pending. | MC 1 — Analysis | Draft |
Compliance Matrix Builder
Define your aircraft category and certification basis, and Certifly will generate a draft compliance matrix—every applicable regulation mapped to a suggested means of compliance, informed by how similar type certificate programs have approached it.
Instead of a senior engineer spending months building this from institutional memory and tribal knowledge, your team gets a comprehensive first draft to review and refine.
Document Drafting Copilot
Once a matrix exists, Certifly will help engineers draft similarity arguments, test plan outlines, and means-of-compliance narratives—with every claim traced to its source regulation, advisory circular, or standard.
Engineers review and refine rather than writing from a blank page. Every output will be cited and traceable, keeping you in control and audit-ready.
Section 4.2 — Fatigue Substantiation
The fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation of the wing lower skin panels follows the methodology established in AC 25.571-1D §6.2. The crack growth analysis utilizes NASGRO 4.02 with material data sourced from MMPDS-17 Table 9.3.6.2.
The inspection program is based on the damage tolerance assessment per FAR 25.571(a)(3), with threshold and repeat intervals derived from full-scale fatigue test evidence documented in TR-2024-0571-DT. The applicant demonstrates that the principal structural elements meet ASTM E647 for crack propagation rate characterization.
Citations verified
Every week of certification delay costs more than most teams want to admit.
Your documentation shouldn't be the bottleneck.
Are you going through certification?
Decades of OEM regulatory muscle — without decades of OEM overhead.
One compliance workflow across multiple OEM programs with different certification bases.
Your clients pay for engineering judgment, not document prep. Automate the rest.
We're in the early stages and talking to certification teams who feel this pain. If this resonates, we'd love to hear from you.
hello@certifly.ai