"RaftLabs elevated my ideas and brought them to life when everything seemed impossible."
Grady Lakshmono
CoFounder, Moka (acquired by Gojek) & Gula (acquired by Runchise)
Airworthiness Compliance Software Development Services
Airworthiness compliance software built around your fleet's actual configuration, not a commercial CAMO template.
Commercial continuing airworthiness management systems handle the standard AD tracking workflow, but CAMOs managing specialist fleets, legacy aircraft, or mixed-registry aircraft often find that standard systems cannot model their compliance methods, their AD applicability determinations, or their audit evidence requirements without significant manual workarounds. We build airworthiness compliance systems designed around your fleet and your CAMO approval.
AD applicability determination by aircraft serial number, engine, and installed equipment
Compliance method recording with audit evidence links
Due date calculation that recalculates automatically on new utilisation data
CAMO audit pack generation from live records
Bring the problem, the current workflow, or the existing code. We reply with a practical next step within one business day.
Trusted by
The brief
Start with what is not working.
Good software decisions begin with the constraint, not a list of features or a preferred technology.
01
Continuing airworthiness engineers maintaining an AD compliance register in a spreadsheet that requires manual recalculation every time new flight hours are received?
02
An upcoming CAMO audit requiring weeks of preparation to compile evidence that should be available at any point in time?
Plain answer
RaftLabs builds custom airworthiness compliance software for CAMOs managing specialist, legacy, or mixed-registry fleets. It handles AD applicability by aircraft serial number, compliance method recording with audit-evidence links, automatic due-date recalculation on new utilisation data, and CAMO audit-pack generation from live records. Scope and fixed cost are agreed in writing before development starts.
What to remember
- Standard CAMO platforms (CAMP Systems, AMOS, Flightdocs) serve large commercial operators well but break down for mixed-registry or legacy fleets with non-standard AD applicability logic.
- AD applicability is determined per aircraft against serial number, engine, propeller, and equipment configuration, with the reasoning captured for audit rather than left in an engineer's head.
- Due dates recalculate automatically on every new hours/cycles update, so the register stays current between maintenance visits.
- Multi-registry fleets are supported with AD applicability run separately per aircraft registry, so foreign-registry requirements sit alongside locally mandated ones in the same system.
- Compliance records export as a structured data package and a PDF summary for sale or import disclosure, with complete history retained for the life of the aircraft.
The AD register that stopped living in a spreadsheet.
Every time new flight hours arrive, a continuing airworthiness engineer opens the spreadsheet and recalculates the repetitive AD due dates by hand. Between visits, the register drifts out of date, and the reasoning behind each applicability call sits in one engineer's head.
Then a CAMO audit lands on the calendar. Weeks disappear into assembling evidence that should have been retrievable at any point in time.
The spreadsheet was not the problem. The problem is that the compliance record should recalculate itself and produce its own audit pack.
When commercial CAMO systems fall short for your fleet
CAMP Systems, Swiss Aviation Software AMOS, and Flightdocs serve large commercial operators well. The limitation appears when a CAMO manages a fleet with characteristics outside the platform's assumptions. That means multiple aircraft types from different registries, older aircraft where the type certificate configuration differs from the current baseline, or engines and components where AD applicability is determined by manufacturer serial number range rather than aircraft type alone.
Custom airworthiness compliance software is built around your fleet's actual configuration, the specific aircraft, engine, propeller, and component combinations you operate, with compliance method recording, due date calculation, and audit preparation matched to your CAMO's evidence requirements.
We have built compliance-critical, audit-facing software since 2015, in regulated domains where records have to survive an auditor's scrutiny. Airworthiness is a specialist regime, and we will be straight about it. Our depth is in building configurable compliance and audit-evidence systems. We scope every aviation engagement with your continuing-airworthiness engineers, so the applicability logic reflects your fleet, not our assumptions. The team that scopes your fleet is the team that builds the system. No bait-and-switch, no offshore handoff after the contract is signed. We scope the work, calculate the cost, and lock it in writing before development starts. Custom software is justified by mixed-registry, legacy-fleet, or non-standard applicability needs, not recommended by default. We will tell you when a commercial CAMO platform is enough.
Custom pays off when your fleet breaks the standard applicability model.
Everything on the left should already be true for your CAMO. Even one thing on the right, and a commercial CAMO platform is the smarter first step.
A fit
A mixed-registry, legacy, or specialist fleet where AD applicability turns on serial number range, not aircraft type alone.
An AD compliance register living in a spreadsheet that needs manual recalculation every time new hours or cycles arrive.
A CAMO audit that means weeks of assembling evidence which should be retrievable at any moment.
Not a fit
A standard single-type, single-registry fleet that CAMP Systems, AMOS, or Flightdocs already handles well.
AD applicability that follows aircraft type alone, with no serial-number or configuration exceptions.
You want an off-the-shelf platform to configure, not software built around your fleet.
The first decision is not what to build.
It is whether compliance software is the right answer at all. We use four possible recommendations before discussing a development scope.
- 01
Buy
Choose a maintained product when it handles the core workflow and the remaining gaps can be solved with configuration, a connector, or a small process change. Paying for compliance software you do not have to maintain is often the better trade.
- 02
Repair
Keep the existing product when users still get value from it and the code can be understood safely. Start with evidence: where the code lives, how the data is organized, what is tested, which outside services it depends on, who can access what, and how updates go live.
- 03
Build
Own compliance software when the workflow shapes margin, customer experience, speed, or a product customers pay for. Start with one complete path and the system connections that path cannot work without.
- 04
Wait
Do not turn a changing policy into permanent software. Stabilise the rules, name the workflow owner, and measure the cost of the current process before paying for a product.
Not sure which path is yours? Bring it to a 30-minute call. Leave with the answer in writing.
What we build
What airworthiness compliance software covers
AD applicability determination
Applicability analysis for each registration against type certificate, serial number, engine, propeller, and installed equipment, matched to each AD's effectivity statement. Applicability determinations are recorded with the engineer's reasoning, and configuration changes (an engine change, an STC) trigger automatic re-evaluation.
Compliance method recording
Each applicable AD's compliance record captures the approved means of compliance, the source document, and any alternative means of compliance approved by the authority. Evidence, the maintenance work order or inspection report, links directly to the compliance record for audit retrieval.
Due date calculation and tracking
Repetitive AD due dates recalculate automatically on hours, cycles, or calendar time as new utilisation data arrives. Multi-threshold tracking (warning plus mandatory date) lets engineers plan a maintenance visit ahead of the deadline rather than reacting to it.
Alert generation and escalation
Configurable lead times by AD category (mandatory, alert, routine) trigger pre-due alerts to the responsible engineer, with overdue escalation to the quality manager and aircraft owner. A daily fleet status report shows every AD due in the next 30, 60, and 90 days.
Continued airworthiness documentation
Continued airworthiness records compile AD history, component life records, and modification records per aircraft into a single retrievable set, the basis for sale documentation. Component time and cycle tracking updates automatically from flight log data.
CAMO audit support
Audit preparation compiles the compliance evidence package automatically from system records rather than by manual assembly. A pre-audit gap check flags applicable ADs with missing evidence or expired compliance dates before the auditor finds them.
The regulatory regimes we design around
Aerospace and defense compliance is not one framework. A system that only tracks ADs misses the regimes that surround airworthiness. We design the data model, access controls, and audit trail so the same records answer to whichever of these apply to your operation.
- FAA / EASA airworthiness
- Continuing airworthiness under FAA 14 CFR Part 39 (Airworthiness Directives) and EASA Part-M / Part-CAMO. Demands AD applicability per aircraft, recorded means of compliance, and continuous audit-ready records for the life of the aircraft.
- AS9100
- The aerospace quality management standard (built on ISO 9001) for design and manufacturing suppliers. Demands configuration management, traceability, nonconformance handling, and objective evidence a registrar can audit.
- ITAR / EAR export control
- Defense and dual-use articles and technical data fall under State (ITAR) and Commerce (EAR) jurisdiction. Demands access control, data residency, nationality-based authorisation, and a defensible record of who touched controlled technical data.
- DO-178C / DO-254
- Airborne software (DO-178C) and complex airborne electronic hardware (DO-254) assurance for certification. Demands requirements traceability, verification evidence, and configuration control at the design-assurance level assigned to the function.
- NADCAP
- Accreditation for special processes (heat treat, welding, non-destructive testing, chemical processing). Demands controlled process records, operator certification tracking, and audit evidence tied to each accredited process.
We are not a certification authority, and we do not sell an approval. We build the software system that makes the evidence for these regimes retrievable on demand instead of assembled under audit pressure.
Pitfalls we plan around
Airworthiness compliance systems fail in predictable ways. We design against the failure modes continuing-airworthiness engineers already know.
Where airworthiness records are heading
The regulators and OEMs are moving toward a digital thread: a continuous, machine-readable record that links a part's configuration, its compliance history, and its maintenance evidence from design through retirement. Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is pushing the same shift on the design side, where requirements, verification, and configuration live as connected data rather than documents. A compliance system built on structured, exportable records rather than PDFs and spreadsheets is what lets your fleet data plug into that thread later instead of being re-keyed. We build for that destination now, so the records you capture today stay useful as the standard tightens.
Have an airworthiness compliance project?
Tell us about your fleet: the aircraft types you manage, the regulatory authorities you report to, and where your current process creates risk or audit burden. We'll scope a system built around your actual fleet configuration.
How it works
From scope to live compliance system
- Step 0101
Fleet and registry scoping
We map your fleet configuration, registries, and current AD tracking method. You leave week 1 with a written scope document and a fixed-price quote.
- Step 0202
Applicability and compliance-method design
AD applicability logic and compliance recording structure designed against your actual fleet configuration.
- Step 0303
Build and integrate
Applicability engine, due date calculation, and audit evidence library built in parallel, tested against real fleet data.
- Step 0404
Launch validated v1 and CAMO training
Engineering team trained on the compliance workflow, then a validated v1 goes live for your primary fleet. CAMO audit support and additional registries are added in later phases as the system proves out.
What it costs
Every project starts at $10000.
The first phase maps your fleet's AD tracking workflow and registry requirements, then scopes a working compliance record for the primary fleet.
Starting investment
Starts at $10000
Fleet size, registries, data sources, and audit-pack requirements set the scope. After a 30-minute call, you get a written build, buy, repair, or wait recommendation plus first-phase direction. Free, whether or not you build with us.
Proof
What clients say about working with RaftLabs
Three-year average engagement. Founders and operators describing the work in their own words. No marketing varnish.
Work with us
Tell us where the work is stuck.
Bring the rough workflow, half-built product, or messy brief. We will map the smallest useful first move, then send scope, timeline, and price in plain English.
- Scope and cost agreed before work starts. No surprises. No obligation.
- Working prototype within 3 weeks of kickoff.
- Pay by milestone. You see progress before each invoice.
- 60-day post-launch warranty. Bug fixes, UI tweaks, and deployment support. No retainer.
- All conversations are NDA-protected.
Common questions
Yes. The system supports multiple regulatory authority feeds, FAA, EASA, CASA, CAA, and others, with AD applicability determination run separately for each aircraft based on its registry. An aircraft on a foreign registry operating under a bilateral agreement can have its FAA AD compliance requirements tracked alongside locally-mandated requirements in the same system.
The applicability determination logic handles effectivity statements based on aircraft serial number, engine serial number, propeller serial number, and installed equipment. Configuration changes that affect applicability, such as an engine change or modification, trigger a re-evaluation of all AD applicability for the affected aircraft.
Yes. Continued airworthiness records, AD compliance history, component life records, and modification records can be exported as a structured data package and a PDF summary for disclosure to a prospective purchaser or receiving authority on import. The system retains the complete history for the life of the aircraft regardless of CAMO changes.
The strong answer: one governed data model with field-level history and role controls. The weak answer: multiple masters with batch syncs and manual reconciliation. Ditch the spreadsheets and paper silos for centralized software with controlled master data, version control, and role-based approvals. Traceability means an auditor asks for an AD, a repair, or a serial-controlled part and gets evidence in minutes, not days.
The 14 CFR ritual: AD number, effective date, method of compliance, current time-in-service, next due time and date, signature and certificate number of the approver. The failure mode is the missed when-due-next: an over-flown AD grounds the aircraft, and the record has to explain why it slipped. The AD register that stopped living in a spreadsheet: AD applicability determination, compliance method recording, due date calculation and tracking, alert generation and escalation.
The strong answer: time-stamped field changes, attachment lineage, e-signature support. The weak answer: record history existing only at document level. Continued airworthiness documentation must survive an audit: every state change carries versions, attribution, timestamps, reason, approvals, and exports according to client rules. An auditor should be able to ask for any AD and get the full compliance history in minutes.
Run the one-screen test: is my aircraft compliant right now? Logbooks, inspections, ADs, registration in one plain-language readiness picture with color-coded deadline countdowns, not a module list. Check the planning story: does visit planning, slot control, shortages, and rotable demand connect in real time, or does it export to spreadsheets? And ask the multi-registry question: can it manage aircraft on different registries with different AD databases? True cost per flight hour is the honest metric.
Every engagement is scoped against your fleet first, and the price is fixed in writing before development starts. What it comes to depends on fleet size, registry count, and which authority integrations the build needs. The first week of the process produces the fixed-price quote.
Go deeper