FAA-EASA Aircraft Certification in 2026: What the BASA and TIP Do

FAA approval does not automatically become EASA approval, and an EASA certificate does not automatically become an FAA certificate. The two authorities work through a bilateral framework that decides which approvals can be accepted, which can use a reduced validation process and which still need technical review.

As of 16 July 2026, the controlling public framework remains the European Union-United States aviation safety agreement and its implementation documents. There is no separate 2026 rule that merges the two certification systems.

This article replaces an earlier version that described an undefined 2025 harmonisation milestone and attached unsupported time and cost savings to it. The current record supports a more useful conclusion: the process is risk-based, approval-specific and governed by the latest Technical Implementation Procedures, or TIP.

BASA, TIP and validation are different layers

The FAA bilateral-agreements overview explains the structure. A Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement, commonly shortened to BASA, establishes cooperation between the two regulatory systems. Implementation procedures then define the scope, authority interfaces and processes for particular approval work.

For the United States and European Union, the EASA EU-US bilateral page publishes the agreement, the current airworthiness and environmental-certification TIP documents, and related bilateral decisions. The agreement entered into force in 2011. It is the standing framework, not a one-off 2026 certification announcement.

The important distinction is between:

• the certificating authority, which issues the original approval;
• the validating authority, which decides how that approval enters its own system; and
• the applicant, which must follow the route and submit the data the current TIP requires.

That structure allows greater reliance on the other authority without eliminating the validating authority's legal responsibility.

Three routes, not one automatic process

EASA describes a Validation Improvement Roadmap with three broad avenues:

1. Acceptance. The certificating authority's approval is accepted within the defined scope without a separate technical review by the validating authority.
2. Streamlined validation. The validating authority issues its approval while relying heavily on the certificating authority and without duplicating a full technical review.
3. Technical validation. The validating authority remains directly involved in identified technical areas.

The route depends on the product, change, approval type, risk classification and current bilateral criteria. It cannot be inferred from the words "FAA approved" or "EASA approved" in a sales announcement.

For example, EASA's foreign-certificate application guidance says a US applicant normally submits an EASA application through the FAA. It also explains that an FAA supplemental type certificate classified as Basic under the applicable TIP can be accepted by EASA without further technical review. That does not mean every STC is Basic or that every design change qualifies for acceptance.

What the bilateral framework covers

The airworthiness TIP addresses design approvals, production activities, export airworthiness approvals, post-design approval activity and technical assistance. Other annexes or implementation documents address areas such as maintenance, licensing and simulators.

Those lanes should not be mixed together. An airworthiness validation route does not itself approve a maintenance organisation, issue a personnel licence or qualify a simulator. The FAA country-agreement listing is the practical place to check which agreement and implementation documents apply to a particular jurisdiction and function.

The EASA bilateral page was updated on 23 June 2026 to add a simulator TIP revision and a Bilateral Oversight Board decision. That is evidence of a living agreement framework. It is not evidence that all aircraft certification became reciprocal in June.

What manufacturers and STC applicants should verify

A useful certification plan starts with five questions:

Question	Why it matters
What is the original approval?	Type certificate, amended certificate, STC, article approval and repair data do not all follow the same route.
Which authority is certificating and which is validating?	The application path and authority interface follow those roles.
Which TIP revision applies?	Classification, data and validation rules can change between revisions.
Is the approval eligible for acceptance or streamlined validation?	Eligibility must come from the agreement criteria, not a commercial assumption.
What areas remain for technical validation?	The validating authority can retain involvement where the current framework requires it.

The applicant should also check territorial scope. EASA notes that the EU-US agreement does not automatically extend to every EASA-associated state outside the European Union. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein require their own applicable agreement path.

What "harmonisation" does and does not mean

In this setting, harmonisation can mean aligned technical standards, agreed classifications, common guidance or greater acceptance of findings. It does not mean one regulator has surrendered its statutory authority to the other.

The practical benefit is reduced duplication where the authorities have agreed that reliance is appropriate. The limit is equally important: novel, significant or otherwise ineligible work can still require direct validation activity. The public agreement does not support a universal percentage reduction in certification time, engineering cost or review hours.

For buyers and operators, the certificate and approved data remain the record. A manufacturer's statement that a product is moving through "FAA-EASA harmonisation" is not enough to establish the approval status, approved configuration or operating limitations.

The 2026 bottom line

FAA-EASA certification cooperation is established and increasingly structured around risk-based reliance. The BASA creates the relationship; the TIP defines the airworthiness-validation machinery; the classification of the exact approval determines how much further involvement is required.

Anyone planning a validation should use the latest authority documents and obtain the applicable classification for the exact approval. Anyone assessing a product announcement should look for the certificate, authority decision and approved data rather than treating "harmonised" as a certification status.

Sources reviewed

• FAA bilateral agreements overview
• FAA bilateral agreement and implementation-document listing
• EASA EU-US Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
• EASA foreign-certificate and STC validation guidance