For many Part 91 operators, submitting a manual or requesting a new FAA Letter of Authorization (LOA) can feel like sending documentation into a black box. You upload the package and wait, hoping everything is accepted, yet the timeline for approval can vary widely depending on how your documentation is presented. By understanding how the FAA evaluates aviation manuals, LOA aviation requests, and supporting documents, operators can significantly reduce processing delays. A clear, aligned package not only moves faster through review but also prevents unnecessary correction cycles.
LOA submissions fail most often not because an operator sends the wrong documents, but because the documents don’t match each other. The FAA’s job is verification, not consultation. Inspectors evaluate whether manuals, MELs, AFM references, equipment lists, and ICAO codes all support the requested authorization. When inconsistencies appear, even small ones, the inspector must stop the review and request corrections.
Understanding this dynamic allows operators to prepare cleaner documentation and avoid repeated submissions that stall the approval timeline.
Once a package is submitted, it enters an internal queue at the responsible FSDO or Certificate Management Office. An inspector first performs a completeness check, ensuring all required documents are present. Only after this step will they evaluate the content itself.
From there, the inspector verifies that manuals follow current FAA formatting and reference standards, that MELs align with the correct MMEL revision, and that AFM or AFMS references reflect the aircraft’s actual configuration. They also review ICAO codes to ensure they accurately represent installed avionics. Any missing or outdated material pauses the review immediately.
When the package is complete and internally consistent, it moves into the technical evaluation stage which is the part operators usually imagine when they think of “FAA review.”
The FAA evaluates submissions as an interconnected whole, not as isolated documents. Their goal is to confirm that an operator’s manuals and documentation provide a clear, accurate, and compliant foundation for the requested authorization.
During this stage, inspectors focus on:
If discrepancies appear in one document, inspectors cross-check others. This is why a single outdated excerpt or mismatched code can stop the entire submission process.
Approval timelines vary for many reasons, including FAA staffing, regional workload, and the type of authorization. But most delays stem directly from documentation quality.
Instead of listing the causes, it’s more useful to understand the underlying pattern: approvals slow down when the FAA encounters information that doesn’t align. All of these create uncertainty: an MEL referencing the wrong MMEL revision, an outdated AFM table, missing equipment lists, or ICAO codes that don’t match the avionics. When that uncertainty appears, the inspector cannot move forward.
This is why operators who invest in documentation discipline tend to see shorter turnaround times. Clean, organized, and internally consistent documents allow the FAA to verify compliance quickly and confidently.
Operators can significantly reduce approval time by strengthening the way they prepare and manage documentation. The following best practices consistently lead to smoother submissions:
These steps not only improve approval speed but also help operators maintain a clean compliance baseline throughout the year.
The FAA approval process is predictable when operators understand how inspectors evaluate documentation. With aligned manuals, updated references, and consistent terminology, operators reduce delays and move through the review process more efficiently. A clear, well-prepared package is the strongest advantage an operator can bring into any FAA compliance review. If you want an extra layer of certainty before submitting, Sky Safety Solutions can review your documentation and ensure everything aligns the way the FAA expects.