Skip to content
Member Login
Join Now Global Network
Aerospace Federation

Aerospace Federation

Find your direction.

Explore the Federation. Connect with its work.
Federation sections6 areas

Choose an area to see its pages. Shortcuts are in Quick access.

About the Federation

How We Work

The scope, responsibility and evidence-based operating method of Aerospace Federation.

Operating method

Participation is structured around scope, responsibility and evidence.

Aerospace Federation is designed to select a proportionate response to a defined need. Not every question requires a permanent committee, document or programme; existing systems should be understood before new activity is proposed.

  1. 01Identify a relevant institutional, technical, research or professional need
  2. 02Define what AF should and should not address
  3. 03Assemble relevant perspectives and expertise
  4. 04Examine evidence, context and existing systems
  5. 05Develop the appropriate output or activity
  6. 06Review and maintain decisions, outputs and programmes

Understand the distinction

A useful contribution starts before drafting.

Define the question and the decision it should inform; do not presume a new document is the answer.

Frame the need

Describe the affected activity, the users, the existing references and the unresolved issue. Distinguish an observed problem from a preferred solution.

Topic proposal guidance
Keep a traceable conclusion

A conclusion should retain its technical context, scope and limits. Publication communicates the work; it does not automatically grant decision authority or programme status.

Decision responsibility

Appropriate routes

Different needs follow different Federation routes.

Need for industry participation
Membership and structured institutional dialogue.
Technical issue
Technical Work, including defined scope, evidence and appropriate expert input.
Research question
Research and publications activity.
Programme or institutional Recognition
Controlled member-only Recognition process with separate criteria, evidence and decision.
Professional learning need
Aerospace Academy or another appropriate development activity.
Cross-sector dialogue or policy issue
Conference, forum, workshop, consultation or Governance route as appropriate.

Evidence and authority

Participation does not automatically equal decision authority.

Working principles

  • Evidence before conclusion
  • Relevant expertise and existing-system review
  • Defined scope and proportionality
  • Conflict management and consultation where appropriate
  • Traceable decisions and periodic review

Separation of functions

  • A member may contribute perspective
  • A working group may develop a proposal
  • A committee may review technical work
  • A defined governance or decision function may authorize the outcome
  • Recognition review and decision remain separate

Explore Governance Technical Work Process Recognition Criteria & Review

Continue exploring

Explore the structures that hold participation accountable.

Explore Governance Technical Work Process