Recognition
Criteria & Review
Published criteria, relevant evidence and a traceable process from review to independent decision.
01 / Criteria and review
Recognition decisions require published criteria, relevant evidence and a traceable review process.
Recognition is not member to payment to badge. Membership determines access to the Recognition process. Evidence determines the Recognition outcome.
Three separate eligibility questions
Membership is the gateway—not the finding.
Passing one question does not answer the next. This is an explanation of the existing model, not a self-assessment that issues eligibility.
01Active membership
The member must meet the appropriate Membership conditions and hold active status. Founding Member status and payment do not create preferential Recognition rights.
Membership conditions02Route and subject fit
The subject must fit the selected Recognition route and its published eligibility conditions. The relevant route must be open through the designated member-only channel.
Route context03Criteria and evidence
Relevant evidence must support the defined scope under published criteria, competent review and a separate decision. Membership itself is not evidence of the outcome.
Criteria and review02 / Three eligibility gates
Passing one stage does not automatically satisfy the next.
03 / General criteria
Every route needs an evidence base proportionate to its scope.
A legitimate aerospace connection
The subject must fit the Recognition route and have a genuine aerospace connection.
An identifiable subject
The exact subject of Recognition must be stated clearly enough to verify.
Support for the claim
Claims must be supported by relevant, sufficiently current evidence.
Relevant capability
Competence, professional responsibility and ethical conduct must be demonstrable where required.
Clear supporting context
The scope, route and supporting context must be sufficiently clear for a responsible decision.
Appropriate use over time
Where applicable, the subject should show review, improvement and a commitment not to misrepresent Recognition.
04 / Evidence requirements
Evidence follows the route and the defined scope.
Relevant material may include legal or institutional identity, governance documentation, policies, professional history, qualifications, curriculum, learning objectives, instructor profiles, assessment methods, technical work, research outputs, publications, review records, professional development, public information and supporting references.
Existing accreditation, certification or regulatory approval may provide useful context. It does not automatically satisfy Aerospace Federation Recognition criteria unless a specific route expressly states otherwise.
05 / Formal process
Review follows a documented sequence.
- 01Active membership confirmed
- 02Recognition route selected
- 03Recognition scope defined
- 04Member-channel submission received
- 05Completeness check
- 06Route eligibility review
- 07Competent reviewers assigned
- 08Conflict-of-interest review
- 09Evidence assessment
- 10Clarification where needed
- 11Findings and limitations recorded
- 12Recommendation prepared
- 13Independent decision
- 14Approved scope confirmed
- 15Public record created where recognized
- 16Periodic review maintained
06 / Review and decision
Review and decision serve different functions.
Review function
- Assesses evidence against the criteria
- Records technical or professional findings
- Identifies limitations and requests clarification
- Prepares a documented recommendation
Decision function
- Confirms correct procedure and conflict management
- Confirms the Recognition scope and limitations
- Accepts, defers or declines the recommendation
- Authorizes the public record where appropriate
Reviewers do not independently issue Recognition. Members do not participate in their own Recognition decision. Commercial considerations and Founding Member status do not replace evidence.
07 / Competence and conflicts
Reviewer competence must match the scope.
Relevant reviewer experience may include technical education, professional practice, research, education-programme evaluation, sector knowledge, regulatory context, technical specialization and assessment experience. More than one reviewer may be required where a scope crosses disciplines.
Potential conflicts
- Employment, financial or consultancy relationships
- Direct commercial competition or recent collaboration
- Personal, academic or professional dependence
- Direct involvement in preparing the Recognition request
Possible controls
- Disclosure and documented assessment
- Replacement or limited participation
- Recusal from the relevant decision
- Independent additional review
08 / Outcomes and maintenance
Recognition status must remain meaningful after a decision.
Routes may require material-change reporting for changes such as ownership, legal status, programme design, curriculum, key personnel, operational model, scope or relevant authorization. Corrections, complaints and appeals are managed through controlled procedures; an appeal should not be decided solely by the original decision participants.
Verification
Public records state scope and status, not broad claims.
When Recognition is issued, the public directory provides a traceable verification record without exposing internal membership information.
Recognition Directory Recognition FAQs