DO-178B
DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification is the title of a document published by RTCA, Incorporated. Development was a joint effort with EUROCAE. When specified by the Technical Standard Order (TSO) for which certification is sought, the FAA applies DO-178B as the document it uses for guidance to determine if the software will perform safely and reliably, in an airborne environment [1]. Contents [hide] 1 Software level 2 Processes and documents 2.1 Planning 2.2 Development 2.3 Verification 2.4 Configuration management 2.5 Quality assurance 2.6 Certification liaison 3 Certification in Europe 4 Tools 5 Requirements Management 6 Criticism 7 Resources 8 See also 9 References 10 External links [edit] Software level The Design Assurance Level (DAL) is determined from the safety assessment process and hazard analysis by examining the effects of a failure condition in the system. The failure conditions are categorized by their effects on the aircraft, crew, and passengers. Catastrophic - Failure may cause a crash. Hazardous - Failure has a large negative impact on safety or performance, or reduces the ability of the crew to operate the aircraft due to physical distress or a higher workload, or causes serious or fatal injuries among the passengers. Major - Failure is significant, but has a lesser impact than a Hazardous failure (for example, leads to passenger discomfort rather than injuries). Minor - Failure is noticeable, but has a lesser impact than a Major failure (for example, causing passenger inconvenience or a routine flight plan change) No Effect - Failure has no impact on safety, aircraft operation, or crew workload. The number of objectives to be satisfied (eventually with independence) is determined by the software level. The phrase "with independence" refers to a separation of responsibilities where the objectivity of the verification and validation processes is ensured by virtue of their "independence" from the software development team. In some cases, an automated tool may be equivalent to independence[2]. Level Failure condition Objectives With independence A Catastrophic 66 25 B Hazardous 65 14 C Major 57 2 D Minor 28 2 E No effect 0 0 [edit] Processes and documents Processes are intended to support the objectives, according to the software level (A through D - Level E is outside the purview of DO-178B). Processes are described as abstract areas of work in DO-178B, and it is up to the planners of a real project to define and document the specifics of how a process will be carried out. Therefore, on a real project, the actual activities that will be done in the context of a process must be shown to support the objectives. In fact, these activities are defined by the project planners as part of the Planning process. This objective-based nature of DO-178B allows a great deal of flexibility in regard to following different styles of software life cycle. However, once an activity within a process has been defined, it is generally expected that the project respect that documented activity within its process. Furthermore, processes (and their concrete activities) must have well defined entry and exit criteria, according to DO-178B, and a project must show that it is respecting those criteria as it performs the activities in the process. The flexible nature of DO-178B's processes and entry/exit criteria make it difficult to implement the first time, because these aspects are abstract and there is no "base set" of activities from which to work. The intention of DO-178B was not to be prescriptive. Therefore, there are many possible and acceptable ways for a real project to define these aspects. This can be difficult the first time a company attempts to develop a civil avionics system under this standard, and has created a niche market for DO-178B training and consulting. The processes, activities and documents described here reflect naming and structure from DO-178B. This can be different in a real-life project. [edit] Planning Output documents from this process: Plan for software aspects of certification (PSAC) Software development plan (SDP) Software verification plan (SVP) Software configuration management plan (SCMP) Software quality assurance plan (SQAP) System requirements Software requirements specifications (SRS) Software design standard (SDS) Software code standard (SCS) System requirements are typically input to the entire project. The last 3 documents (standards) are not required for software level D. [edit] Development This process can be divided into sub-processes: requirements, design, code and integration. The development process output documents: Software requirements data (SRD) Software design description (SDD) Source code Executable object code Traceability from system requirements to all source code or executable object code is typically required (depending on software level). Typically used software development process: Waterfall model Spiral model V model [edit] Verification Document outputs made by this process: Software verification cases and procedures (SVCP) Software verification results (SVR): Review of all requirements, design and code Testing of executable object code Code coverage analysis Analysis of all code and traceability from tests and results to all requirements is typically required (depending on software level). This process typically also involves: Requirements based test tools Code coverage analyser tools Other names for tests performed in this process can be: Unit testing Integration testing Black-box and acceptance testing [edit] Configuration management Documents maintained by the configuration management process: Software configuration index (SCI) Software life cycle environment configuration index (SECI) This process handles problem reports, changes and related activities. The configuration management process typically provides archive and revision identification of: Source code development environment Other development environments (for e.g. test/analysis tools) Software integration tool All other documents, software and hardware [edit] Quality assurance Output documents from the quality assurance process: Software quality assurance records (SQAR) Software conformity review (SCR) Software accomplishment summary (SAS) This process performs reviews and audits to show compliance with DO-178B. The interface to the certification authority is also handled by the quality assurance process. [edit] Certification liaison Typically a Designated Engineering Representative (DER) working for e.g. FAA in an airplane manufacturing company. [edit] Certification in Europe Replace FAA with EASA, JAA or CAA Replace FAR with JAR or CS Replace AC with AMJ [edit] Tools Software can automate, assist or otherwise handle or help in the DO-178B processes. All tools used for DO-178B development must be part of the certification process. Tools generating embedded code are qualified as development tools, with the same constraints as the embedded code. Tools used to verify the code (simulators, test execution tool, coverage tools, reporting tools, etc.) must be qualified as verification tools, a much lighter process consisting in a comprehensive black-box testing of the tool . As a consequence, one can qualify a third party tool as verification tool, but development tools must have been developed following the DO-178 process. Companies providing this kind of tools as COTS are subject to audits from the certification authorities, to which they give complete access to source code, specifications and all certification artifacts. Outside of this scope, output of any used tool must be manually verified by humans. A problem management tool can provide traceability for changes. SCI and SECI can be created from logs in a revision control tool. [edit] Requirements Management Requirements traceability is concerned with documenting the life of a requirement. It should be possible to trace back to the origin of each requirement and every change made to the requirement should therefore be documented in order to achieve traceability. Even the use of the requirement after the implemented features have been deployed and used should be traceable. Software such as Rational DOORS from IBM DIMENSIONS RM from Serena Software REMA from Accord Software and Systems REQTIFY from Geensys TBreq from LDRA CaliberRM[1] from Borland RTMS from Qualtech Consulting, Inc. Integrity from MKS are quite helpful for the requirements management. [edit] Criticism Some software engineers believe that the effects of the RTCA/DO-178b standard may have contributed to unnecessary delays in the delivery of aircraft, such as the Boeing 787.[3] [edit] Resources FAR Part 23/25 §1301/§1309 FAR Part 27/29 AC 23/25.1309 AC 20-115B RTCA DO-178B FAA Order 8110.49 Software Approval Guidelines [edit] See also DO-178 Avionics software ARP4761 (Safety assessment process) ARP4754 (System development process) DO-248B (Final Report for clarification of DO-178B) DO-254 (similar to DO-178B, but for hardware) Requirements management (too general to be "directly applied" to DO-178B) IEC 61508 [edit] References ^ FAA Advisory Circular 20-115B ^ RTCA/DO-178B "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification", p.82 ^ [http://www.designnews.com/blog/Design_engineering_at_large/201-Boeing_787_Dreamliner_delay_conspiracy_theories.php Boeing 787 Dreamliner delay conspiracy theories Design News] [edit] External links DO-178B Training Official RTCA DO-178B Training DO-178B Training From Level A FAA DER's provided by Qualtech Consulting, Inc. DO-178B Docs & Papers AC 25.1309-1A AC 20-115B FAA Order 8110.49 Software Development under DO-178B DO-178B Compliance Management Tools and Templates DO-178B Web-Based Tools from Qualtech Consulting, Inc. DO-178B Document Templates from Qualtech Consulting, Inc. DO-178B Web Sites Birds Project - Introduction to DO-178B Inside Functional Safety - Technical magazine focusing on functional safety DO-178B FAA Designated Engineering Representatives (DER's) FAA DER's With Software (DO-178B) Delegation from Qualtech Consulting, Inc. Industry websites DO-178 Industry Group (www.do178site.com) is the world’s largest group of avionics companies and DO-178 avionics product and services providers DO-178 Blogs from www.do178blog.com DO-178 Blogs for sharing information among avionics engineers and services providers. DO-178B guidance from the Avionics Standardisation Committee (ASSC) Training and guidance documentation on DO-178B Development. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B"

 
Introduction
Welcome for VTOLing
Our Dream
The Business Goal
The Resources Required for the Project
Partnership to the University
The VBJ VTOL Flying Car has some many special features which can be described as follows:
History of the VBJ VTOL Research
Avionics
DO-178B
Aeronautical Education
Agenda
Engineer Informations
Engineer Resume
Bibliography
Images and Concepts
Conclusions
Envie-me um e-mail

|Introduction| |Welcome for VTOLing| |Our Dream| |The Business Goal| |The Resources Required for the Project| |Partnership to the University| |The VBJ VTOL Flying Car has some many special features which can be described as follows:| |History of the VBJ VTOL Research| |Avionics| |DO-178B| |Aeronautical Education| |Agenda| |Engineer Informations| |Engineer Resume| |Bibliography| |Images and Concepts| |Conclusions|