worldwide certification authorities have invoked DO, making it policy for DO compliance is also becoming increasingly common on military projects. PDF | In a joint project with the FAA, NASA Langley is developing a hardware design in accordance with RTCA DO Design Assurance Guidance for. PDF | Since its introduction in the year , the DO verification process has served the aviation industry well. However the complexity of.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|ePub File Size:||17.71 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.54 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
and activities within the DO Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne .. http ://portal7.info RTCA/DO, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware is a document . Print/export. Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version . For most defense engineers, the first time they hear about the DO Design Assurance managers unsure on how to get started on the DO process.
Organizations new to DO find it difficult to start a new DO program without a baseline of the required documents and review checklists, and organizations experienced in DO seek to improve their existing baselines due to lessons learned from previous programs. This data package includes DO templates and review checklists included in Spec-TRACER can be easily adopted by applicants as a starting baseline for generating company standard documents and artifacts. Checklist Criteria This package includes the criteria for performing reviews for compliance to hardware management plans in accordance with DO The complete set of review criteria includes: The checklists have a set of criteria to be applied in the review of DO PLD hardware life cycle data and documents. These criteria are part of the hardware verification standards.
These criteria are part of the hardware verification standards. Each criteria should be applied to the respective document or data. For documents or data with multiple repeated elements, the criteria in the checklist should be applied to each element of the document.
This should be done with the requirements, design, test cases, test benches, test procedures, and test results. In these cases, the criteria can be put in a table across the columns and the identifier of the review item listed in the rows.
The criteria are general and as complete as possible. Each project may have additional review criteria that can easily be added. DO Compliance. DO Templates and Checklists. Sign In. Sign In Close.
Ask Us a Question x. Thank you! The 5 levels are: Since DO pertains to complex airborne hardware, when you set out to design a hardware component for use in an airborne system you must first develop a list of requirements that the component mus t meet. This will then help determine what DAL the component will need to be designed for.
While going through the certification process, you must then show that the implementation of the component meets all of the requirements you set out from the start.
This process helps to provide affirmation that the way the hardware component was implemented also meets the requirements set forth from the beginning of the process. This will normally include doing reviews throughout the design process, performing analyses and tests on the component set forth by the verification plan.
The main objectives you want to have for the verification process are:. Tool assessment is another important aspect of the DO process. Tools used during verification and design are capable of introducing new sources of errors and therefore must be tested to an acceptable level of confidence.
Tools specifically used in verification are important to verify themselves. Should a tool fail to detect an error in the hardware being tested, the entire DO process is comprised. Assessing the tool must be done prior to use, and the results of this test must be recorded and maintained.
The process of assessing a tool begins with identifying it. This involves classifying it as either a design tool, or verification tool.
Furthermore, documentation must be maintained about the details of the tool. These details are outlined in section Figure 1 was taken directly from this section.
Design and verification tools are evaluated on a level of A to E depending on how catastrophic a result would be should the tools be faulty. A being the most catastrophic, and E which have no safety impact at all. Further assessment is required only if the tool is being used as a design tool for Level A, B, or C, or verification tool for Level A or B.
Independent assessment generally means that the tool has been manually reviewed, and that all outputs of the tool have been compared against the outputs of a separate tool that is capable of performing the same test. However this is not the only accepted method and the applicant may provide other methods of independent assessment. If a tool is not being independently assessed, then further testing and verification must be performed on the tool.
This can be done in one of two ways. Once the tool has been assessed in one of these three ways, it can then be used in design or verification of the complex hardware.
It covers techniques like model-in-the-loop testing and hardware-in-the-loop testing throughout the entire development process.
Toggle navigation. Home Innovations White Paper. What is DO? Updated Mar 19, Level A: Level B: