We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byThomas Garza
Modified over 2 years ago
Gérard Ladier Airbus France 11/2003 DO-178B / ED-12B Software Aspect of Certification in the Aerospace sector
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 2 Equipment Rules (JAR/FAR ) Essential equipment must be designed to perform its intended functions The airplane systems and associated components, considered separately and in relation to other systems, must be designed so that : The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane is extremely improbable, and The occurrence of any other failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is improbable...
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 3 An official application document (AMJ /AC A): How can we comply with the rules? The logic. Requires that system design be "fail-safe" Classifies failure conditions according to the severity of their consequences Classifies failure conditions Defines the acceptable probabilities for catastrophic failuresacceptable probabilities for catastrophic failures Associates acceptable probabilities with the various categories of failure conditions Associates acceptable probabilities Defines the acceptable means of conformity for the various contributory elements. Defines the acceptable means of conformity
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 4 Classification of failure conditions according to the severity of their effects How can we comply with the rules? Details Catastrophic: multiple loss of life, usually with loss of aircraft Hazardous: the aircraft, or crew, is less capable to deal with adverse operating conditions, which may result in: Large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities Physical distress or a workload of such magnitude that the crew is unable to perform its tasks Serious injury or death concerning a relatively small number of passengers/crew members Major: the aircraft, or crew, is less able to deal with unfavorable operational conditions, which may result in: Significantly reduced safety margins Significantly reduced functional capabilities A significant increase in the crews work load, or conditions which reduce the effectiveness of their work Discomfort for passengers and crew members, including injury Minor: no significant reduction in the aircrafts level of safety No effect on safety
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 5 Definition of the acceptable probabilities for catastrophic failures How can we comply with the rules? Details Fact (historical evidence) : 1 serious accident per 10 6 flight hours Fact: 10% are due to aircraft system problems First conclusion: It seems reasonable that serious accidents caused by systems should not be allowed a higher probability than this in new airplane designs => acceptable threshold for serious accidents caused by system failure : per flight hour Arbitrarily, it is considered that there are about one hundred (10 2 ) potential failure conditions in an airplane which would be catastrophic and that each one of these is equally likely to occur. We can thus define the acceptable probability of ONE catastrophic failure condition per flight hour as being : 10 -9
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 6 Extremely improbable Catastrophic Extremely remote Hazardous Remote Major Probable Minor Acceptable Unacceptable How can we comply with the rules? Details Associating the acceptable probabilities with the various categories of failure conditions
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 7 Since dependability cannot be guaranteed from an assessment of the software product, it is necessary to have assurance on its development process You cant deliver clean water in a dirty pipe It is not feasible to assess the number or kinds of software errors, if any, that may remain after the completion of system design, development, and test. Means of conforming to the rules The AMJ / AC A presents acceptable means of demonstrating conformity with JAR/FAR requirements applicable to equipment. But software is a special case, and cannot be treated in the same way as other equipment items:
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 8 In order to detect and correct specification, design and production errors for complex systems, we use the systems Development Assurance. Planned, systematic actions necessary to provide an adequate confidence and evidence that a product or process satisfies given requirements How can we comply with the rules? The level of Assurance required is determined by the severity of the potential consequences of the errors concerned.
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 9 Catastrophic Hazardous Major Minor No safety effect Failure Condition A B C D E DAL System (Development Assurance Level) Once the DAL has been determined through a safety analysis, the ED-12B/DO-178B requirements must be observed for this level From the rules to the ED-12B/DO-178B : the levels
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 10 SOFTWARE CONSIDERATIONS IN AIRBORNE SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT CERTIFICAION RTCA DOCUMENT NO. RTCA/DO-178B December 1, 1992 Prepared by: SC-167 Requirements and Technical Concepts for Aviation The ED-12B/DO-178B - Anatomy One section establishes the link with the system aspects Several sections specify the requirements (Assurance objectives and means of achieving them) for each process One section summarizes the life cycle data requests (~ doc) One section provides additional considerations" An appendix defines, for each software level: The applicable objectives and the products requested per process (with cross-references to the rest of the document for precise descriptions) The degree of independence of the process activities The control category for the data generated by the process activities.
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 11 The DO-178B/ED-12B – Life cycles and processes No mandatory life cycle Definition of separate processes that will be combined for a given project to describe its life cycle: Planning process (organization/plans rather than scheduling) Development process (specification, design, coding, integration) Integral processes (verification, configuration management, quality assurance, certification liaison process).
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 12 The ED-12B/DO-178B – Processes Define for each process: The Assurance objectives (e.g. : detect any errors introduced during development) The means of achieving those objectives (e.g : combination of reviews, analysis and tests) The process input data (e.g. : specifications, source code, verification plan) The process activities (e.g. : various reviews and analysis, various tests based on requirements) The process products (e.g. : test sets, procedures and results) The transition criteria, which must be met in order to proceed Generally speaking, there is no specific definition of the methods or means to be used (for example, it does not impose unit tests).
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 13 The ED-12B/DO-178B - Verification The largest section of the document in terms of volume: 13 pages of descriptions (the others contain an average of 5 pages) Work loads (and justification) generated.... Basic principles: Integral process => applies to all the development processes A combination of reviews, analyses and tests to detect and identify errors introduced during development Functional test (based on the requirements) NO TEST BASED ON THE CODE STRUCTURE Functional and structural coverage analyses.
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 14 The ED-12B/DO-178B - certification liaison Objective: ensure effective communication/understanding between the applicant and the certification authorities Means: The Plan for Software Aspects of Certification, given to the Authorities as early as possible Reviews carried out by the certification authorities software specialists at their own discretion Software Accomplishment Summary and Software Configuration Index.
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 15 The requirements are more or less equal to those of the level of software generated Reduced requirements (3 lines as opposed to 53), limited to tool validation, which are nonetheless subject to a large number of different interpretations depending on the certification authority representative. The ED-12B/DO-178B - S. 12 – Tool Qualification Necessary when processes required by the rest of the document are eliminated, reduced or automated by the use of a software tool (deterministic) whose outputs are not verified 2 categories of tools, defined according to the risk of error in the avionics code : Development tools (e.g.: code generator) Verification tools (e.g.: emulators, simulators)
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 16 ED-12B/DO-178B -Variations by level Levels A and B are very similar They have the same number of objectives (except for one, concerning structural coverage) The main difference between them is the degree of independence required in the meeting of objectives (40 % with independence for level A, 20% for level B) Level C ~ 85 % of levels A/B (no. of objectives) The variation is particularly sensitive as regards the verifiability of specification, design, code, the test coverage of structure and the independence Level D ~ 50 % of level C (no. of objectives) No requirements on design, coding & test coverage of structure Level E: No requirement once the certification authority has confirmed that a software is level E"
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 17 Questions about the ED-12B/DO-178B and its application Is the ED 12-B/DO-178B too expensive to apply? Can the software alone be certified? Can COTS be used in avionics? Can Object Oriented approach be used? Can the test be replaced by proof?
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 18 What about the future? The proof of the pudding is in the eating: the development assurance approach is effective But it remains a default approach: I cant ensure the quality of my product, but at least I can ensure the quality of its development process There are promising signs that a change/return to a product approach may be possible To be developed… to make the pudding easier to digest!
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 19
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 20 Is the ED 12-B/DO-178B too expensive to apply? 1997, SSAC : "make recommendations to the FAA to reduce the cost and time associated with software aspects of certification for both airborne and ground-based software while maintaining or improving safety. Survey carried out on US industry. 240 questions asked, 300 questionnaires returned. Questions concerning DO-178B: $ Independence ? $ MC/DC ? $ Quality assurance ? $ Traceability ? $ Unreasonable requests for documentation ? $ Tool qualification ? $ Another specific question was also asked on the connection between DO-178B/ED-12B and safety.
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 21 Is the ED 12-B/DO-178B too expensive to apply? But the answers received were rather surprising : Independence: 82 % think it is extremely or very valuable Traceability: considered effective, even if it is expensive Quality assurance: between 57% and 79% (depending on the question) think it is extremely or very valuable Tools qualification: everybody found some errors during qualification, which is less expensive than you might think Analysis of MC/DC structural coverage: 12% of industrials have never found an error with this technique, which is very expensive. Documentation was the only area in which the assumption was validated by the study, but a more detailed analysis showed that people had little understanding of the real requirements in this field.
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 22 Can the software alone be certified? Certain members of the FAA (>free flight) wanted to change the way certification was carried out : currently, computer hardware and software has to be certified as a "system" for every installation. We're suggesting that standards be developed so that software can be certified as a discrete appliance, irrespective of the operating system or hardware platform.(…) This « plug & play » approach was eventually abandoned (computer software cannot be certified alone – the whole system has to be certified). But the concept of integrated modular avionics for the A380 and its incremental qualification may represent a (small) step in this direction. See you in 2006!
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 23 The ED-12B/DO-178B and COTS: COTS ? Business as usual ! 2.4/f Off-the-shelf software products: Software products of this type included in on board systems and equipment must meet the objectives set out in this document 2.4/g If commercial off-the-shelf software products have any missing life cycle data, it is necessary to complete this data in order to meet the objectives set out in this document… Can COTS be used in avionics? Contradiction between the industrial need to use COTS and the process approach (as opposed to the product approach) of the ED- 12B/DO-178B. May turn out to be counter-productive as far as dependability is concerned...
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 24 Can the Object approach be used? The subject is still under debate, but some applications already exist. Mike Dewalt summed up the situation:
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 25 Can the test be replaced by proof? The ED-12B/DO-178B is prescriptive as far as verification means are concerned Proof of properties is tempting Exhaustive Source or binary analysis Extra design effort Financial gain: –No costly test case identification phase –No specific material resources –Extensive or total automation First pilot industrial application for the A380 If the application is extended, the contradiction with the ED- 12B/DO-178B must be resolved (it is necessary to return to the objective of the verification, while the current document prescribe a means, the testing)
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 26 Introduction k - A300FF 23k - A300B 4 k - Concorde 2 M - A310 5 M - A M - A330/ year volume (k.octets)
© AIRBUS FRANCE S.A.S. Tous droits réservés. Document confidentiel. Page 27 This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS S.A.S. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS S.A.S. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof.
Janvier 2010 Software aspects of aeronautical certification and static analysis tools Gérard LADIER Airbus / Aerospace Valley
1 Safety Assessment February SAFETY ASSESSMENT A Safety Assessment is essentially a process for finding answers to three fundamental questions:
PLANNING THE AUDIT Individual audits must be properly planned to ensure: Appropriate and sufficient evidence is obtained to support the auditors opinion;
Integra Consult A/S Safety Assessment Karachi, January 2006.
Slide Joint FAA/NASA Software and CEH Standardization Conference Copyright © 2005 by Ferrell and Associates Consulting, Inc. DO-254 – Complex Hardware.
1 SAS #70 (as Amended by SAS #88) Service Organizations NSAA IT Conference September 28, 2006 Nashville, TN Presented by: Michael A. Billo, CISA, CGAP.
ISO/DIS 9001:2008 versus ISO 9001:2000 August 2008 CER Business Line - Peter Bonnaerens.
©Ian Sommerville 2000 Software Engineering, 6th edition. Chapter 5 Slide 1 Topics covered l Functional and non-functional requirements l User requirements.
1 ointAviationAuthorities JAR 145 Course Part 2. 2 ointAviationAuthorities JAR General (a) No aircraft when used for Commercial Air Transport may.
Safety Risk Management Managing Risk in the N.A.S. Mark ONeil NATCA Safety and Technology Department.
Airworthiness Audit Procedures Presented by COSCAP SA.
1 Safety Assessment July SAFETY ASSESSMENT A Safety Assessment is essentially a process for finding answers to three fundamental questions: What.
MFG Assessment Application: Assessment Criteria and Metrics 1 Performance assessment criteria and metrics may be used as the basis for determining the.
All Q & A Issued by PMI 1 1. A project is: A. A set of sequential activities performed in a process or system. B. A revenue-generating activity that needs.
©Ian Sommerville 1995 Software Engineering, 5th edition. Chapter 4 Slide 1 Requirements Engineering u Establishing what the customer requires from a software.
©Ian Sommerville 2000 Software Engineering, 6th edition. Chapter 2Slide 1 Chapter 2 Computer-Based System Engineering.
Slide 3.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering Seventh Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2007 Stephen R. Schach.
1 GREY BOX TESTING Web Apps & Networking Session 10 Boris Grinberg
©Ian Sommerville 2000Dependable systems specification Slide 1 Chapter 17 Critical Systems Specification.
ISO 14971, 2 nd Ed., 2007 Medical devices: Application of risk management to medical devices By Grant Schmidbauer Nemko USA, Inc. San Diego, CA.
Work measurement Part II of Work Study. 2 Introduction Work measurement is the application of techniques designed to establish the time for a qualified.
Presented to By. 2Normative references ISO 9000:2005, Quality management systems Fundamentals and vocabulary ISO 19011:2002, Guidelines for quality and/or.
ASAS what does it mean operationally? ON THE WAY TO ASAS… …AIRBORNE TRAFFIC SITUATION AWARENESS, THE FIRST STEP ASAS THEMATIC NETWORK SECOND WORKSHOP MALMÖ,
1 by L Goel Professor & Head of Division of Power Engineering School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering Nanyang Technological University,
Alter – Information Systems 4th ed. © 2002 Prentice Hall 1 Understanding Systems From a Business Viewpoint.
1 Systems Engineering A Way of Thinking A Way of Doing Business Enabling Organized Transition from Need to Product August 1997 Systems Engineering Technical.
Training on Cost Estimation & Analysis Karen Richey Jennifer Echard Madhav Panwar.
1 Note content copyright © 2004 Ian Sommerville. NU-specific content copyright © 2004 M. E. Kabay. All rights reserved. Process Improvement IS301 – Software.
Validation | Slide 1 of 39 August 2006 Validation Supplementary Training Modules on Good Manufacturing Practice WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937, 2006.
Booz & Company This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed. General Aviation.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.