Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 USSMG CPF Review July 2012. 2 Draft US CPFs 3 Last reviewed 2012-002SE Chap 5.2.1.3.2 Fault isolation - Info codes Proposal: –Chap 8.4.1 and Chap 8.4.2.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 USSMG CPF Review July 2012. 2 Draft US CPFs 3 Last reviewed 2012-002SE Chap 5.2.1.3.2 Fault isolation - Info codes Proposal: –Chap 8.4.1 and Chap 8.4.2."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 USSMG CPF Review July 2012

2 2 Draft US CPFs

3 3 Last reviewed SE Chap Fault isolation - Info codes Proposal: –Chap and Chap information codes: Fault isolation procedures to be limited to IC 421 (and not to be a projects specific sequential number 421 thru 429). Post- trouble shutdown procedures to get its correct place in the 420 series. –Chap Fault isolation Para 2.8.1: Give a clear and consistent explanation on how to code Fault isolation procedures. –IC415 Don't limit IC415 to "combat system capabilities". Justification: –By using IC421 thru IC429 for Fault isolation procedures (without any rules or guidance more than they should be used for sequential numbering within a project!!!!!) we block information codes and a result of this is the newly included (Iss 4.1) IC443 (Post troubleshooting shutdown) incorrectly placed in IC440. IC440 is Index and must not include procedures which belong to IC 420! Other info: –JS IC’s do not assign anything more specific to these codes, but all are allowed. For each, ICV B is allocated as “Troubleshooting procedure” Posted comments: –Airbus - We don’t accept the proposed solution as Airbus will use IC 422 (and sub sequent IC) once the DC limit will be reached for IC 421 (hundredths of Fault isolation procedures might be associated with a complex sub-sub systems throughout the life cycle of an aircraft). Furthermore, we agree that IC 443 is not relevant for "post-trouble shutdown procedures", but we do not consider that a "post-trouble shutdown procedures" is a Fault isolation and it should not be allocated a "42X" IC. We would prefer a solution adding explanations on how to use the IC codes in conjunction with the DC –ATA objects and suggests IC task team. –US - The USSMG agrees that this CPF should not be included in Issue 4.1 and it requires more thorough review by the Air, Land, & Sea WGs before the US can determine if it agrees or disagrees at all. A white paper is needed to clarify the business case and changes. Bob Sharrer stated that the Air WG is not negatively impacted by the proposed change, but do not agree that there is a business case for the change. –GB, DE does not support –ES Neutral Recommendation –This CPF could be rejected or withdrawn and would not impact US requirements. 1/2012 New

4 4 New CPFs

5 5 Last reviewed AA Update of Cited References Proposal: –1000 and ISO 31 family have been replaced by ISO/IEC family. Make changes as appropriate Justification: – As stated the referenced standards have been revised with new standards. Posted comments: –FR Neutral –SE, DE, GB, ES supports –WG - Requires further investigation to determine technical impact. Recommendation: –Support New

6 6 Last reviewed AA More Correct use of SI and Grammar Corrections Proposal: –Corrects spacing, capitalization, and other editorial matters (See next slide for requested corrections) Justification: – Proper use of SI and grammar. Posted comments: –FR, DE, WG does not support –GB, ES supports Recommendation: – Approve New

7 7 Last reviewed Chap 3.4, Page 19, Zones paragraph. States "Sub-zone areas, where necessary, must be further subdivided into zones using the first digit of the allocated zone number (1000, 2000, 3000, etc) as shown in Table 16 and Fig 10. The numbers “1000, 2000, 3000” should be "1, 2, 3". Chap 3.9.1, Page 4, 2.5 Units of measurement. List of general rules - do not use the point after the unit symbol (eg A = Ampere, mm = millimeter). "Ampere" should be "ampere" as units of measure are considered common nouns and are not capitalized. Chap , Page 12, at top of page there is "Legend box for fill types". "Lines: Solid, 0,35mm". "0,35mm" should be "0,35 mm". "Fill Lines: Solid, 0,18mm". "0,18mm" should be "0,18 mm". Chap 3.4, Page 21. At top of page is paragraph stating "Access points located symmetrically on opposite side of the air vehicle must be assigned the same letter designators, even though the zone numbers can be different (eg 521 CB for the left wing, 621CB for the right wing)". I believe "521 CB" should be "521CB". According to Fig 12 there is no space between the zone number and the suffix letters, and "621CB" does not use a space. Chap 3.8, Page 5, Complex example, 4th paragraph, 3rd line. "This gives further data modules with their of disassembly codes..." Delete the word "of". Chap , Page 8, Fig 2. At top of page is "Location Photograph Example (85mm X 61mm)". "85mm" should be "85 mm" and "61mm" should be "61 mm". Chap 3.9.5, Page 4. Table 2 Entity "Ohm" should be "ohm". Chap , Page 22, Table 7. Wire type codes "CH 600V, 150  C...". "600V, 150  C" should be "600 V, 150  C". "PC 600V, 150  C...". "600V, 150  C" should be "600 V, 150  C". "QC 600V, 150  C...". "600V, 150  C" should be "600 V, 150  C". New AA More Correct use of SI and Grammar Corrections

8 8 Last reviewed AA Proper SI and Grammar (continued) Proposal: –Corrects spacing, typos, capitalization, symbology, etc in the S1000D interpretation of allowable SI values (see next slide for examples, CPF for full list of corrections) Justification: –To be in compliance with SI standards and proper grammar. Posted comments: –SE neutral, would like to hear EPWGs verdict. –DE with comments: : Request for editorial corrections (removal of superfluous spaces) supported, but we are unsure about the rest. To be analyzed by the EPWG first. –FR with comments: Neutral, agreed with German and Swedish comments –GB currently supports this proposal. With comments: : uk team suggest this is a SC/chapter owner task ES currently supports this proposal.with comments: : agreed on the business case. –WG with comments: : EPWG The current units align with the original POSC units standard. This CPF should be combined with the discussion regarding ISO/IEC Recommendation: – Approve. New

9 9 Last reviewed AA Proper SI and Grammar New Allowable valuesS1000D interpretation " (N/m)4/kg.m3 " Newton/meter fourth/kilogram meter cubed Change tonewton/meter fourth/kilogram meter cubed " 1/K " per Kelvin Change toper kelvin " 1/N " per Change toper newton " 1/Pa " per Pascal Change toper pascal " 1/pPa " per pico pascal Change toper picopascal " 1/upsi " per micro pounds per square inch Change toper micropounds per square inch " 1/V " per Volt Change toper volt " A.h " Ampere hour Change toampere hour " A/mm " Ampere/millimeter Change toampere/millimeter " A/mm2 " Ampere/square millimeter Change toampere/square millimeter " acre.ft/MMstb " acre feet/million stbs, 60 deg F Change to acre feet/million stbs, 60  F

10 10 Last reviewed S1 Schedule correction Proposal: –Modify the schedule schema to include attributes commercialClassification, and caveat on elements,,, and. Justification: –There is a discrepancy in the text of chapter and the schedule schema. In the S1000D narrative, elements,,, and list attributes securityClassification, commercialClassification, and caveat. The schema for these elements includes securityClassification only and does not include commercialClassification, or caveat. Either the narrative should be updated to remove the attributes commercialClassification and caveat from these elements or the attributes should be added to the elements,,, and. Recommend the attributes be added to the elements in the schedule schema. Posted comments: –WG currently supports: Recommend immediate incorporation into Issue 4.1 as this puts the Schema in line with the Chapter Text. –FR, ATA Civil Aviation, SE, DE, ES supports Recommendation: –Already at Pending Approval –Submitted by Kim Willmott New Pending Approval

11 11 Last reviewed US Schematic Diagrams and Associated Assembly Drawings Proposal: –This CPF changes the examples of electrical/electronic assembly drawings to show generic or basic reference designators along with the proper class designation letters to use in the reference designator. Justification: – It is a requirement of electrical and electronic equipment that reference designators be assigned. The reference designator is the common element between an electrical/electronic schematic diagram, an assembly drawing, and a parts list, the three documents that define any electrical or electronic assembly. The S1000D examples shown use the Block Numbering Method, which is not the standard method. This is to satisfy the requirement of assigning electrical/electronic reference designators but in a generic fashion rather than a specific method. Posted comments: Current US Position: –USSMG reviewed previously and asked the submitter to update the white paper to clarify the business case. Recommendation: –Working groups need to review: Does anyone in the US use the block numbering method? Does everyone use generic or basic reference designators? Does everyone agree with ALL of the changes requested in the white paper? Is this CPF supported? 2/2012 Draft

12 12 Last reviewed US Schematic Diagrams and Associated Assembly Drawings Excerpts from the white paper –Provides specific numbering (and terminology?) changes, for example: Make the following changes: –Item 20 Choke L4. Change "Choke" to "Inductor". –Item 22 Circuit board. Add reference designator A#, description would be "Circuit board A1". Item 23 Resistor R24. Add reference designator prefix A#, description should be "Resistor A1R24". –Item 27 Circuit board. Add reference designator A#, description would be "Circuit board A2". –Item 32 Capacitors C3. Each capacitor on a schematic diagram, and thus on the associated assembly drawing, will have a separate reference designator. Description would be "Capacitors C3, C#". [Replace # with whatever the reference designator is of the 2nd capacitor (eg C3, C7).] –Changes a relevant paragraph of text: General – Change from: “If electrical or electronic components require identification by circuit reference designators, the designators must either be included in a legend and/or within the associated text, but not included within the illustration itself.” – Change to: “Electrical or electronic components always require identification by circuit reference designators, these designators must either be included in a legend and/or within the associated text, but not included within the illustration itself.” 2/2012 Draft

13 13 Last reviewed S1 Replace BREX snsCode Proposal: –Remove all element /snsCode/ from the BREX Schema and replace with applicable existing SNS attributes (systemCode, subSystemCode, subSubSystemCode, and assyCode) to limit SNS format and lengths. Justification: –Currently, the SNS codes inserted and defined in the BREX SNS Rules section are not limited in any manner. The element /snsCode/ is re-used each time when defining system, subsystem, subSubSystem, and assembly codes. The current SNS attribute definitions limit each SNS segment to only the allowed SNS length. The alternative, to limit SNS lengths, requires multiple re-definitions for the element /snsCode/ to prevent character limits from exceeding their allowed lengths. These multiple re-definitions would violate the Schema authoring rules. Posted comments: –ATA Civil Aviation, WG Support – : CAWG supports this change but as stated not for 4.1for not for 4.1. –EPWG has determined there is a technical impact and an SPF is required. SPF has not been reviewed. Recommendation: – Approve This is Corky’s CPF. New

14 14 Last reviewed FR Element under the element Proposal: –Make the element under the element optional instead of mandatory. Justification: –Currently, the element under the element is mandatory instead of optional. Looking at S1000D When documenting circuit breakers via the child is mandatory. Also a mandated child is, which has a child which is optional. Since is a child of other elements, such as para, I can understand why it has, but I don’t understand why has or why it is mandated. The real problem with the mandated comes when TIR referencing is used. As you know, has the TIR linking circuitBreakerNumber attribute, and explains why the child of the element is optional. However, if the TIR contains the circuit breaker name then we end up with 2 names because of the mandated for. Posted comments: –GB, UK, ATA Civil Aviation supports –FR currently supports with comments: With just a request, please change title of CPF, content is understandable, but title…. Recommendation : – NEUTRAL New

15 15 Last reviewed S schema error: attentionListItemPara content restricted Proposal: –In the Issue schema, the element attentionListItemPara content is restricted to a single child element. The child elements should be changed to be unbounded. Justification: –With the current error of only allowing one child element of attentionListItemPara, a DM will cause a validation error if more than one child element from the attentionText group are used. Examples: 1) Using more than one emphasis tag within the same paragraph will cause an error, and 2) Using an emphasis tag and a subscript tag within the same paragraph will cause an error. Any number of elements within the attentionText group should be available for use within a single attentionListItemPara. Posted comments: – ATA Civil Aviation, CAWG, WG, FR supports Recommendation: – Approve New

16 16 Last reviewed S1 Schema bug - multimedia parameter issue 3.0 Proposal: –Raise a 'patch' to make the element repeatable within multimediaobject Justification: –In the schemas the element parameter within multimediaobject cannot be repeated. Although there are no full definitions of this element in this issue of the specification it is the intention that the element parameter is repeatable within a single instance of multimediaobject. Parameter was repeatable in issue 2.3, but is not in issue 3.0, no CPF was raised to make that change therefore it is an error. This error means that some projects are encountering problems and have to reload objects to change parameters meaning, previous values and states are lost Posted comments: – FR and WG Support. Recommendation: – New

17 17 Last reviewed S1 Schema bug - multimedia parameter issue Proposal: –Raise a 'Patch' to make the element repeatable within multimediaObject. Justification: –In the schemas the element parameter within multimediaobject cannot be repeated. Although there are no full definitions of this element in this issue of the specification it is the intention that the element parameter is repeatable within a single instance of multimediaobject. Parameter was repeatable in issue 2.3, but is not in issue 4.0.1, no CPF was raised to make that change therefore it is an error. This error means that some projects are encountering problems and have to reload objects to change parameters meaning, previous values and states are lost Posted comments: –FR and WG currently supports this proposal. Recommendation: – Approve New

18 18 Last reviewed S1 Attribute Declarations on the Element, and Proposal: –Recommend patch to to bring it in line with corrections for 4.1. Justification: –Necessary to correct for proper use. Posted comments: –FR currently supports this proposal. –WG currently supports this proposal. –EPWG SPF Approved Recommendation: –Approve These attributes went missing in the implementation of checklist in Issue 4.0 and are necessary. New


Download ppt "1 USSMG CPF Review July 2012. 2 Draft US CPFs 3 Last reviewed 2012-002SE Chap 5.2.1.3.2 Fault isolation - Info codes Proposal: –Chap 8.4.1 and Chap 8.4.2."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google