User Terminal certification process considerations Wilfred Rouwhorst Martijn Stuip NLR Cockpit and Flight Operations Department NLR Aircraft Systems Department ESA-Iris Information Event, 10-11 October 2011, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium National Aerospace Laboratory NLR
Content Background on NLR NLR s role in ESA-Iris NLR s Main Messages on UT certification SATCOM Service Considerations Certification of Iris airborne part: User Terminal Avionics Certification Elements Avionics Safety Process and System Certification Avionics Environmental Qualification UT Airworthiness and Single European Sky Final Remarks 2
Where is NLR located? The Netherlands N L R A m s t e r d a m N L R F l e v o l a n d 3
Past and Present Past: It all began with the establishment of the National Department of Aviation in 1919 In 1937, this became an independent, non-profit organization 4
Past and Present Present: NLR is one of the largest technological institutes in the Netherlands, with 650 employees NLR contributes key technological and scientific expertise to aerospace activities in the Netherlands and abroad 5
NLR s role in ESA-Iris NLR supports ESA-ESTEC on User Terminal (cockpit) matters Tasks Performed : Review of SRD and first Specifications (TN1) Explaining the UT Certification aspects (TN2) Set up preliminary Certification Roadmap (TN2) for the ESA Iris Phase 2.2 (i.e. Industrial Phases C/D/E1) Roadmap discussed with and reviewed by ASSB, ESA- ESTEC and Airbus 6
NLR s Main Messages on UT certification 1/2 UT manufacturers involved in SESAR/Iris should consider to opt between: End-to-End demonstration of UT capabilities low end certification Permit to Fly only OR Development of certified avionics product high end certification - Both options will require Ground Testing, Flight Testing and End-to-End Operational Validations - Differences in costs, effort and time scales 7
NLR s Main Messages on UT certification 2/2 Avionics Certification: Not separate step in avionics products development but inherent part of the whole process (V-cycle) Impacts methods, cost, time, phasing, etc Requires involvement of Certification Authorities as early as possible Easiest way towards certification of the ESA-Iris airborne system: Design the total system such that existing certified cockpit data link equipment (e.g. SATCOM or VDL-2) is replaced by Iris-UT, without modifying the cockpit any further UT development influenced by regulations on ATM data link services via SATCOM 8
SATCOM Service Considerations SATCOM Service expected to be split into three parts: 1. SATCOM service provider required to hold a certificate (as an organisation) 2. Certification of safety critical systems and constituents This may be required per future Single European Sky IR Declaration of Conformity (DoC) Airborne constituents must also apply to EASA airworthiness regulations Airworthiness Certificate 3. Future IRs may require certification of the Organisations in design, manufacturing and maintenance, i.e. DOA and POA, of safety critical ATM/ANS systems and constituents. 9
Avionics Certification Avionics Certification Formal and contractual process Requires a formal application, review and acceptance by authorities Differs depending on the type of product, installation specifics and complexity An avionics product is certified as part of an aircraft Type Certificate (TC) for new aircraft type Supplemental TC (STC) for aircraft modifications; or amended STC, etc Declaration of Conformity (DoC) / EASA s Form 1 Link between the EASA rules and the SES Interoperability Regulations Certification is often supported by a System Engineering approach 10
Avionics Certification Elements Elements of Certification Application General agreement with Safety Authorities (FAA, EASA,...) Project Specific Certification Plan Certification Base Use of standards Safety processes Environmental Qualification Software aspects of certification Hardware aspects of certification 11
Standards for Avionics Development and Safety Assessments Recommended to use ED-79A Guidelines for development of civil aircraft and systems ED-79A processes include Safety Assessments processes that provide certification evidence Additional standards apply for development of hardware (ED-80) software (ED-12B) IMA (ED-124) 12
Aircraft systems development & safety assessments EUROCAE ED-79(A)/SAE ARP-4754(A) (simplified process flow) Assume: new aircraft function or system is introduced... FHA: Functional Hazard Assessment identify failure conditions classify failure effects derive safety objectives CCA: Common Cause Analysis check independence of failures PSSA: Preliminary System Safety Assessment of system architectures SSA: System Safety Assessment after implementation System safety processes CCAs Aircraft FHA System FHA PSSAs SSAs Aircraft function development Allocation of functions to systems Development of system architecture Allocation of requirements to items System implementation Development Complete & Ready for Certification allocation to HW and SW Development Assurance Levels System development processes 13
Environmental Qualification Required for Certification & product compliance Not limited to the UT avionics box, but also applicable to cables, antenna, etc. Types of environmental tests (Ref. DO-160 / ED14) 14
Environmental Qualification Avionics exposed to different environmental conditions Tests to verify the product keeps functioning correctly under harsh environmental conditions Vibration tests Salt spray tests (effect after few days) Temperature tests EMI/EMC tests (electromagnetic interference) Hirf tests (high intensity radiation) 15
UT Airworthiness and Single European Sky For UT two sets of regulations co-exist and will apply: SES Inter-operability regulations & EASA airworthiness regulations Interoperability regulations apply to the data link service and pose requirements to the data link and have to mention technologies (band, modulations, protocols) Most EASA regulations on the safety processes are technology independent 16
Final Remarks UT manufacturers involved in SESAR/Iris should consider to opt prior to the start of Phase 2.2 on: UT capability demonstration Proof of Concept vs. UT product development and certification! Avoid cockpit re-certification recommendation to replace existing data link equipment with the new Iris-UT without modifying the cockpit any further A preliminary roadmap for UT certification drafted 17
Closure Thanks for your Attention! Time for a Drink?! 18
19