May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight APPROVAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT Richard L (Dick) Newman (M) and.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Safety Cases: Purpose, Process and Prospects John McDermid, OBE FREng University of York UK.
Advertisements

Testing Medical Devices A Brief Overview © 2005 Max Cortner. Copying and distribution of this document is permitted in any medium, provided this notice.
IEC – IEC Presentation G.M. International s.r.l
Avionics Panel Go For Luna Landing! Graham ONeil United Space Alliance March 2008.
Technology readiness levels in a nutshell
Integrated Part 23 Cockpit Displays Wes Ryan Dec, 2004 FAA Small Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service.
1 KRB-A (Grundremmingen, Germany). 2 Type:Boiling Water Reactor Power: 250 MW(e) Started in 1966, shut down in 1977 First commercial power reactor in.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration FLIGHT TEST SAFETY WORKSHOP Flight Test Safety Workshop Jim Richmond Aircraft Certification Service.
Maj Cody Allee / Tom Hanrahan Embedded Terrain Awareness Warning System (eTAWS) Adventures in testing a CFIT protection system Got Protection?
Work Breakdown Structures. Purpose The WBS shows different levels within the product hierarchy. For Government program managers levels 1-3 are of prime.
International Energy Agency Hydrogen Implementing Agreement Proposed Task on Hydrogen Safety.
Flight Testing Advanced Unmanned Aircraft Michael McDaniel - AIR Naval Air Systems Command NAS Patuxent River, MD, USA DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Define & Compare Flowcharts of Each Method Tom Delong.
Lindy Hughes Fleet Fire Protection Program Engineer Southern Nuclear Operating Company June 4, 2013 Fire Protection.
6/23/2015 Risk-Informed Process and Tools for Permitting Hydrogen Fueling Stations Jeffrey LaChance 1, Andrei Tchouvelev 2, and Jim Ohi 3 1 Sandia National.
Sense & Avoid for UAV Systems
Term Project Pick a system (discuss choice with me)  Want simple functionality, security issues, whole system (e. g., client and server side) Submit a.
System Implementation1. 2 Agenda System Implementation Testing Prototyping Installation Post-implementation.
Survival guide Garmin G500 / GTN650 An introduction to “new generation” avionics. Royal West Aviation Club – 30 May 2015.
COMP8130 and 4130Adrian Marshall 8130 and 4130 Test Management Adrian Marshall.
Federal Aviation Administration General Aviation’s Technology Transition Presented to: SETP Flight Test Workshop By: FAA Small Airplane Directorate Lowell.
FAA Industry Training Standards FITS Overview. 2 Outline FAA Industry Training Standards Problems with Current Training FITS Flight Training Scenario.
Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) - Uncertainty/Probabilistic Information in the Cockpit Projects July 21, 2014 Gary Pokodner 1 Friends and Partners.
® IBM Software Group © 2006 IBM Corporation PRJ480 Mastering the Management of Iterative Development v2 Module 3: Phase Management - Inception.
Weather Satellite Data in FAA Operations Randy Bass Aviation Weather Research Program Aviation Weather Division NextGen Organization Federal Aviation Administration.
I) Bob Ettinger Flight Test Manager Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems El Segundo, CA An Approach to Flight Readiness and Executive Readiness Reviews The.
Special Topics Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering
Introduction to RUP Spring Sharif Univ. of Tech.2 Outlines What is RUP? RUP Phases –Inception –Elaboration –Construction –Transition.
Software Testing Lifecycle Practice
Software Development *Life-Cycle Phases* Compiled by: Dharya Dharya Daisy Daisy
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) Enhanced Flight Rules (CEFR) Randall Bone October 7, 2003.
Crew Resource Management LT Andre Towner U.S. Coast Guard.
Advanced Network Technologies Division Wireless Communication Technologies Group 3/11/2005GAO Visit 1 RFID-Assisted Indoor Localization and Communication.
Teaching material for a course in Software Project Management & Software Engineering – part II.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 April 2003
Collaborative Work Package Criteria Suitable for accomplishing in a period of 90 days to 1 year. Work should fall within the expertise of one or more consortium.
Product Development Chapter 6. Definitions needed: Verification: The process of evaluating compliance to regulations, standards, or specifications.
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING for REAL-TIME SYSTEMS (© J.E.Cooling 2003) Requirements - slide 1 Software engineering for real-time systems Section 3 Requirements.
Aparna Kansal & Amy Pritchett Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA This work is funded by NASA Curtis E. Hanson, Technical Monitor Simulating Faults.
Federal Aviation Administration 0 Certification Standards for New Technologies June 9, 2005 Certification Standards for New Technologies Presentation to:
Software Project Management Lecture 11. Outline Brain Storming session  Some simple discussion on questions and their answers  Case studies related.
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved. Effective Verification and Validation Testing Steve Holt Boeing Commercial Airplanes August 2013.
Lessons learned from pilot involvement in ASAS experiments Rob Ruigrok & Hans Huisman ASAS Thematic Network Workshop 3 “ASAS - Making it happen”, Toulouse.
An Introduction to Software Engineering
1 Improving the Risk Management Capability of the Reliability and Maintainability Program An introduction to the philosophy behind the AIAA S-102 Performance-Based.
Single Pilot Resource Management (SRM) And The CFI
A Cockpit Display Designed to Enable Limited Flight Deck Separation Responsibility Walter W. Johnson & Vernol Battiste NASA Ames Research Center Sheila.
Network design Topic 6 Testing and documentation.
WATS 2010 Orlando Flight Standards and Training April 27-29, 2010.
RLV Reliability Analysis Guidelines Terry Hardy AST-300/Systems Engineering and Training Division October 26, 2004.
Project Management Strategies Hidden in the CMMI Rick Hefner, Northrop Grumman CMMI Technology Conference & User Group November.
1 DFRC SUAS Program Operations and Risk Management Approach for Small UAS Presented to the Certification Working Group 6/26/2008 Brad Flick/DFRC Chief.
1 slc5 TTYP – C++ revisited 1 Which of the following statements are reasonable after the following statement: char* fred = new char[5]; a. fred = bill;
Abstract Analysis Mohammad Danial bin Mohammad Suhaimi (ME092584) Muhammad Khairil bin Amiruddin (ME092594)
CAD/PAD Development Process
Karim Zeghal EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
A Modeling Framework for Flight Schedule Planning
Quality Risk Management
Avionics Panel Go For Luna Landing!
IAOPA Participation Work Efforts IAOPA (and IAOPA Affiliates) are currently participating on the following workgroups that are focused on Integration.
Software life cycle models
Software Verification, Validation, and Acceptance Testing
Knowing When to Stop: An Examination of Methods to Minimize the False Negative Risk of Automated Abort Triggers RAM XI Training Summit October 2018 Patrick.
Software Testing Lifecycle Practice
An Assessment of Space Shuttle Flight Software Development Processes
Federal Aviation Administration General Aviation’s Technology Transition Presented to: SETP Flight Test Workshop By: FAA Small Airplane Directorate Lowell.
Jeff Dutton/NASA COR August 26, 2019
Presentation transcript:

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight APPROVAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT Richard L (Dick) Newman (M) and Benjamin K (Ben) Johnson NAVAIR, Pax River Presented at SETP Flight Test Safety Workshop San Jose, California May 2010

Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight OUTLINE Introduction Instrument Flight Approval Pathway to Approval Lessons Learned DISCLAIMER: The material in this presentation is intended to promote safety discussion. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not those of any organization with whom the authors may be affiliated.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTRODUCTION Background Criteria Philosophy

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTRODUCTION Background –New Generation of Electronic Displays –Implicit Assumptions –Highly Integrated Avionics Systems Criteria Philosophy

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTRODUCTION Background Criteria –Acceptable Level of Risk General population Other aircraft Own aircraft –Overall Mission Effectiveness Philosophy

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTRODUCTION Background Criteria Philosophy –Test Pilots versus Operational Pilots –Ultimate Tester is the User –Final Operational Testing Should Use Operational Pilots

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Test using mission scenarios –Can not separate safety performance workload It is important to test the entire display system –Medium (the display itself) –Symbology –Software –Supporting hardware –Sensors

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Test using mission scenarios –Can not separate safety performance workload It is important to test the entire display system –Medium (the display itself) –Symbology –Software –Hardware –Sensors

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Traditional Instrument Suites Reliable Independent Known failure modes Standard displays Modern Instrument Suites Unknown reliability Highly integrated Uncertain failure modes Novel displays

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Results

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Approach AFFSA-style endorsement or equivalent –Representative mission tasks –Typical performance standards Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Results

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Approach Safety Standards Appropriate level of safety –General population –Other aircraft –Aircraft passengers and crew Safety standards vary with aircraft type –Transport vs non-transport –GA, commercial, or military Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Results

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Eval pilots should represent the users Use appropriate skill levels Include experienced and inexperienced pilots Hazard Assessment Results

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Safety standards vary with aircraft type Include reliability standards Complete software clearance –Removal of error injection routines Results

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INSTRUMENT FLIGHT APPROVAL Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Results All test results documented Configuration change history Final report

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight PATHWAY TO APPROVAL Design Process Supporting Analyses Testing Buildup Interim Approvals Operating in Weather Final Approval

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight PATHWAY TO APPROVAL

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight PATHWAY TO APPROVAL Do we have to do these tests in order? Lab tests before sim Sim tests before flight

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight PATHWAY TO APPROVAL Do we have to do these tests in order? Lab tests before sim Sim tests before flight Of course not, but this approach reduces program risk.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight PATHWAY TO APPROVAL Do we need all these preliminary software releases?

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight PATHWAY TO APPROVAL Do we need all these preliminary software releases? Of course not, but waiting until software is fully tested would lead to unnecessary delays.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight TESTING BUILDUP Lab and SIL Tests

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight TESTING BUILDUP Lab and SIL Tests Do we really need to use a SIL?

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight TESTING BUILDUP Lab and SIL Tests Do we really need to use a SIL? No, but a SIL would save a lot of $$$$.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight TESTING BUILDUP Lab and SIL Tests Do we really need to use a SIL? No, but a SIL would save a lot of $$$$. You can pay me now, or You can pay me later.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight TESTING BUILDUP Lab and SIL Tests Simulator Tests Do we really need simulator tests?

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight TESTING BUILDUP Lab and SIL Tests Do we really need simulator tests? Simulator Tests Again, it reduces risk later in the program.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight WHY AN INTERIM APPROVAL Minimize impact on schedule Allow positioning flights Need to test in weather Low visibility testing HUD/HMD testing Ice protection testing

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTERIM APPROVALS Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Reasonable Restrictions

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTERIM APPROVALS Approach Same approach as final approval AFFSA-style protocol Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Reasonable Restrictions

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTERIM APPROVALS Approach Safety Standards Primary emphasis on non test participants –General population –Non-participating aircraft Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Reasonable Restrictions

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTERIM APPROVALS Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Use project test pilots Hazard Assessment Reasonable Restrictions

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTERIM APPROVALS Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Assessment appropriate for flight testing Don’t wait for full reliability/safety assessment Don’t wait for final software clearance Reasonable Restrictions

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight INTERIM APPROVALS Approach Safety Standards Evaluation Pilots Hazard Assessment Reasonable Restrictions Use chase aircraft typical Avoid populated areas flight test Avoid high traffic areas restrictions Limit duration in clouds 

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight LESSONS LEARNED Precede flight test with simulator test Build up Reduce incremental risk Reduce schedule risk Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) Saving cost of SIL is false economy

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight LESSONS BEING LEARNED There’s more to approval for flight into weather than evaluating symbology.

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight LESSONS TO BE LEARNED For prototype airplanes with novel or non- traditional instrument suites

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight LESSONS TO BE LEARNED For prototype airplanes with novel or non- traditional instrument suites –Consider using a simple “steam gauge” panel for the initial prototypes. –Program risk reduction

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight LESSONS TO BE LEARNED For prototype airplanes with novel or non- traditional instrument suites –Consider using a simple “steam gauge” panel for the initial prototypes. –Program risk reduction –If there are two pilot stations, consider fitting the second pilot station with “steam gauges”

May 2010Approval of Experimental Aircraft for Instrument Flight QUESTIONS?