Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The flexible nature of DO-178C's processes and entry/exit criteria make it difficult to implement the first time, because these aspects are abstract and there is no "base set" of activities from which to work. The intention of DO-178C was not to be prescriptive. There are many possible and acceptable ways for a real project to define these aspects.
The Advisory Circular AC 20-115( ), Airborne Software Development Assurance Using EUROCAE ED-12( ) and RTCA DO-178( ) (previously Airborne Software Assurance), recognizes [1] the RTCA published standard DO-178 as defining a suitable means for demonstrating compliance for the use of software within aircraft systems.
DO-178C and DO-254 define the design assurance objectives that must be accomplished for given DAL. Unlike SIL, it is the case that both ASIL and DAL are statements measuring degree of hazard. DAL E is the ARP4754 equivalent of QM; in both classifications hazards are negligible and safety management is not required.
Many of RTCA documents begin with the letters DO which stands for DOcument. RTCA develops Minimum Operating Performance Standards for aviation-based technology (typically avionics) but has developed standards for such far-ranging topics as Airport Security, Counter UAS Detection standards, and Aircraft Cockpit and Cabin Cleaning standards.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
CAST-15, Merging High-Level and Low-Level Requirements is a Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) Position Paper. It is an FAA publication that "does not constitute official policy or guidance from any of the authorities", but is provided to applicants for software and hardware certification for educational and informational purposes only.
Various standards suggest different levels, e.g. Software Levels A-E in DO-178C, [4] SIL (Safety Integrity Level) 1-4 in IEC 61508, [1] ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level) A-D in ISO 26262. [2] The assignment is typically done in the context of an overarching system, where the worst case consequences of software failures are investigated.
Although technically a guideline, it was a de facto standard for developing avionics software systems until it was replaced in 2012 by DO-178C. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) applies DO-178B as the document it uses for guidance to determine if the software will perform reliably in an airborne environment, [ 1 ] when specified by the ...