Product certification
Angle-of-attack sensor evidence review for DO-160G
This review is for equipment suppliers, OEMs, Engineering teams responsible for angle-of-attack sensor. It is triggered by sensor qualification planning. EE checks repeatability test data, installation-position calibration substantiation, icing qualification, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-160G. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or bench accuracy that ignores installed local-flow error. Output includes Angle-of-attack sensor gap register, Means of compliance map, Test and analysis request list.
When this review is needed
- The plan names angle-of-attack sensor as a required deliverable.
- The review notes that evidence was carried forward from another configuration or installation.
- The authority or authorized representative is expected to sample the records.
- Open questions need to be separated from editorial cleanup.
The problem
File volume does not settle the question. The package must show why the evidence proves the evidence needed for an angle-of-attack sensor must substantiate for authorization and installation approval, distinct from the sensor-system page because AoA evidence is dominated by measurement accuracy versus true airflow, installation/position calibration (local flow field), and heater/anti-ice qualification, and its data often feeds stall-protection whose failure classification is severe, especially where bench accuracy that ignores installed local-flow error.
What gets reviewed
- Review repeatability test data against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare installation-position calibration substantiation against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace icing qualification against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge dO-160G environmental categories against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile safety assessment where AoA feeds stall warning or flight-envelope protection. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Identify what is missing against the means of compliance.
What gets validated
- Pass check: repeatability test data must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: installation-position calibration substantiation must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: icing qualification must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: dO-160G environmental categories must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: safety assessment where AoA feeds stall warning or flight-envelope protection. must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled repeatability test data
- Released installation-position calibration substantiation
- Signed icing qualification
- Current dO-160G environmental categories
- Archived safety assessment where AoA feeds stall warning or flight-envelope protection.
- Supplier application data
Common discrepancies
- Gap: bench accuracy that ignores installed local-flow error.
- Mismatch: icing performance not bounding the certification icing envelope.
- Unsupported claim: failure classification that understates the consequence of erroneous AoA.
What is at stake
The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when icing performance not bounding the certification icing envelope, because closure may touch configuration control and engineering rationale.
How the work runs
Frame Angle Attack
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any repeatability test data is treated as sufficient.
Trace TSO Evidence
Walk the named evidence from index entry to source artifact and mark where the trail supports, conflicts with, or fails to answer the page-specific question.
Sort 160g Product
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Accuracy Icing
Deliver the exception list, evidence map, and owner sequence in a form that can move directly into remediation, submittal cleanup, or transaction negotiation.
What the buyer receives
- Angle-of-attack sensor gap register
- Means of compliance map
- Test and analysis request list
- Interface closure plan
Who uses the output
- Certification engineer assign closure actions from the exception register.
- systems engineer use the map to locate source evidence.
- safety engineer decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
What an angle-of-attack sensor must substantiate for authorization and installation approval, distinct from the sensor-system page because AoA evidence is dominated by measurement accuracy versus true airflow, installation/position calibration (local flow field), and heater/anti-ice qualification, and its data often feeds stall-protection whose failure classification is severe. The evidence set centers on accuracy and repeatability test data, installation-position calibration substantiation, heater and icing. The likely weak points are bench accuracy that ignores installed local-flow error, icing performance not bounding the certification icing envelope, and a failure classification that understates the consequence of erroneous AoA. The output gives the certification engineer a cleanup register for Angle-of-attack sensor before sensor qualification planning.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
EE provides an evidence-quality assessment only. The work does not certify an article, sign a finding, approve a plan, or decide regulatory acceptance.
What this review does not cover
- Plan approval
- DER or DOA signature
- Conformity inspection
- Supplier selection
Specific to this review
- Configuration identity matters because evidence from another baseline may prove a different article, load, or installation.
- A useful trail names the source record, revision, owner, and closure decision for each claim.
- The exception list separates document-control cleanup from gaps that need engineering substantiation.
- The finding pattern for this page is specific: bench accuracy that ignores installed local-flow error changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Angle Attack Sensor TSO question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Sensor qualification planning and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Repeatability test data and follows Evidence Review 160g Product references until every exception has a source location and a reason code.
- The finding logic separates missing paperwork, conflicting status, stale revision data, and unsupported disposition because each class closes through a different owner.
- The timing matters for Certification engineer: the output is useful only if the unresolved items are visible before acceptance, submittal, handback, or negotiation pressure fixes the sequence.
- The boundary control keeps Certification Accuracy Icing Installation questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Angle-of-attack sensor gap register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
SAE International. Safety assessment methods (FHA, PSSA, SSA, FTA, FMEA) supporting development assurance level assignment.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this product-types review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to angle attack sensor tso and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block sensor qualification planning or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is repeatability test data, the current status source, and any index or matrix that tells reviewers where the supporting artifact should live. Missing inputs are logged as findings rather than filled with assumptions.
Who decides whether an open item is acceptable?
The review explains what the evidence supports and gives certification engineer a closure path. Acceptance remains with the buyer, operator, authority, delegated engineer, or authorized person responsible for the underlying airworthiness or certification decision.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.