Flight-deck equipment qualification
Flight-deck equipment qualification evidence review
This review checks that a flight-deck article's qualification evidence actually demonstrates what its requirements demand before that evidence is relied on for a TSO or an installation case. It serves suppliers and modifiers who hold a control, display, or crew interface device and want the qualification package tested for holes. The work reads the DO-160G environmental results, the DO-178C software data, and the interface test evidence against the article's requirements and configuration. You receive a gap list against the qualification requirements, a trace map from requirement to test result, and a sequence for closing the open items before the evidence is submitted anywhere.
When this review is needed
- A flight-deck article's qualification package is about to feed a TSO or STC case and needs a check before it is relied on.
- Environmental testing was run to categories chosen years ago and no one has confirmed they still match the requirements.
- The software data has to be verified at the assurance level the article's functions require.
- A qualification package was inherited with the article and its completeness is unknown.
The problem
Qualification evidence accumulates over an article's life and rarely gets audited as a whole. Environmental categories were picked against an early requirement set, software data was produced by a team that has since moved on, and interface tests were run to catch problems, not to prove requirements. When that package is asked to carry a TSO or STC case, the holes surface, and finding them then is far more disruptive than finding them in a deliberate review.
What gets reviewed
- The article's qualification requirements assembled as the yardstick for the evidence
- DO-160G environmental results checked against the categories the requirements call for
- DO-178C software lifecycle data checked against the assurance level the functions demand
- Interface and functional test evidence reconciled with the article's requirements
- Test specimen configuration confirmed against the article the evidence is meant to cover
- Coverage gaps and stale results identified across the qualification package
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
- Each qualification requirement has a test result that demonstrates it, not just a plan that intended to
- DO-160G categories in the evidence match the categories the current requirements specify
- DO-178C data supports the assurance level the article's functions actually need
- Interface test results map to specific functional requirements rather than general checkout
- The tested specimen configuration matches the article the evidence will be relied on for
Evidence normally required
- The article's requirements and specification
- DO-160G environmental qualification reports
- DO-178C software lifecycle data and verification results
- Interface and functional test reports for the article
- The test specimen configuration and part number records
Common discrepancies
- An environmental category tested below what the current requirements demand
- Software verification short of the assurance level the functions require
- A requirement covered by a test plan but never closed by a result
- Test results tied to a specimen configuration that no longer matches the article
What is at stake
Relying on qualification evidence that does not cover its requirements means the gap emerges downstream, inside a TSO application or an STC submittal, where it stalls the whole case. A DO-160G category tested below what the requirement now demands, or software data short of the assurance level, forces re-test or re-verification at the worst possible point in the schedule.
How the work runs
Set the requirement yardstick
Assemble the article's qualification requirements as the standard the evidence must meet.
Check evidence to requirement
Map environmental, software, and interface results to the requirements they are meant to close.
Confirm the specimen
Verify the tested configuration matches the article the evidence will support.
List and sequence gaps
Flag missing coverage and stale results, then order the closure before submittal.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list against the article's qualification requirements
- A trace map from each requirement to the test result that demonstrates it
- A closure sequence for the open items before the evidence is submitted
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers relying on the qualification package for a TSO or STC case
- Suppliers deciding which qualification tests have to be re-run or extended
- Program leads sequencing re-test against the downstream application date
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review runs before the qualification evidence is committed to a TSO application or an STC case, so gaps are found where they are cheap to fix rather than after they have stalled a submittal. Its trace map becomes the backbone of the compliance matrix the later application is built on.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA can accept qualification evidence on largely common ground, but the environmental categories and software expectations each holds an article to are not always identical. The review flags where evidence adequate for one authority would need extension for the other before it is relied on in a dual-route program.
Regulatory limits
The review measures qualification evidence against the article's requirements. It does not qualify the article, grant a TSO or STC, or make an airworthiness determination. Those decisions rest with the authority and its designees.
What this review does not cover
Specific to this review
- Environmental categories are usually chosen against an early requirement set and drift out of alignment as the requirements mature, so a category that was right at test time can be short by the time the evidence is relied on.
- A test plan that names a requirement is not the same as a test result that closes it, and packages routinely carry the former while appearing to cover the latter.
- Specimen configuration is the quiet invalidator: qualification results stay good only for the article configuration they were run on, and a later change can strand otherwise complete evidence.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
Frequently asked questions
How is this different from preparing a TSO or STC package?
This review checks the qualification evidence on its own terms, against the article's requirements, before it is committed to any application. The TSO and STC preparation build the compliance case on top of qualification that has already been shown to hold. Running the review first keeps a hidden gap from surfacing inside a submittal.
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.