Product certification
Fuel quantity indication system evidence review for DO-160G, DO-178C
This review is for equipment suppliers, OEMs, Engineering teams responsible for fuel quantity indication system. It is triggered by fQIS qualification planning. EE checks accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range, intrinsic-safety, energy-limiting analysis for in-tank wiring, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-160G, DO-178C. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or accuracy shown level. Output includes Fuel quantity indication system gap register, Means of compliance map, Test and analysis request list.
When this review is needed
- The team is preparing for fQIS qualification planning.
- Supplier records and applicant records must be reconciled.
- Program leads need to know which findings could block the next gate.
- A proposed means of compliance depends on evidence reuse, analysis, or rationale.
The problem
Reviewers need to reconstruct the path from final claim to source data. For fuel quantity indication system, weak files usually show accuracy shown level, then reveal revision drift or unclosed assumptions.
What gets reviewed
- Review accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare intrinsic-safety against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace energy-limiting analysis for in-tank wiring against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge lightning transient results for the tank probes against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile dO-178C data for the computation against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm fuel-tank-safety compliance argument. 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: accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: intrinsic-safety must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: energy-limiting analysis for in-tank wiring must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: lightning transient results for the tank probes must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: dO-178C data for the computation must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range
- Released intrinsic-safety
- Signed energy-limiting analysis for in-tank wiring
- Current lightning transient results for the tank probes
- Archived dO-178C data for the computation
- Supplier fuel-tank-safety compliance argument.
Common discrepancies
- Gap: accuracy shown level.
- Mismatch: full but not at extreme attitude or low quantity.
- Unsupported claim: ignition-source analysis that omits a fault combination.
- Late issue: hIRF/lightning margins that do not bound the tank installation.
What is at stake
An unresolved gap can become a finding, a deferred submittal, or a narrower claim. Missing support for full but not at extreme attitude or low quantity often affects several records at once.
How the work runs
Frame Fuel Quantity
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range is treated as sufficient.
Trace System 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 178c
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Certification Accuracy
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
- Fuel quantity indication system 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 a fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) must substantiate, a category no page covers, because the evidence turns on measurement accuracy across attitude and fuel type, and critically on fuel-tank ignition-source safety (intrinsic safety / energy limiting) under HIRF, lightning, and fault conditions. The evidence set centers on accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range, intrinsic-safety and energy-limiting analysis for in-tank wiring, HIRF and lightning transient results for the. The likely weak points are accuracy shown level and full but not at extreme attitude or low quantity, ignition-source analysis that omits a fault combination, and HIRF/lightning margins that do not bound the tank installation. The output gives the certification engineer a cleanup register for Fuel quantity indication system before FQIS qualification planning.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
This review is not an approval activity. Final findings, acceptance, installation approval, and airworthiness decisions remain with the responsible applicant, authorized representatives, and authorities.
What this review does not cover
- Authority negotiations as decision maker
- Compliance finding approval
- Test execution or article build
- Operator airworthiness release
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: accuracy shown level changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Fuel Quantity Indication System question as the control point, so the review stays tied to FQIS qualification planning and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range and follows Evidence Review 160g 178c 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 Product Certification Accuracy Hirf questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Fuel quantity indication system 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 fuel quantity indication system and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block fqis 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 accuracy substantiation across attitude/temperature/fuel-property range, 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.