Navigation equipment qualification
Navigation equipment qualification evidence review
This review checks that a navigation article's qualification evidence demonstrates what its requirements demand before that evidence is relied on for a TSO or an installation case. It serves suppliers and modifiers holding a receiver, computer, or navigation source who want the qualification package tested for holes. The work reads the DO-160G environmental results, the DO-178C software data, and the performance test evidence against the article's requirements, with particular attention to the integrity and continuity the MOPS demands. You receive a gap list against the qualification requirements, a trace map from requirement to result, and a sequence for closing the open items before the evidence is submitted anywhere.
When this review is needed
- A navigation article's qualification package is about to feed a TSO or STC case and needs a check before it is relied on.
- Performance testing addressed accuracy but integrity and continuity coverage has not been confirmed.
- The software data has to be verified at the assurance level the navigation function's integrity requires.
- A qualification package was inherited with the article and its completeness against the MOPS is unknown.
The problem
Navigation qualification evidence is easy to accumulate around accuracy, where testing is straightforward, and thin on integrity and continuity, where it is hard. Environmental categories were set against an early requirement set, software data came from a team that has moved on, and performance tests proved the article works rather than proving it fails safely. When that package is asked to carry a TSO or an installation case, the integrity 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, MOPS integrity and continuity included
- DO-160G environmental results checked against the categories the requirements call for
- DO-178C software lifecycle data checked against the assurance level the navigation integrity demands
- Performance test evidence reconciled with accuracy, integrity, and continuity 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
- Integrity and continuity requirements each have a test or analysis result, not just an accuracy demonstration
- DO-160G categories in the evidence match the categories the current requirements specify
- DO-178C data supports the assurance level the navigation function's integrity requires
- Performance results map to specific MOPS requirements rather than general functional checkout
- The tested specimen configuration matches the article the evidence will be relied on for
Evidence normally required
- The article's requirements and the applicable navigation MOPS
- DO-160G environmental qualification reports
- DO-178C software lifecycle data and verification results
- Performance test reports covering accuracy, integrity, and continuity
- The test specimen configuration and part number records
Common discrepancies
- Accuracy demonstrated thoroughly while integrity and continuity coverage is thin
- A software assurance level short of what the navigation integrity requires
- An environmental category tested below what the current requirements demand
- Performance results tied to a specimen configuration that no longer matches the article
What is at stake
Relying on navigation qualification evidence that does not cover integrity and continuity means the gap emerges inside a TSO application or an STC submittal, where it stalls the case on its most important requirements. A software assurance level short of what the integrity demands, or environmental coverage below the requirement, forces re-verification or re-test at the worst point in the schedule.
How the work runs
Set the requirement yardstick
Assemble the article's requirements and MOPS as the standard the evidence must meet, integrity and continuity included.
Check evidence to requirement
Map environmental, software, and performance 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 integrity coverage and stale results, then order the closure before submittal.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list against the article's qualification requirements, integrity and continuity called out
- A trace map from each requirement to the 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 navigation 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 navigation qualification evidence is committed to a TSO application or an STC case, so gaps in integrity and continuity are found where they are cheap to fix rather than after they have stalled a submittal. Its trace map becomes the backbone of the MOPS 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 accept navigation qualification evidence on largely common ground, but the environmental and software expectations each holds an article to, and the operational approvals the evidence feeds, are not always identical. The review flags where evidence adequate for one authority needs extension for the other in a dual-route program.
Regulatory limits
The review measures navigation qualification evidence against the article's requirements. It does not qualify the article, grant a TSO or STC, deliver an operational credit, or make an airworthiness determination. Those decisions rest with the authority and its designees.
What this review does not cover
Specific to this review
- Navigation qualification tends to over-invest in accuracy and under-invest in integrity and continuity, because the first is easy to test and the second is hard, so the review weights the hard requirements.
- Integrity is proven by showing the article bounds the probability of undetected error, which is an analysis and fault-injection question rather than a straight performance measurement, and packages often lack it.
- A specimen configuration change can strand navigation performance results the same way it strands any qualification, so results are tied back to the exact tested article.
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
What does it take to show integrity, as opposed to accuracy, in a navigation package?
Integrity is about bounding the probability that the article outputs a wrong value without flagging it, which usually needs fault analysis and injection rather than a straight accuracy measurement. Qualification packages often demonstrate accuracy well and leave integrity thin, so the review checks that integrity is closed by the right kind of evidence.
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.