Navigation equipment TSO
Navigation equipment certification evidence for TSO authorization
This support prepares the certification evidence a supplier needs to seek TSO authorization for navigation equipment. It serves avionics and equipment suppliers building a data package around a receiver, computer, or navigation source against the applicable minimum operational performance standard. The work reads the sensor inputs, the navigation database currency, the software assurance level, and the alignment to the MOPS, then ties each to the article's design and compliance matrix. You receive an article-specific evidence gap list, a trace map from requirement to test, and a sequence for closing the open items before the TSO application.
When this review is needed
- A navigation receiver or computer is heading for TSO authorization and its evidence has not been mapped to the MOPS.
- The navigation database update mechanism and its currency assurance need to be tied to the standard.
- The software assurance level has to be shown against the integrity the navigation function requires.
- A TSO application needs a compliance matrix pointing each MOPS requirement to a specific test or analysis.
The problem
A navigation package brings together receiver performance tests, a database architecture, software artifacts, and a MOPS the supplier is claiming against, but the matrix that ties each MOPS requirement to its evidence is often the missing piece. Navigation integrity is unforgiving, and a package that demonstrates accuracy without showing integrity and continuity to the standard leaves the hardest requirements unproven. The MOPS is dense, and unmapped evidence forces the assessor to reconstruct the argument.
What gets reviewed
- The applicable MOPS identified and turned into a compliance matrix
- Sensor and signal inputs to the navigation function verified against the standard's assumptions
- Navigation database currency and integrity assurance mapped to the requirements
- Software assurance level matched to the integrity the navigation function demands
- DO-160G environmental qualification mapped to the categories the standard and installation require
- The article's configuration and part number reconciled with the qualified test specimens
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
- Every MOPS requirement, including integrity and continuity, maps to a specific test or analysis in the matrix
- Sensor input assumptions in the evidence match the signals the navigation function actually consumes
- Database currency and integrity assurance meet the standard rather than resting on a supplier process claim
- The software assurance level matches the integrity the navigation function carries
- The qualified specimen configuration matches the article the TSO application covers
Evidence normally required
- The applicable MOPS for the navigation article
- Receiver and computer performance test reports
- The navigation database architecture and currency assurance documentation
- DO-178C software lifecycle data and the plan for software aspects of certification
- The article's design data, configuration, and part number definition
Common discrepancies
- Integrity or continuity requirements addressed in prose but not closed by test or analysis
- Database currency assurance that rests on a process claim rather than evidence against the standard
- Sensor input assumptions that do not match the signals the article consumes
- A software assurance level below the integrity the navigation function requires
What is at stake
A navigation TSO application without a clean MOPS matrix draws questions on exactly the requirements that matter most, integrity and continuity, and each round of clarification delays the authorization. If the software assurance level is short of what the navigation function needs, or database currency assurance is thin, the correction means re-verification that pushes the TSO past the schedule the installation program depends on.
How the work runs
Build the MOPS matrix
Turn the applicable navigation standard into a line-by-line matrix for the article.
Map evidence to each requirement
Tie performance, database, and software data to the MOPS requirement it satisfies, integrity and continuity included.
Check configuration alignment
Confirm the qualified specimens match the article and part number being submitted.
Sequence the gaps
Order the open items by cost and lead time ahead of the TSO application.
What the buyer receives
- An article-specific evidence gap list against the MOPS
- A trace map linking each MOPS requirement to the test or analysis that meets it
- A closure sequence for the open items ahead of the TSO application
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers assembling the navigation TSO data package
- Suppliers deciding which performance, database, or software evidence still has to be produced
- Program leads sequencing closure against the TSO application date
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The support runs ahead of the TSO application, converting the supplier's receiver, database, and software evidence into a MOPS compliance matrix the assessor can follow. The gap list drives the remaining test and analysis, and the matrix carries into any installation approval that later cites the navigation TSO article.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA TSO and EASA ETSO routes for navigation equipment rest on aligned standards but differ in application detail and in the operational approvals they feed, particularly for performance-based navigation. The mapping notes where a package built for one route needs added substantiation for the other so a supplier pursuing both does not assume a single matrix serves each.
Regulatory limits
The support prepares and maps the evidence for a navigation TSO application. It does not grant the TSO, approve the article, or make an airworthiness determination, and the article still requires separate installation approval on any aircraft. Those decisions rest with the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Running the receiver, database, or software testing
- Developing the navigation article or its database
- Issuing the TSO authorization or any installation approval
Specific to this review
- Navigation MOPS put integrity and continuity ahead of raw accuracy, so a package that proves accuracy but leaves integrity in prose fails on exactly the requirements that define the function.
- Database currency assurance is often claimed through a supplier process rather than demonstrated against the standard, which is a recurring gap in navigation packages.
- A navigation TSO covers the article against its MOPS, not any operational approval, so the performance-based navigation credit an operator wants is still earned separately at installation.
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
Why do integrity and continuity get more scrutiny than accuracy in a navigation package?
Because the MOPS is written around them. A navigation function that is accurate but cannot bound the probability of undetected error or a mid-operation loss does not meet the standard. The mapping makes sure integrity and continuity are closed by test or analysis, not just described.
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.