Sensor qualification
Sensor system qualification certification support
This review examines a sensor system's qualification evidence to confirm the tests actually cover the requirements they are cited against. A certification specialist reads the DO-160G plans and reports, the test article definition, and the requirement set, then checks that each environmental category, each pass criterion, and each tested configuration lines up with what the design needs to claim. It is used when a supplier is assembling qualification evidence and wants an independent read before that data feeds a TSO or STC package. You receive a coverage assessment, a list of requirements not yet backed by valid test evidence, and a defined path to close them.
When this review is needed
- A test campaign is finishing and the supplier wants the reports reviewed before they anchor a compliance argument.
- The sensor was requalified after a design change and it is unclear which prior test results still apply.
- Reports came from more than one test house and the pass criteria or configurations do not obviously agree.
- The team is deciding whether to retest a category or defend the existing result, and needs an honest coverage picture first.
The problem
Qualification data accumulates over a campaign that can run months, and the sensor changes as it goes. By the time the last report lands, the earliest tests may have run on a hardware standard the shipping unit no longer matches, and the requirement set the tests were meant to satisfy may have moved. Without someone reading the whole set together, the supplier holds evidence that looks thorough but has quiet coverage holes at the seams.
What gets reviewed
- DO-160G environmental category coverage checked against the sensor's intended operating envelope
- Test article configuration compared to the production hardware standard the evidence will support
- Pass and fail criteria in each report read against the requirement they are cited to satisfy
- Continuity of results across a multi-stage campaign where the design changed between tests
- Requirement-to-test traceability so each qualification claim names a valid, applicable report
- Identification of categories tested to a level below what the intended installation demands
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 DO-160G category the sensor must meet has a report, and each report states the level it actually achieved
- The test article in each report matches the hardware standard the qualification claim covers
- Reported pass criteria match the requirement, not a generic default carried from the test template
- Results from earlier campaign stages are either still valid for the final design or explicitly superseded
- No requirement is marked qualified on the strength of a test that examined a different parameter
Evidence normally required
- The sensor requirement set and the intended operating and environmental envelope
- DO-160G qualification test plans and all resulting reports
- The test article configuration records and any change history during the campaign
- The current compliance or qualification matrix
- Prior qualification results being carried forward from earlier design standards
Common discrepancies
- A category tested to a lower level than the intended installation will demand, discovered only when the envelope is written down
- Early-campaign results still cited for a design that changed after those tests ran
- Pass criteria in a report that do not match the requirement the report is meant to satisfy
- Test article configurations that differ from the production standard without a rationale on file
What is at stake
Qualification gaps that survive into a certification package do not stay hidden. They surface when the authority or the installer traces a finding back to its test, and at that point retesting means rebuilding a test article, rebooking a lab, and slipping the program by the length of a test campaign rather than a review cycle.
How the work runs
Write down the envelope
Pin the sensor's intended operating and environmental envelope so category coverage can be judged against something concrete.
Read the reports together
Check each DO-160G report's level, criteria, and test article against the requirement it is cited to satisfy.
Reconcile the campaign
Decide which earlier results still apply to the final design and which are superseded by a later change.
Sort the closures
Separate the gaps that need a retest from those that need re-analysis or only a documentation fix.
What the buyer receives
- A coverage assessment mapping each DO-160G category to a valid, applicable report
- A list of requirements not yet supported by qualification evidence, with the reason each falls short
- A closure path that distinguishes retest from re-analysis from documentation-only fixes
Who uses the output
- Supplier certification engineers assembling the qualification basis for a TSO or STC
- Test engineers deciding what still needs to run before the campaign can close
- Program managers weighing retest cost against schedule before committing the data downstream
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review comes after the tests and before the evidence is relied on. It gives the supplier an independent read of the qualification set so that when this data feeds a TSO application or an installation STC, the findings resting on it are already known to hold, and the expensive discovery of a coverage hole does not happen after filing.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
DO-160G is accepted by both the FAA and EASA, but the two authorities can differ on which categories a particular installation demands and on how test credit carries across a design change. The review flags where a category or a credit claim is likely to be read differently so the supplier is not surprised during a validation.
Regulatory limits
This work assesses whether qualification evidence supports the claims made against it. It does not certify the article, issue an airworthiness finding, or grant any approval, and it does not substitute for the design approval holder's own compliance demonstration.
What this review does not cover
- Conducting or witnessing the environmental qualification tests
- Selecting DO-160G categories or writing the qualification test plan from scratch
- Making the formal compliance determination that belongs to the applicant and the authority
Specific to this review
- A qualification campaign is a moving target: the shipping sensor often differs from the earliest test article, so the review dates every result against the configuration it examined.
- DO-160G test credit does not automatically survive a design change, and deciding what carries forward is usually the largest single question in a requalification.
- A report can pass its own criteria and still not close a requirement if those criteria were the template default rather than the design's actual limit.
- Choosing a category one level too low is cheaper to fix before installation is scoped, because the installation basis is what makes the shortfall fatal.
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.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
We passed every test we ran. How can there still be a qualification gap?
Passing a test only closes a requirement if the right category was tested, at the right level, on hardware that matches the shipping design, against the criterion the requirement actually sets. Gaps usually live in the mismatches: a category never run because the envelope was not written down, a level chosen too low, or an early result quietly outdated by a later design change. The review finds those seams before the data has to defend a compliance claim.
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.