Sensor TSO
Sensor system certification evidence for TSO authorization
This support prepares the certification evidence for a sensor article so it holds up to a TSO authorization. It reads the requirements trace built to the ARP4754B development discipline, the calibration and accuracy evidence, the installation-effects assumptions, and the DO-160G environmental qualification, then ties each claim to a document that exists. An engineer who has built sensor packages runs it during evidence assembly, before the application goes in. You receive a product-specific evidence gap list, a trace map into the certification basis and means of compliance, and a closure sequence that clears the article for authorization.
When this review is needed
- A sensor article is heading toward a TSO authorization and the requirements trace and calibration evidence need a read before filing.
- The accuracy or calibration data has to be reconciled with the performance the authorization claims across the operating range.
- Installation-effects assumptions the sensor depends on have never been checked against the evidence that supports them.
- An earlier sensor authorization is being extended to a new part number and the reused trace has to be tested for currency.
The problem
A sensor article's case rests on a requirements trace that has to hold from the system-level requirements the ARP4754B development set down through to the calibration and test evidence that closes them. Accuracy is claimed across an operating range that the calibration data may only cover in part, installation-effects assumptions about mounting and airflow can sit in an analysis nobody tied to test, and the environmental qualification has to cover the range the sensor actually reports over. The team that owns the package often cannot see which requirement is genuinely closed and which trace link is broken.
What gets reviewed
- Requirements trace from the ARP4754B system-level requirements through to the calibration and test evidence
- Calibration and accuracy data checked against the performance claimed across the sensor's operating range
- Installation-effects assumptions about mounting, airflow, and location tied to supporting analysis or test
- Environmental categories under DO-160G declared for the sensor verified against the qualification reports
- The certification basis and its means of compliance confirmed so the trace, calibration, and environmental evidence read as one submission
- Part-number configuration for the authorized sensor reconciled to the evidence that supports it
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 system-level requirement traces without a break to the calibration or test evidence that closes it
- Calibration data covers the full operating range the accuracy claim asserts, not a subset of it
- Installation-effects assumptions are supported by analysis or test rather than left as design statements
- Declared DO-160G categories match the environmental conditions the sensor is being authorized for
- The standard revision each requirement cites is the one the trace and calibration evidence was produced against
Evidence normally required
- The sensor's TSO authorization application draft with the certification basis it declares
- The ARP4754B requirements trace from system level to the sensor's evidence
- Calibration and accuracy test reports across the operating range
- Installation-effects analysis for mounting, airflow, and location
- DO-160G reports covering the sensor's declared environmental categories
Common discrepancies
- An accuracy claim asserted across the full range but supported by calibration data covering only part of it
- A requirements trace that breaks between a system-level requirement and the evidence meant to close it
- An installation-effects assumption stated in the design with no analysis or test behind it
- Environmental categories claimed for the sensor that reach beyond what the qualification campaign tested
What is at stake
A performance requirement traced to calibration data that does not cover the full range draws a finding, and the authorization stalls until the range is demonstrated or the claim narrowed. A sensor feeds other systems, so an accuracy or installation-effects claim that does not hold can propagate into the equipment that consumes the sensor's output, which is why authorities read the trace end to end rather than at the calibration report alone.
How the work runs
Anchor to the sensor's TSO
Fix the TSO the sensor is being authorized against and the requirements the ARP4754B development set down.
Trace end to end
Follow each system-level requirement to the calibration or test evidence that closes it.
Check range and effects
Confirm calibration covers the claimed range and installation-effects assumptions are supported.
Order the sensor gaps
Sequence the open items by closure difficulty against the sensor's filing date.
What the buyer receives
- A product-specific gap list on the sensor evidence, ranked by how hard each item is to close before filing
- A trace map linking each sensor claim to the certification basis, means of compliance, and its evidence
- A closure sequence that orders the calibration and requirements-trace work against the authorization timeline
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers assembling the TSO authorization application for the sensor article
- Systems engineers deciding which requirement traces still need evidence to close
- Program managers holding the sensor's authorization date against the evidence still open
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review sits between the development evidence and the authorization application, taking the requirements trace, the calibration data, and the environmental results and testing whether they close end to end. Its gap list drives the trace and calibration work the sensor needs, and its trace map becomes the reference later finding responses point back to.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and the European system both recognize the ARP4754B development discipline and DO-160G, but the accuracy expectations and the referenced revisions for a given sensor function are not always aligned, so an article authorized under a TSO can face a different expectation for European acceptance. The review flags where a performance claim rests on a revision or interpretation the other authority applies differently.
Regulatory limits
The review reads the evidence and shows where it is complete or thin. It does not grant a TSO authorization, approve the article, or make an airworthiness determination on the sensor function or its installation.
What this review does not cover
- Generating the missing calibration, trace, or installation-effects evidence
- Preparing and filing the sensor's TSO authorization application for the supplier
- Any installation approval or airworthiness determination on the sensor once fitted
Specific to this review
- A sensor's accuracy claim is only as good as the range its calibration covers, so a claim asserted across the full range on partial data is the finding the review looks for first.
- A sensor feeds other systems, so a broken trace or an unsupported accuracy claim propagates downstream, which is why the review reads the requirements trace end to end rather than stopping at the calibration report.
- Installation-effects assumptions about mounting and airflow drive whether the sensor performs as claimed once fitted, yet they often sit in analysis nobody closed to test.
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
Our calibration reports show the sensor meets spec. Why check the range?
Meeting spec at the calibration points is not the same as demonstrating accuracy across the whole operating range the claim asserts. The review checks that the calibration data actually covers the range and that the requirements trace closes end to end, so the authorization does not rest on an accuracy claim wider than its 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.