Surveillance qualification
Surveillance equipment qualification evidence review
This review reads the qualification evidence a surveillance article rests on, before that evidence is cited in a TSO or STC package. It looks at the DO-160G environmental campaign, the software life-cycle data at the declared DAL, and the test reports behind each pass claim, then checks that the declared categories and criteria match what the certification argument will lean on. A qualification engineer runs it during evidence assembly, so a thin or over-declared result is caught before it anchors a compliance claim. You receive a product-specific gap list against the qualification plan, a trace map into the certification basis and means of compliance, and a sequence for closing each open result.
When this review is needed
- A surveillance article's DO-160G campaign is finishing and the reports have to be checked before they feed a certification claim.
- The declared environmental categories look broader than the campaign covered and need reconciling with the actual test setup.
- A qualification test failed or ran with a deviation and the disposition has to hold up when the evidence is cited.
- Software life-cycle data at the declared DAL has to be confirmed complete before it anchors the compliance argument.
The problem
Qualification evidence is generated to a plan, but plans drift. Categories get declared early and never trimmed, a test runs with a fixture deviation nobody dispositioned, or a report closes a condition the setup did not actually represent. When that evidence later anchors a TSO or STC claim, the weakness is inherited into the certification package, and by then the campaign is over and re-testing is expensive.
What gets reviewed
- DO-160G environmental categories declared for the article checked against the test setups that produced each report
- Pass criteria and margins in each qualification report verified against the article's performance requirements
- Test deviations and failures traced to a disposition that survives being cited in the certification package
- Software life-cycle data at the declared DAL mapped to the DO-178C objectives it must satisfy
- The qualification plan reconciled to the certification basis and the means of compliance it feeds
- Configuration of the tested article confirmed against the part number the evidence will support
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 declared DO-160G category is supported by a test report whose setup actually represented that condition
- Pass margins recorded in the reports leave headroom against the article's performance requirements
- Every test deviation carries a disposition that holds when the report is cited in a compliance claim
- Software DAL and its DO-178C objectives agree with the surveillance function's failure classification
- The article configuration tested matches the part number the qualification evidence is meant to support
Evidence normally required
- The surveillance qualification plan with its declared DO-160G category set
- Environmental test reports for the article with their setup descriptions
- Deviation and failure logs from the surveillance campaign with their dispositions
- Software life-cycle data and the declared DAL for the surveillance function under review
- The tested surveillance configuration and its part-number definition
Common discrepancies
- A DO-160G category declared in the plan but represented by a test setup that did not cover it
- A recorded pass with almost no margin against the performance requirement it is meant to demonstrate
- A test deviation left without a disposition that would survive being cited in a package
- Software objectives at the declared DAL that the life-cycle evidence never closed
What is at stake
A qualification result cited beyond what it proves invites a finding when an authority reads the report against the claim. On a surveillance article the exposure compounds, because integrity and radiated performance claims are examined closely, and a deviation that was never dispositioned can put a completed test campaign back in question after the article is already in the field.
How the work runs
Anchor to the plan
Fix the qualification plan, the declared categories, and the claims the evidence will feed.
Read report to setup
Confirm each declared condition was actually represented by the test that reports it.
Resolve deviations
Trace every deviation and failure to a disposition that survives being cited.
Rank and sequence
Order re-test and disposition work by closure difficulty against the citing date.
What the buyer receives
- A product-specific gap list against the qualification plan, ranked by closure difficulty
- A trace map from each qualification result into the certification basis and means of compliance
- A closure sequence ordering re-test or disposition work before the evidence is cited
Who uses the output
- Qualification engineers confirming the campaign supports the claims it will feed
- Certification leads deciding which results are ready to cite and which need rework
- Program managers weighing re-test cost against the schedule the certification package depends on
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review runs at the end of the qualification campaign and before the evidence is cited, so a weak or over-declared result is caught while re-test is still an option. Its gap list drives the disposition or re-test work, and its trace map hands the TSO or STC package a set of results that already reconcile to the certification basis.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and the European system can accept the same DO-160G evidence, but the referenced revision and the environmental conditions expected for a given surveillance function are not always aligned. The review notes where a declared category rests on a revision or condition the receiving authority treats differently.
Regulatory limits
The review reads the qualification evidence and shows where it supports or overreaches the claims it will feed. It does not witness or approve testing, grant any authorization, or make an airworthiness determination on the article.
What this review does not cover
- Conducting or re-running the qualification tests
- Dispositioning failures on the supplier's behalf as a signatory
- Any equipment authorization or airworthiness determination on the article
Specific to this review
- Declared categories and tested conditions drift apart across a campaign, so the review compares each DO-160G category to the setup that actually produced its report rather than to the plan alone.
- A pass recorded with almost no margin is a latent finding, because it demonstrates the condition only at the exact point the article was tested and leaves nothing for installation variation.
- An undispositioned deviation is cheap to close during the campaign and expensive to answer once the report has been cited in a submitted package.
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
We already have all the test reports. What does this add?
Having reports is not the same as having evidence that supports the claim. The review checks that each declared category was actually tested, that margins hold, and that deviations are dispositioned, so the package cites results that reconcile to the certification basis instead of inheriting a weakness from the campaign.
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.