Surveillance TSO
Surveillance equipment certification evidence for TSO authorization
This support prepares the certification evidence behind a surveillance article so it holds together for a TSO authorization. It reads the transponder, ADS-B OUT, and antenna substantiation the way an authority reviewer will, then ties each performance claim and each qualification result back to a document that exists on file. An engineer who has built TSO packages runs it while a supplier is assembling the application, not after a finding lands. You receive a product-specific evidence gap list, a trace map keyed to the certification basis and means of compliance, and a closure sequence that clears the article for authorization.
When this review is needed
- A transponder or ADS-B article is heading toward a TSO authorization and the evidence needs a read before the application is filed.
- The minimum performance standard for the surveillance function has been revised and the package has to be checked against the current revision.
- A design change to the antenna reopened qualification and only part of the affected evidence has been regenerated.
- An earlier authorization is being extended to a new part number and the reused substantiation has to be tested for currency.
The problem
A surveillance article pulls evidence from several disciplines that rarely finish together. Radiated performance against the transponder and ADS-B minimum performance standards, DO-160G environmental qualification, software life-cycle data at the declared DAL, and antenna placement assumptions all land as separate reports on separate schedules. The supplier who owns the application cannot always see which referenced test is missing a revision or which integrity claim rests on an analysis that was never signed.
What gets reviewed
- Transponder and ADS-B OUT performance claims traced to the minimum performance standards the TSO invokes
- DO-160G environmental categories declared for the article checked against qualification reports on file
- Software life-cycle data at the declared DAL mapped to the DO-178C objectives the surveillance function requires
- Antenna and installation assumptions in the substantiation cross-checked to the qualification test setup
- The certification basis and means of compliance confirmed so the article presents as one coherent submission
- Configuration of the authorized part number reconciled against the evidence it rests on
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 ADS-B and transponder performance figure resolves to a test report or analysis rather than a restatement of the specification
- Declared DO-160G categories match the environmental conditions the article is actually being authorized for
- Software DAL and its DO-178C data items agree with the failure classification assigned to the surveillance function
- Antenna gain and placement assumptions in the substantiation match the setup the qualification testing used
- Every referenced standard revision in the package is the one the underlying evidence was produced against
Evidence normally required
- The TSO authorization application draft and the declared certification basis
- Transponder and ADS-B performance test reports and supporting analyses
- DO-160G qualification reports covering the article's environmental categories
- Software life-cycle data and the declared DAL for the surveillance function
- Antenna and installation substantiation with the associated drawings
Common discrepancies
- An ADS-B integrity claim referenced to a standard that no test report on file closes out
- DO-160G categories declared broader than the qualification campaign covered
- A software objective at the declared DAL that the life-cycle evidence never satisfied
- Antenna placement assumptions the substantiation relies on that the qualification setup did not represent
What is at stake
A package that cites a performance standard without the report that closes it draws a finding, and the authorization stalls until the evidence is produced or the claim withdrawn. Surveillance integrity feeds airspace separation, so authorities probe these claims hard, and a stall late in the program lands while installers are already planning around an authorization date.
How the work runs
Anchor to the authorization
Fix the TSO the article is being authorized against and the performance standards it invokes.
Trace every claim
Follow each performance and qualification statement to the report or analysis that supports it.
Test the assumptions
Confirm antenna, installation, and software assumptions agree across the package.
Rank the surveillance gaps
Order the open items by closure difficulty against the authorization application date.
What the buyer receives
- A product-specific evidence gap list ranked by how hard each item is to close before the application
- A trace map linking each surveillance claim to the certification basis, means of compliance, and its supporting document
- A closure sequence ordering the evidence work against the authorization timeline
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers assembling the TSO authorization application for the article
- Engineering leads deciding which team produces the missing performance or qualification evidence
- Program managers holding the authorization date against the evidence still outstanding
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review sits between evidence generation and the authorization application, taking the reports the disciplines produced separately and testing whether they read as one defensible package. Its gap list drives the work that has to close before the article goes to the authority, and its trace map becomes the reference that later finding responses point back to.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Surveillance mandates and the performance standards they invoke diverge between the FAA airspace and the European system, so an article authorized under a TSO can meet a different referenced revision when the same evidence is presented for European acceptance. The review flags where a performance claim rests on a revision that the other authority does not yet recognize.
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 surveillance function or its installation.
What this review does not cover
- Generating the missing performance, qualification, or software life-cycle evidence
- Filing the TSO authorization application on the supplier's behalf
- Any installation approval or airworthiness determination on the fitted article
Specific to this review
- ADS-B integrity claims are scrutinized harder than most TSO evidence because they feed airspace separation, so a thin transponder report is a poor place to gamble on an authorization date.
- DO-160G categories are often declared aspirationally at program start and never trimmed to what testing actually covered, which is where the trace most often opens daylight.
- Antenna assumptions live in the installation substantiation but drive the article's qualification, so a mismatch between the two reads as two documents describing two different products.
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
Can you check evidence we are reusing from an earlier transponder authorization?
Yes. Reused evidence is tested for currency against the standard revisions the new authorization invokes and for applicability to the new part number and configuration. Evidence that held for the earlier article does not always carry over cleanly, and the trace map shows exactly where it does not.
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.