DO-178C review
DO-178B to DO-178C transition review for avionics suppliers
This page is for avionics suppliers, equipment suppliers, Certification teams when Legacy product modification or reissue puts do-178b to do-178c transition review on the critical path. EE checks legacy software lifecycle data, DO-178C objective map, tool qualification rationale against the approval basis, configuration baseline, effectivity, revision status, and source records named in the brief. The buyer receives a discrepancy register, evidence map, and closure request list for the next review gate. The work tests records and certification-data traceability only; it does not replace authority, delegate, approval-holder, or authorized-person decisions.
When this review is needed
- Use this review when Legacy product modification or reissue starts driving schedule or commercial exposure.
- A certification manager reviving or modifying a legacy product searching for whether DO-178B evidence is still acceptable.
- The highest-risk breakpoint is: assuming blanket acceptance of DO-178B data without checking the applicable AC/AMC revision, legacy tool qual credit that does not translate to a TQL, and mixed-revision programs where new code follows C while changed legacy code silently keeps B processes.
The problem
At this gate, on a new or changed program, can DO-178B-era lifecycle data stand, or do the DO-178C changes (supplements, tool qualification restructuring into TQLs, parameter data items, clarified objectives) force rework. The file set covers the certification basis and guidance revision the authority expects, the legacy data set mapped against DO-178C objective changes, tool qualification claims restated in TQL terms, and the change scope that reopens otherwise grandfathered data. Known breakpoints include assuming blanket acceptance of DO-178B data without checking the applicable AC/AMC revision, legacy tool qual credit that does not translate to a TQL, and mixed-revision programs where new code follows.
What gets reviewed
- Review the buyer decision in the brief: Decide whether legacy DO-178B data survives on a current program and scope the upgrade where it does not.
- Trace legacy software lifecycle data to source date, revision, owner, and current configuration.
- Match effectivity for DO-178C objective map to the serial range, article version, aircraft, or fleet in scope.
- At this gate, on a new or changed program, can DO-178B-era lifecycle data stand, or do the DO-178C changes (supplements, tool qualification restructuring into TQLs,.
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
- Document control: legacy software lifecycle data has an identified owner and no uncontrolled copies carrying the main claim.
- Effectivity test: DO-178C objective map is rejected when coverage is inferred from similar hardware or aircraft.
- Configuration test: certificate scope, report setup, and delivered baseline are reconciled before credit is assigned.
- Exception handling: each unresolved point receives a closure owner and a target source record.
Evidence normally required
- Source record set for legacy software lifecycle data
- Program file covering DO-178C objective map
- Configuration baseline with approval basis and revision index
- Open issue log tied to tool qualification rationale
Common discrepancies
- The file set covers the certification basis and guidance revision the authority expects, the legacy data set mapped against DO-178C objective changes, tool qualification.
- Known breakpoints include assuming blanket acceptance of DO-178B data without checking the applicable AC/AMC revision, legacy tool qual credit that does not translate to a TQL, and.
- Revision mismatch leaves tool qualification rationale separated from the certificate, matrix, instruction, or delivered baseline.
- Storage completeness is higher than decision readiness because the file lacks a clear disposition for this buying stage.
What is at stake
Specific exposure for this page: assuming blanket acceptance of DO-178B data without checking the applicable AC/AMC revision, legacy tool qual credit that does not translate to a TQL, and mixed-revision programs where new code follows C while changed legacy code silently keeps B processes.
How the work runs
Frame 178b 178c
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any legacy software lifecycle data is treated as sufficient.
Trace Review Avionics
Walk the named evidence from index entry to source artifact and mark where the trail supports, conflicts with, or fails to answer the page-specific question.
Sort Defend Legacy
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Upgrade 178
Deliver the exception list, evidence map, and owner sequence in a form that can move directly into remediation, submittal cleanup, or transaction negotiation.
What the buyer receives
- DO-178B to DO-178C transition review discrepancy register
- source map for legacy software lifecycle data
- effectivity and configuration closure list
- decision summary with limits and escalation items
How the work fits into the transaction or program
On a new or changed program, can DO-178B-era lifecycle data stand, or do the DO-178C changes (supplements, tool qualification restructuring into TQLs, parameter data items, clarified objectives) force rework. The evidence set centers on the certification basis and guidance revision the authority expects, the legacy data set mapped against DO-178C objective changes, tool qualification claims restated in TQL terms, and the change scope that reopens otherwise grandfathered data. The likely weak points are assuming blanket acceptance of DO-178B data without checking the applicable AC/AMC revision, legacy tool qual credit that does not translate to a TQL, and mixed-revision programs where new code follows C while changed legacy code silently keeps B processes. The output gives the certification manager a cleanup register for DO-178B to DO-178C transition review for avionics suppliers before legacy product modification or reissue.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Regulatory limits
For do-178b to do-178c transition review, EE reviews legacy software lifecycle data, DO-178C objective map, tool qualification rationale for completeness, consistency, and traceability. The work does not issue approvals, approve data, grant relief, validate STCs, accept release certificates, or make airworthiness determinations. Final decisions remain with the responsible authority, delegate, approval holder, operator, or authorized person.
Specific to this review
- At this gate, on a new or changed program, can DO-178B-era lifecycle data stand, or do the DO-178C changes (supplements, tool qualification restructuring into.
- The file set covers the certification basis and guidance revision the authority expects, the legacy data set mapped against DO-178C objective changes, tool.
- Known breakpoints include assuming blanket acceptance of DO-178B data without checking the applicable AC/AMC revision, legacy tool qual credit that does not.
- The scope uses the 178b 178c Transition Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Legacy product modification or reissue and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with legacy software lifecycle data and follows Avionics Suppliers Defend Legacy references until every exception has a source location and a reason code.
- The finding logic separates missing paperwork, conflicting status, stale revision data, and unsupported disposition because each class closes through a different owner.
- The timing matters for certification manager: the output is useful only if the unresolved items are visible before acceptance, submittal, handback, or negotiation pressure fixes the sequence.
- The boundary control keeps Data Upgrade 178 Revision questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from DO-178B to DO-178C transition review discrepancy register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
- The source discipline is stricter on this page than on a general audit because the claim being tested is Decide whether legacy DO-178B data survives on a current program and scope the upgrade where it does not..
Sources
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this standards review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to 178b 178c transition review and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block legacy product modification or reissue or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is legacy software lifecycle data, the current status source, and any index or matrix that tells reviewers where the supporting artifact should live. Missing inputs are logged as findings rather than filled with assumptions.
Who decides whether an open item is acceptable?
The review explains what the evidence supports and gives certification manager a closure path. Acceptance remains with the buyer, operator, authority, delegated engineer, or authorized person responsible for the underlying airworthiness or certification decision.
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.