Development assurance
DO-200B aeronautical data for data quality requirements and the processing chain
For avionics suppliers, equipment suppliers, Engineering teams, this review is used when Aeronautical-data compliance planning. EE checks data-quality-requirement definitions per data element, processing procedures and their controls, integrity/CRC protection across the chain against the approval basis, the configuration baseline, and the available lifecycle data. The output gives data engineers and certification liaisons an evidence map, discrepancy register, request list, and closure plan for the records that need applicant, supplier, or authority disposition.
What gets reviewed
- Index data-quality-requirement definitions per data element against the claim it supports.
- Compare processing procedures and their controls against the claim it supports.
- Trace integrity/CRC protection across the chain against the claim it supports.
- Challenge traceability to the source against the claim it supports.
- Reconcile acceptance credential against the claim it supports.
- Confirm approval basis against the claim it supports.
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
- Configuration match: data-quality-requirement definitions per data element fails review if the cited record cannot be tied to the current baseline.
- The review notes that evidence link: processing procedures and their controls fails review if the cited record cannot be tied to the current baseline.
- Limit carryover: integrity/CRC protection across the chain fails review if the cited record cannot be tied to the current baseline.
- Source control: traceability to the source fails review if the cited record cannot be tied to the current baseline.
- Closure owner: acceptance credential fails review if the cited record cannot be tied to the current baseline.
Evidence normally required
- Baseline record: data-quality-requirement definitions per data element
- Test file: processing procedures and their controls
- Analysis note: integrity/CRC protection across the chain
- Manual source: traceability to the source
- Configuration item: acceptance credential
- Closure evidence: approval basis
Common discrepancies
- Finding in records: integrity assured at one link but broken at a hand-off.
- Installer issue: DQRs undefined for a critical element.
- Buyer concern: a database whose provenance cannot be traced to an approved source.
- Program risk: baseline does not match the delivered records.
How the work runs
Frame 200b Data
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any data-quality-requirement definitions per data element is treated as sufficient.
Trace Requirements Support
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 Review Aeronautical
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Chain Development
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
- The review notes that evidence map for DO 200b Data Quality Requirements
- Discrepancy register for DO 200b Data Quality Requirements
- Applicability and approval basis summary
- Source record request list
Who uses the output
- data engineers use the map to brief the decision.
- certification liaisons use the register to assign closure.
- quality leads use the request list to collect source records.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
How a navigation-database or aeronautical-data supplier meets DO-200B, because compliance turns on defined Data Quality Requirements (accuracy, resolution, integrity, traceability) flowed through the whole processing chain from origination to the airborne database, with a Letter of Acceptance or equivalent. The evidence set centers on the data-quality-requirement definitions per data element, the processing procedures and their controls, integrity/CRC protection across the chain, traceability to the source, and. The likely weak points are integrity assured at one link but broken at a hand-off, DQRs undefined for a critical element, and a database whose provenance cannot be traced to an approved source; Deeper than the live do-200b-aeronautical-data-support page: centers the DQR-and-processing-chain decision. The output gives the data engineer a cleanup register for DO-200B aeronautical data for data quality requirements and the processing chain before aeronautical-data compliance planning.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
EE does not issue approvals, make compliance findings, approve manuals, or determine airworthiness. The review gives the applicant, designee, buyer, or authority-facing team a clear evidence record for their own decisions.
Specific to this review
- how a navigation-database or aeronautical-data supplier meets DO-200B, because compliance turns on defined Data Quality Requirements (accuracy, resolution, integrity, traceability) flowed through the whole processing chain from origination to the airborne database, with a Letter of Acceptance or equivalent.
- Data-quality-requirement definitions per data element often controls whether later summaries can be trusted.
- Integrity assured at one link but broken at a hand-off is treated as a record gap until an owner closes it.
- FAA and EASA evidence should stay distinguishable from commercial claims and installer notes.
- The scope uses the 200b Data Quality Requirements question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Aeronautical-data compliance planning and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Data-quality-requirement definitions per data element and follows Support Evidence Review Aeronautical 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 data engineer: 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 Processing Chain Development Assurance questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Evidence map for DO 200b Data Quality Requirements; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
RTCA. Design assurance objectives and lifecycle data for airborne electronic hardware (FPGA/ASIC/PLD).
Frequently asked questions
What makes this standards review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to 200b data quality requirements and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block aeronautical-data compliance planning or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is data-quality-requirement definitions per data element, 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 data engineer 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.