Software certification liaison support for airborne software

When this review is needed

• A stage-of-involvement review is approaching and the lifecycle data has to be ready for it.
• The software plans were written early and may no longer match how the program is being run.
• Verification is generating results and the team needs them mapped to the objectives before an audit.
• The open problem reports and prior review findings need closing and tracking before the next milestone.

The problem

DO-178C programs are paced by the authority reviews, and a software team that treats the plans as a one-time deliverable arrives at each stage-of-involvement audit out of sync. The plans describe a process the program no longer follows, verification results exist but are not mapped to the objectives the level requires, and open problem reports accumulate without a closure path. The audit then spends its time on housekeeping instead of the engineering, and the milestone slips.

What gets reviewed

• The software plans and whether they describe the process the program actually runs
• Lifecycle data against the DO-178C objectives for the assigned level
• Readiness of each stage-of-involvement milestone the program is approaching
• The verification results and their mapping to requirements-based test objectives
• Tool qualification data where verification or development tools need it
• The open problem reports and prior findings, each with a tracked closure path

What gets validated

• The plans describe the process the program is actually following
• Lifecycle data is present for every objective the assigned level requires
• Verification results map to requirements and to the coverage the level demands
• Each stage-of-involvement milestone has the data the review expects
• Tool qualification is in place where a tool's output is relied on without review
• Open problem reports and prior findings have an owner and a closure path

Evidence normally required

• The software plans and the assigned design assurance level
• The lifecycle data and verification results produced so far
• The stage-of-involvement schedule and any prior review records
• The open problem report log and finding list

Common discrepancies

• Plans that describe a process the program has since diverged from
• Lifecycle data missing objectives the assigned level requires
• Results from verification not mapped to requirements or to the required coverage
• Tools relied on for verification without the qualification the use needs
• Open problem reports with no tracked path to closure before the milestone

What is at stake

A review that finds the lifecycle data not ready for its stage turns into re-work against a fixed certification calendar, and each slipped milestone compounds because the next stage cannot open until this one closes. Mismatched plans also undermine the objective evidence behind them, since the data was produced to a process the plans no longer describe.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• A review-readiness assessment against the DO-178C objectives for the level
• A finding-closure list with owners and a closure path
• An objective-coverage view mapping lifecycle data to the level's requirements

Who uses the output

• Software certification leads preparing for the stage-of-involvement review
• Engineering teams closing the objective and coverage gaps
• Program management sequencing the milestones around the authority calendar

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The support focuses on the software assurance layer and its authority interactions. It works alongside the hardware assurance and system-level evidence in a fuller data package, and it readies the software data for each review rather than performing the development.

Aircraft-specific considerations

The objectives that apply scale with the assigned design assurance level, so software driving a more severe failure condition carries more lifecycle data and a heavier review than software whose failure effect is minor.

Regulatory limits

Endeavor Elements prepares and reviews the applicant's software lifecycle data. It does not conduct the stage-of-involvement review, make the compliance finding, or guarantee the software is accepted. The authority conducts the review and makes the finding.

What this review does not cover

• Conducting the stage-of-involvement review or making compliance findings
• Developing the airborne software itself
• Issuing any approval or accepting the software data

Specific to this review

• DO-178C assigns objectives by design assurance level, so the amount of lifecycle data and the depth of review scale with the software's failure effect, not with the size of the codebase.
• Stage-of-involvement reviews are milestones in the program, and arriving with data that does not match the plans is what turns a review into re-work.
• Tool qualification under DO-330 is required where a tool's output is trusted without independent review, and a missing qualification is a common audit finding.
• Plans that no longer describe the process being run undermine the lifecycle data produced under them, because the evidence was made to a process the plans misstate.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits