Flight Tests. In the SESAMO generic process, the primary emphasis is on techniques related to the first two items – the remaining items are highly domain-specific. The SESAMO generic process provides the necessary conceptual framework to permit the inclusion of both software and hardware safety processes – which also exist in other domain-specific standards such as ISO26262 for the automotive domain. In the avionics context, RTCA ED-12C / DO-178C (Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification) defines the software safety process required for safe implementation of software, whilst RTCA ED-80 / DO-254 (Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware) defines the hardware safety process required for safe implementation of hardware. ED-12C provides recommendations for the production of software for airborne systems and equipment that performs their intended function with a level of confidence in safety that complies with airworthiness requirements. Compliance with the objectives of this standard is the primary means of obtaining approval of software used in civil aviation products. This use of an integrity/confidence levels approach is fully compatible with the corresponding generic SESAMO approach. ED-80 is intended to help aircraft manufacturers and the suppliers of aircraft electronic systems assure that electronic airborne equipment safely performs its intended function. The document identifies design life cycle processes for hardware that includes line replaceable units, circuit board assemblies, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic devices, etc. It also characterizes the objective of the design life cycle processes and offers a means of complying with certification requirements. Most of these processes occur at a level that is more specific than the SESAMO generic process, but hooks are available especially with respect to making the evidence available for certification employing also the SESAMO security-informed safety case techniques. The interaction between the safety and development process is shown in Figure 25, which is taken from ARP4754. Note that the classic V-model approach embraced by the SESAMO generic process is also used here, ensuring a fundamental compatibility. Figure 25 – Interaction between safety and development process (taken from ARP4754) Figure 26 shows the aircraft development processes in more detail. Safety Assessment Process System Development Process Aircraft Level Functi...
Flight Tests. Maintenance Provider shall conduct, with its own pilots and covered by its own policies of insurance, any required flight test of the Aircraft following the provision of Services hereunder. Customer shall be responsible for all other costs associated with any such flight. Customer shall be entitled to have an observer on board the Aircraft during any such test flight. Any Discrepancies discovered during such flight testing and relating to Services performed by Maintenance Provider shall be corrected at a location determined by Maintenance Provider. Any warranty claims for reimbursement of the costs of correcting such Discrepancies shall be settled in accordance with Article 15.
