Avionics Software Development and DO-178B

on Mar 18, 09 • by Brendan Harrison • with 2 Comments

Today, I had a chance to connect with Connie Beane, the Director of Certification and Safety Critical Software for ENEA Embedded Technology, Inc. Connie has a deep background in safety-critical avionics systems development as a Federal Aviation Administration Designated Engineering Representative (DER) with authority...

Home » Software Compliance » Avionics Software Development and DO-178B

Today, I had a chance to connect with Connie Beane, the Director of Certification and Safety Critical Software for ENEA Embedded Technology, Inc. Connie has a deep background in safety-critical avionics systems development as a Federal Aviation Administration Designated Engineering Representative (DER) with authority for design assurance level A systems, software and complex electronic hardware. Her additional experience includes 12 years with the FAA in the Transport Airplane Directorate as a Project Officer, Federal representative and Secretary of the RTCA committee SC-180, which produced DO-254, as well as 8 years at Boeing as a Lead Engineer in Boeing Commercial and Boeing Aerospace Divisions.

I wanted to talk to her more about avionics software development, specifically give Kloctalk readers some additional background on the DO-178B guidance that’s used in avionics software development.

[Brendan]:  Can you describe the short version of the history behind this guidance, its purpose, and use in the industry?
[Connie]: In the early 1990’s Boeing was developing the 777 aircraft, which included very software intensive systems.  As a result, industry began using software development and verification tools as a means of developing software more efficiently. The FAA saw this trend as a concern since many of these tools were being used with very little human oversight. When DO-178B was published in 1992, a section on Tool Qualification was included.

[Brendan]:  Is DO-178B guidance only used by teams developing software for commercial aircraft or is it used elsewhere?
[Connie]: DO-178 was developed for commercial aircraft, however, today DO-178B is being used for much more.  It is being used for commercial systems which aid aircraft such as ground based navigation and communication systems. Interestingly, it’s also now being used in military applications both airborne and ground based.

[Brendan]: What’s the most common misunderstanding people have about DO-178B?
[Connie]: That it involves much more than good engineering practices.  DO-178B was developed by government and industry.  They incorporated good engineering practices and some additional activities to ensure safe, reliable software.

[Brendan]: What are a few of the core software development best practices that are required by DO-178B?
[Connie]: Quality Assurance audits, requirements traceability, robustness testing, standards for design, coding and verification.

[Brendan]:  Sounds like a pretty rigorous approach to software development, which of course is a good thing given its safety-critical nature. What kind of cost burden does DO-178B add to a typical project?
[Connie]: That depends on whether the software being developed is performing highly critical functions or not.  For highly critical software, the cost of developing to DO-178B could double the average development cost.

[Brendan]:  Switching gears a bit to your role at ENEA. Out of the full range of DO-178B service offerings you provide, what’s the most common problem you’re brought in to solve?
[Connie]:  Probably the most common issue is a project that is behind schedule and needs to be certified to meet a customer deadline.

[Brendan]:  What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in aircraft systems development during your career?
[Connie]:  Growth in use of software and complex electronic hardware to develop highly integrated avionics systems.

[Brendan]: What do you think the future holds for this guidance? Do you see it evolving in a particular direction that’s different from where it is now?
[Connie]: There is an international committee currently working on the next version of DO-178. This committee is addressing issues such a object-oriented design, model based development, and further defining qualification of software tools.  This committee is also developing a companion guideline to DO-178 which will be applied to ground based software.

[Brendan]: Any final thoughts?
[Connie]:  Companies resist embracing DO-178.  However, once a company has the processes and procedures in place to ensure compliance to DO-178, their software development process is easily understood, repeatable, and maintainable.  This translates to software which is reliable, understandable, traceable and maintainable.

Related Posts

2 Responses to Avionics Software Development and DO-178B

  1. Anil Kumar .T says:

    If you broadly classify the kind of tests, they are nominal test and robustness test.
    for eg: the requirement states that the Nose Angle shall be in the range 30 to 60 deg.

    Nominal are those tests in which we drive the values for nose angle 30 , 50, 60 and the system behaves as desired.
    Robustness cases are those cases which are checked that the system has some defensive mechanism when values other than in range 30 to 60 are provided.

  2. Remya says:

    Could you please explain to me what is Robustness Test in Avionics Proejcts and what are the Test scenarios that must be identified under this section?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Scroll to top