Meeting Aviation Mandates

To meet the mandates concerning avionics and on-board systems, seen in the previous chap-ter, there are two alternatives: introduction of COTS (Commercial off-the-shelf) products or use of current avionics but which are certified with an alternative certification process based on the principle of performance equivalence. However, there is recognition that, sometimes, re-utilisation of avionics and other on-board systems could not necessarily meet an absolute equivalent level of performance because of lack of components.

Understanding the complexity and diversity of standards for military and aerospace compo-nents is a challenge in itself. It is therefore not surprising that securing qualification and testing processes contributes substantially to increased costs. Obviously from a military perspective, when applications are not particularly mission critical, the use of COTS components (that meet civil requirements) is preferable from an economic point of view, also considering that it is always possible to use versions of COTS designs intended for difficult or hostile operating conditions.

Is COTS’ introduction really preferable from an economic point of view? It is necessary a trade-off analysis: in order to fit COTS there must be space required on the military aircraft, and this is possible if the aircraft is new and sizeable, whereas existing fighters, probably, are not be able to be retrofitted, which is why it is desirable to use PE process.

Performance-based certification must not lower certification standards, rather it must deliver better requirements on the basis of a performance-based approach which would benefit all airspace users.

The objective is to discuss the access of military aircraft to common non-segregated airspace volumes relying on systems which meet the performance requirements and which do not hinder the safety level associated with that airspace and to support mutual recognition of certificates from different certification environments.

Both alternatives will be considered in order to reach a conclusion through a gap analysis.

54

4.2.1 Performance Equivalence Concept

The concept of Performance Equivalence is used with different meanings, so it is underline the necessity to quote the following high-level definition from AC/92(EAPC)D(2016)0001 dated 13 May 2016: "For Military aircraft, Performance Equivalence is the ability to meet the required functional attributes of ATM/CNS systems against the performance, safety, security and inter-operability requirements of regulated airspace. This includes the measurable (e.g. metrics from regulations and standards) and non-measurable functional requirements (e.g. procedures or technical architecture), demonstrated through the evaluation of accuracy, integrity, continuity of function and availability."

Performance Equivalence is a methodology for achieving Alternative Means of Compliance (A-MOCs) when Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMCs) cannot be met or when there is an operational and/or technical advantage of not using it.

The concept of performance-based certification is designed to focus on the technical performance of the system rather than its architecture or components, and is thus intended to define tailored means of compliance in support of the certification activity.

The flow chart in Figure 4.1, extracted from the JFR, illustrates the high level concept on which the process for determining compliance, equivalence or exemption is based.

Figure 4.1: Process for Determining Compliance, Equivalence or Exemption

Chapter 4. One sky for all

Generally up to now, no military equipment is Technical Standard Order (TSO)/European Technical Standard Order (ETSO) compliant, so an alternative compliance strategy can be applied to submit it to civil certification.

In order to solve the absence of TSO or ETSO approval, an extensive analysis of the equipment documentation (Specifications, Equipment Test Results, etc.) provided by the Original Equip-ment Manufacturer (OEM) can be done in order to show the level of compliance with regards to the civil standards.

4.2.2 The certification environment

The certification environment (Figure 4.2) is depicted functionally below using a five-ring dis-play.

(a) Certification processes and certificates, labels

and privileges (b) Certification processes and certificates, labels

and privileges modified and not

Figure 4.2: Certification environment

The certification of military systems is no different from that of civil systems: it follows the same strict rules and requires a legal framework supporting the actions of the certification authority.

As seen in Figure 4.2(a), the certification requirements are the basis for certification, the doc-umented certification processes ensure that the certification is performed according to the ex-pected standards and the certificates, labels and privileges are the outcome of the certification processes applied to a system (or individuals).

In aviation, the certification environment is the cornerstone for the performance and interop-erability of the certified systems.

Being the architecture of military aircraft different from that of civil airliners, many require-ments could be prejudicial to the certification of the operational capabilities of military aircraft although safety, performance and interoperability requirements, which are at the heart of the objective of certification, are met.

In Figure 4.2(b), the aspects identified in the red-coloured circles will not be modified in the performance-based certification.

Each ring is analysed: military authorities are assumed to be as reliable as civil authorities, so there is no need or no requirement for modifying the legal framework and that part of the

56

certification environment of the military authorities.

That is why in Figure 4.2(b), the authority and the legal framework are both coloured in red to show that they will not be modified by performance-based certification. And so for other rings.

4.2.3 Applicability of requirements to fighter aircraft: timing and priorities

The target is to outline key elements of a strategic approach for the military towards compliance with civil PBN/RNP requirements to enable safe, unrestricted and timely access to airspace.

Avionics and on-board systems required for military aircraft to be integrated into the GAT are analysed, including from the PE point of view, assigning priority based on previous experience or time of implementation issued by mandate’s point¹.

Depending on the available expertise and access to public domain information, analysis could be performed on EF Typhoon, so that analysis activity acts as a case study to derive a generic process for other military aircrafts assessment.

It is noted that avionics and CNIS (Communication, Navigation, Identification and Surveil-lance) systems provided by Leonardo Spa are analysed ².