Standard Practice for Methods to Safely Bound Behavior of Aircraft Systems Containing Complex Functions Using Run-Time Assurance
1.1 The scope of this practice includes the following:
1.2 RTA components are required to meet the design assurance level dictated by a safety assessment process. Guidance for the safety assessment process may be found in references appropriate for the intended operations (ARP4754A, ARP4761, Practice F3178, etc.).
1.3 This practice was developed with UAS in mind. It may be applicable for aspects of manned aircraft certification/approval, as well as aviation ground systems. The scope of this practice is also envisioned to allow a variety of aircraft implementations where a human may perform the role of either the Complex Function or a Recovery Function.
1.4 The scope of this practice does not cover aspects of hardware/software integration. These should be considered separately during the development process.
Note 1: This practice does not suggest a one-size-fits-all strategy knowing that not all use cases may fit well into this architecture. There may exist additional components required to satisfy specific applications to the practice.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.
1.6 Table of Contents:
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
1.1 The scope of this practice includes the following:
1.2 RTA components are required to meet the design assurance level dictated by a safety assessment process. Guidance for the safety assessment process may be found in references appropriate for the intended operations (ARP4754A, ARP4761, Practice F3178, etc.).
1.3 This practice was developed with UAS in mind. It may be applicable for aspects of manned aircraft certification/approval, as well as aviation ground systems. The scope of this practice is also envisioned to allow a variety of aircraft implementations where a human may perform the role of either the Complex Function or a Recovery Function.
1.4 The scope of this practice does not cover aspects of hardware/software integration. These should be considered separately during the development process.
Note 1: This practice does not suggest a one-size-fits-all strategy knowing that not all use cases may fit well into this architecture. There may exist additional components required to satisfy specific applications to the practice.
1.5 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.
1.6 Table of Contents:
Title |
Section |
|||
Introduction |
| |||
Background |
| |||
Scope | 1 | |||
Referenced Documents | 2 | |||
ASTM Standards | 2.1 | |||
FAA Advisory Circular | 2.2 | |||
RTCA Standards | 2.3 | |||
SAE Standards | 2.4 | |||
Terminology | 3 | |||
Unique and Common Terminology | 3.3 | |||
Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard | 3.4 | |||
Abbreviations | 3.5 | |||
Significance and Use | 4 | |||
RTA Functional Architecture | 5 | |||
Overall Architecture | 5.4 | |||
Components and Interfaces | 5.4.1 | |||
RTA System Coverage | 5.4.2 | |||
RTA Scenarios | 5.4.3 | |||
Event Sequencing and Timing | 5.4.3.8 | |||
Best Practices | 5.4.4 | |||
Requirements | 5.4.5 | |||
RTA Interfaces | 5.5 | |||
Input Manager | 5.6 | |||
Description | 5.6.1 | |||
Requirements | 5.6.2 | |||
Safety Monitor | 5.7 | |||
Requirements | 5.7.2 | |||
RTA Switch | 5.8 | |||
Description | 5.8.1 | |||
Requirements | 5.8.2 | |||
Recovery Function | 5.9 | |||
Description | 5.9.1 | |||
Best Practices | 5.9.2 | |||
Requirements | 5.9.3 | |||
Keywords | 6 | |||
Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) as an Example | Appendix X1 | |||
Introduction |
| |||
Unassured Function | X1.1 | |||
4.1 This practice provides an architectural framework for developing an RTA system, which provides run-time assurance as an alternative to design-time assurance to fulfill safety requirements for an unassured or complex function. The standard provides best practices and guidelines to assist in the RTA system’s development. Further, it describes the architectural components and requirements for designing the RTA system.
Compliance to this practice is achieved by deriving RTA System requirements from the standard and capturing them in the Larger System Specification. The system design requirements can then be validated and verified using acceptable engineering practices. It is anticipated that this practice will provide a means to accept complex automation/autonomy aircraft functions that have been difficult to certify using traditional methods.
4.2 The following three-step process is used to derive verifiable design requirements using this architecture standard:
4.3 The RTA architecture can be applied to all sizes, levels, and classes of UAS. Using run-time assurance can provide systems with the following benefits:
Failed to load document history.
| Publish Date | Document Id | Type | View |
|---|