Browse Topic: Integrated modular avionics
Garmin International, Inc Olathe, KS 800-800-1020
This document is applicable to commercial and military aircraft fuel quantity indication systems. It is intended to give guidance for system design and installation. It describes key areas to be considered in the design of a modern fuel system and builds upon experiences gained in the industry in the last 10 years.
ABSTRACT In the early days of quality management, prior to 1980s, the focus seemed to be on "Quality Control" or "Quality Assurance". Emphasis was placed on inspection and testing. Quality was about conformance to specification. Non-Conformance Reports were representative of quality control. Our understanding of quality management has evolved, largely based on the Toyota Quality and Concurrent Engineering Approach of moving it off the production line for Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) [1]. In the late 1980s industry experienced similar difficulties in understanding and adopting quality management. The ideas behind managing quality are quite abstract. Quality is primarily about understanding and satisfying a customer's expectations. This includes implicit expectations, as well as explicit expectations. The techniques of specification, inspection and testing only make sense in that wider context. Formal risk management was developed in the late 1980s and throughout the
This Aerospace Standard (AS), establishes minimum performance standards for those sensors, computers, transponders, and airplane flight deck controls/displays which together comprise a Takeoff Performance Monitor (TOPM) System. This standard also defines functional capabilities, design requirements, and test procedures. A TOPM system is intended to monitor the progress of the takeoff and to provide advisory information which the crew may use in conjunction with other available cues to decide to continue or abort the takeoff. See Appendix A for supplementary information relating to NTSB, CAA, and ad hoc committee concerns and background information.
Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) system comprises IMA platform and hosted applications. The IMA platform provides the hosted applications with shared resources, e.g. computing, memory, communication, health monitoring resources. As a bridge between them, the IMA configuration data specifies how these shared resources are allocated to each hosted application. The IMA configuration data, which is different from real hardware and software code, should be validated and verified as an important portion of IMA system. After a brief introduction of IMA system, development processes, and general means of compliance for certification, this paper proposed an Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) model of IMA configuration based on a case study of airborne datalink system. Based on the model, the IMA configuration data is abstracted and categorized into several types, with the correspondent means of compliance identified for each type. Furthermore, the associated roles and
Most of today’s collision-avoidance, in-flight-entertainment (IFE), air-to-ground-communications, and other avionics systems employ electronics packaging based on the Aeronautics Radio INC (ARINC) 600 standard. Compared to the older ARINC 404 standard dating from the 1970s that defined “black box” enclosures and racks within aircraft, ARINC 600 specified a Modular Concept Unit (MCU) – the basic building block module for avionics. An ARINC 600 metal enclosure can hold up to 12 MCUs, allowing a lot of computing power to be placed in a centralized “box.” By making it possible to run numerous applications over a real-time network, ARINC 600 enabled “next generation” integrated modular avionics (IMA).
This document is applicable to commercial and military aircraft fuel quantity indication systems. It is intended to give guidance for system design and installation. It describes key areas to be considered in the design of a modern fuel system, and builds upon experiences gained in the industry in the last 10 years.
ABSTRACT By adopting the latest developments from other critical (e.g. integrated modular avionics) and high-volume automotive industries with safety requirements (ADAS and autonomous driving), the rotorcraft industry could reduce system lifecycle costs and gain new integrated platform capabilities which support incremental modernization, simplify upgrades and modifications for different missions or rotorcraft platforms. A specific set of architecture design patterns and computational models, used in integrated modular architectures, enables the design of less complex integrated systems which can collect and process all system sensor data in (hard) real-time, supports seamless sensor data fusion for IVHM, and enables the integration of critical and non-critical functions. Accompanied with robust system engineering, RTCA DO-254 / DO-178C DAL A/B design assurance and extended use of ASIL-D-compliant (automotive) components, novel integrated architectures for rotorcraft can be designed to
ABSTRACT Advanced Integrated Modular Avionics (A-IMA) will drive new focus and challenges for Model Based Engineering (MBE). First, there is the need to bridge MBE to legacy system elements that were developed without MBE along with the need to handle hybrid Open System Architecture / Integrated Modular Avionics (OSA/IMA) based architectures. Second, there is the need for MBE to be reusable and interoperable across product development cycles as technology insertions occur. Third, there is the need for integration of MBE into synthesizable descriptions that can also be effectively validated for mixed general purpose, safety, and secure computing and networking environments. Fourth is the need for effective application of MBE in hybrid waterfall and agile development environments where target infrastructure is scalable in capability and cost. Fifth is the need for MBE to support partitioned roles across companies, government, and universities where one entity does requirements, one does
In the aerospace industry, as the modern avionics systems became more and more complex, the Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture has been proposed as a replacement of the federated architecture, in order to offer better solutions on SWaP constraints (Size, Weigh and Power). However, the development process of IMA avionics systems is much more difficult. This paper aims to propose to the aerospace industry a set of time-effective and cost-effective solutions for the integration and functional validation of IMA systems. Based on MBE methodology, which is considered as an interesting solution for the IMA systems development [8], this paper proposes a design flow, that integrates three steps of refinement, for the configuration and the validation of IMA platforms. In the first step of the design flow, the modeling language AADL is used to describe the IMA architecture. The AADL modeling environment OCARINA, a code generator initially designed for the real-time operating system
In the Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) domain, THALES developed a high performance communication network named SAEN (Self Adaptive Embedded Network). SAEN is a switchless network solution, fully embedded in a single Network Component Interface (NCI), aimed to interconnect easily several modules of a system, in any mesh network topology. Once each module is equipped with its network component, just connect them together to realize the wanted topology and switch ‘on’ the modules power supplies. At power-on, all the nodes of the network aggregate to form a complete global and coherent network, autonomously managing its configuration and the optimal static routing between any emitter and receiver. The constituted network is deterministic, autonomous, self-discovering, and auto-adapting to the network variations and guarantees an optimal routing in any situation of the graph, as long as a path exists. The interest of managing mesh topology resides in the intrinsic robustness offered by
This document outlines the development process and makes recommendations for total antiskid/aircraft systems compatibility. These recommendations encompass all aircraft systems that may affect antiskid brake control. It focuses on recommended practices specific to antiskid and its integration with the aircraft as opposed to more generic practices recommended for all aircraft systems and components. It defers to the documents listed in Section 2, for generic aerospace best practices and requirements. The documents listed below are the major drivers in antiskid/aircraft integration: 1 ARP4754, Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems 2 ARP4761, Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment 3 RTCA DO-178, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification 4 RTCA DO-254, Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware 5 RTCA DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for
Since 2000, avionics is facing several changes, mostly driven by technological improvements in the electronics industry and innovation requirements from aircraft manufacturers. First, it has progressively lost its technological leadership over innovation processes. Second, the explosion of the electronics consumer industry has contributed to shorten even more its technology life cycles, and promoted the use of COTS. Third, the increasing complexity of avionics systems, which integrate more and more functions, have encouraged new players to enter the market. The aim of this article is to analyze how technological changes can affect the competitiveness of avionics firms. We refer to criticality levels as a determinant of the market competitiveness. Certification processes and costs could stop new comers to bring innovations from the consumer electronics industry and protects traditional players. The study will compare three avionics systems regarding their patent dynamics since 1980
An Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture provides a common platform for software partitions with shared processing and input/output (I/O) resources. A key feature of the IMA architecture is I/O partitioning. An IMA system will prevent one software partition from changing an I/O resource that is owned by another software partition. This prevents one software partition from controlling the outputs of another due to hardware fault or software error. The IMA system must have protection mechanisms in place to enforce the I/O partitioning.
For Orion Exploration Flight Test One (EFT-1), the unit-under-test for flight software verification has been chosen as the entire integrated flight software load. At the time of this reporting, the unit test tool, while powerful, operates on very small units, usually classes. This leaves a sizable gap between unit testing and verification. Orion flight software is divided into ARINC 653 partitions, and partition level testing is in this large gap.
ABSTRACT This paper describes recent results from the Georgia Institute of Technology to develop, improve, and flight test a multi-aircraft collaborative architecture, focused on decentralized autonomous decision-making. The architecture includes a search coverage algorithm, behavior estimation, and a pursuit algorithm designed to solve a scenario-driven challenge problem. The architecture was implemented on a pair of Yamaha RMAX helicopters outfitted with modular avionics, as well as an associated set of simulation tools. Simulation and flight test results for single- and multiple-aircraft scenarios are presented. Further work suggested includes identification and development of more sophisticated methods that can replace the simpler elements in modular fashion.
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 98