- Joined
- Feb 15, 2012
- Messages
- 9,608
- Reaction score
- 4,449
For anyone interested, here's an update on the certification process of the IFD540, from Steve (AviJake) the VP for development.
Would like that certification done yesterday, but at least it is nice to have detailed progress reports.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I noted earlier, we did get the FAA results from the Multi-Pilot System Usability Evaluation (MPSUE). They performed a very comprehensive review of the product in lab, ground and flight environments.
They came away with 36 findings. They group the findings into categories.
"CI" is a Certification Issue and is defined as "an unacceptable design, mechanization or situation that must be fixed/addressed to FAA satisfaction before certification."
"PCI" is a Potential Certification Issue and is defined as "A design, mechanization, or situation which the FAA has considerable concerns with. May become a CI after further testing & familiarity. Must be closed before certification. (All PCIs will either be upgraded to a CI or downgraded to a Comment or closed at the conclusion of the project)."
"CMT" is a Comment and is defined as "Suggestions for improvement. No applicant feedback required."
I'm not able to easily put this in table format for better reading but the stats are:
CI's - 7
PCI's - 22
CMT's - 7
Of the 7 CI's, we've made changes to the code to address 3 of them, we provided an explanation to 1 of them and we are seeking clarification on 3 of them.
Of the 22 PCI's, we've made changes to the code to address 10 of them, we provided an explanation to 10 of them, we are not contesting any of them and are seeking clarification on 2 of them.
Of the 7 CMT's, none generated a code change, we provided explanations to 3 of them, we are not contesting any and the FAA has already closed 4 of them.
To get a feel for the types of findings, the CI's covered areas such as feedback for incorrect data entry (we provided an explanation to this one), "hidden" functions (we are contesting those), and mode confusion (we made changes to address those).
Examples of the PCIs include areas such as function labeling, rubber banding, charts behavior, CDI behavior and FMS operations.
Where is stands now, we've made all the changes to the code that we proposed and we are awaiting the FAA response to those areas where we provided an explanation or are contesting the FAA finding.
BTW, the explanations provided were all at the request of the FAA. In those cases, the PCI stated the FAA concern and they asked for an explanation of the system design or the behavior they observed.
All told, this is exactly par for the course on how all past MPSUEs have gone. We can't spike the MPSUE complete ball until the FAA has favorably responded to our actions/explanations/contesting but it feels pretty good.
S. Jacobson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would like that certification done yesterday, but at least it is nice to have detailed progress reports.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I noted earlier, we did get the FAA results from the Multi-Pilot System Usability Evaluation (MPSUE). They performed a very comprehensive review of the product in lab, ground and flight environments.
They came away with 36 findings. They group the findings into categories.
"CI" is a Certification Issue and is defined as "an unacceptable design, mechanization or situation that must be fixed/addressed to FAA satisfaction before certification."
"PCI" is a Potential Certification Issue and is defined as "A design, mechanization, or situation which the FAA has considerable concerns with. May become a CI after further testing & familiarity. Must be closed before certification. (All PCIs will either be upgraded to a CI or downgraded to a Comment or closed at the conclusion of the project)."
"CMT" is a Comment and is defined as "Suggestions for improvement. No applicant feedback required."
I'm not able to easily put this in table format for better reading but the stats are:
CI's - 7
PCI's - 22
CMT's - 7
Of the 7 CI's, we've made changes to the code to address 3 of them, we provided an explanation to 1 of them and we are seeking clarification on 3 of them.
Of the 22 PCI's, we've made changes to the code to address 10 of them, we provided an explanation to 10 of them, we are not contesting any of them and are seeking clarification on 2 of them.
Of the 7 CMT's, none generated a code change, we provided explanations to 3 of them, we are not contesting any and the FAA has already closed 4 of them.
To get a feel for the types of findings, the CI's covered areas such as feedback for incorrect data entry (we provided an explanation to this one), "hidden" functions (we are contesting those), and mode confusion (we made changes to address those).
Examples of the PCIs include areas such as function labeling, rubber banding, charts behavior, CDI behavior and FMS operations.
Where is stands now, we've made all the changes to the code that we proposed and we are awaiting the FAA response to those areas where we provided an explanation or are contesting the FAA finding.
BTW, the explanations provided were all at the request of the FAA. In those cases, the PCI stated the FAA concern and they asked for an explanation of the system design or the behavior they observed.
All told, this is exactly par for the course on how all past MPSUEs have gone. We can't spike the MPSUE complete ball until the FAA has favorably responded to our actions/explanations/contesting but it feels pretty good.
S. Jacobson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last edited:
