4 ms·
> A good software assurance program in a flight environment should also be ensuring simulators are of high enough fidelity for testing and training. Actually,
by crocal 7y ago
> A good software assurance program in a flight environment should also be ensuring simulators are of high enough fidelity for testing and training.
Actually, "must" not "should". Aeronautics certification standards require tools such as simulators to be qualified for their intended use. Similar requirement have been introduced in recent release of railway standards.
- bumby 7y agoI agree with you're correcting my imprecise wording, but it still seems like there's an issue with the certification process if this particular "must" didn't get built in. I guess my question is: why didn't the QA flag get raised on this or if it did, why wasn't it given any credence? I'm not trying to armchair quarterback this, but I'm legitimately curious if this issue is one the certification process is expected to catch
- bbayer 7y agoCertification process is generic enough to apply it to different types of aircrafts. There is no specific requirements for different subsystems introduced by manufacturer. Simulation fidelity is tested against real world data but it is not possible to collect data for every condition that might occur during flight. You may refer to FAA FSS Level-D QTG document for further reference. [1] [1]: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/media/14CFR60_Searchable_Version.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/media/14CFR60_Sear...
- salawat 7y agoConcerns were raised, but also dismissed or otherwise culturally disincentivize by management. There are whistkeblowers currently willing to testify as much, based on information released to Australia's 60 Minutes 737 Expose.