Building Blocks Simplify RFQ Process

Welcome to Wired!

Preparing a request for a quote to integrate new equipment, and the capabilities it provides, can often grow into a process more complicated than it needs to be. An RFQ is like any other business document; its efficacy depends on clear, concise, comprehensive communication. To avoid the stress and delay that comes with making it more difficult than it needs to be, work backwards one block of information at a time.

Everything builds on the cornerstone, on a concise statement of work, says ASIG Managing Director Luke Ribich. “The number one issue with RFQs is the absence of clearly defined operational goals: We want to do this. We want these system qualifications. We want this improved dispatch reliability. We want to satisfy these regulatory requirements by this date and time.”

Rather than being afraid to admit that they don’t know what they don’t know, operators should “be open to the education that comes from it,” Ribich says. “More often than not we’ll get a call from an operator saying ‘I have this problem. I have this need.’ So we start with consultations, research the available solutions, help them create their statement of work, and then, based on the operational requirements, show them what the project  is going to entail.” 

Not fully understanding  the complexity and allowable regulatory  parameters that shape the certification process can lead to confusion. To some, “the certification package consists of installation drawings, wiring diagrams, instructions for continued airworthiness, approved flight manual supplements, and the document data list.” But that’s only the half of it. These things follow the engineering and test data, annotated with the appropriate FAA guidance, that proves to the aircraft certification office’s satisfaction that the new system integrates with the existing systems without suffering or causing problems.

To overcome this confusion, using the cornerstone statement of work, ASIG explains its SEMPER process and leads an operator  through the realities of the certification process. (For an idea of what’s involved, see the three-part STC Symphony.) With the statement of work, “we typically ask for the baseline tech data,” Ribich says, the maintenance manuals, wiring diagrams, repair manuals, and related aircraft documentation pertinent to system being integrated.

If they have already done internal research, in their RFQ operators can identify the equipment, by manufacturer and part number, they would like to use. “That way we can start to gather the necessary intel, if you will, on the device, the spec sheets, the installation data, the OEM manual, what the sensor inputs and outputs are, and all the physical and environmental requirements for mounting and placement.”

But this research is not mandatory. “If they haven’t identified equipment up front, we’ll do a cost configuration assessment,” says Ribich, and present options, as the statement of work allows, that offer the best efficiency, economy, and scalability.

How much time a project takes depends on its complexity, and the number of separate steps. Design and certification is one step, or line of business, and the manufacture of PMA parts and/or installation kits is another line of business because “the kitting costs won’t be finalized until the design data is finished.”

Customers can influence the timetable greatly. Instead of getting to work after it received the contract, ASIG spent four months educating a recalcitrant Part-121 customer that did not fully grasp the FAA certification requirements that prevented it from installing a system approved for the business-jet version of the airplane it used to transport paying passengers.

This project was nowhere near the complexity of another project, demilitarizing and converting a French Air Force DC-8-72 and its five-man cockpit  into an US-registered aircraft with with a three-man cockpit filled with 21st century systems. But it took less time, 4.5 months from contract award, “and we did the installation in a line flight environment, nosed into an FBO’s hangar.” Like the project, the RFQ that launched it was just as straightforward.

Until next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!

Technorati Tags: Request for Quote,SEMPER Process,Fleet Upgrades,Statemet of Work,Part-121 Operators,PMA Parts

ASIG Certifies iPad EFB on N-Jet Charter Fleet

Little Rock, AR: December 13, 2010—Avionics & Systems Integration Group (ASIG) accepted—and quickly met—the challenge issued by N-Jet/Northern Illinois Flight Center: Make the Apple iPad a COTS electronic flight bag approved for FAA Operations Specification A061 “paperless” operations in its diverse Part-135 fleet of seven different aircraft models.

“The iPad EFB is about 1/10^th the cost of a traditional Class 2 EFB. In addition, the iPad’s ability to use electronic aeronautical data in lieu of paper enroute charts and approach plates can cut the annual cost of paper data in half.  These two factors give the iPad EFB a compelling financial justification.” says ASIG’s Managing Director Luke Ribich, “By integrating the iPad EFB into its diverse fleet,” wrote N-Jet CEO Howard Seedorf, ASIG “has allowed us to reduce our aircraft weight, lessen the burden and expenses associated with managing revision transmittals while improving crew resource management.”

Equally important, the FAA’s acceptance of the iPad EFB system and its documentation provides “future fit options by giving us great flexibility as commercial technologies bring forth new and advanced devices or, as we add additional aircraft types to our existing fleet” of the Citation Excel and Encore+, Astra/G100, and Falcon 10, 50, 900B, and 900EX EASy.

ASIG’s iPad EFB integration expertise includes iPad environmental testing for rapid decompression (RD) and electromagnetic interference (EMI), a “smart” power supply to mitigate FAA concerns about charging lithium batteries on aircraft and the ability to design and certify a variety of aircraft system interfaces for the iPad EFB.

Addressing its “technical and regulatory expertise,” N-Jet wrote that ASIG “went the extra mile to supply expert consultations and often supported short-notice teleconference meetings with our Primary Operations and Avionics Inspectors from our CHDO, [giving] our ASI’s a high degree of confidence in ASIG and the entire project, making the application process trouble-free.”

For additional information regarding ASIG's operating activities, product and services offerings join the company’s technical journal, Wired – an Avionics & Integration Weblog, ASIG’s bi-weekly newsletter or contact Mr. Mike Neder, Director of Business Development, toll-free at (866) 890-ASIG [2744] or ASIG sales group via email at sales@asigllc.com.

###END###

FAA Requires Smart Power Sources for Portable Electronic Devices

Welcome to Wired!

From smart phones to laptop computers to the iPad, portable, personal, and productive electronic devices (PEDs) have not only changed our daily lives, they have redefined the AC outlets found on Part 25 transport category aircraft. Even though PED plugs fit in old-school “dumb” outlets, FAA Policy Memo ANM-01-111-165, Policy Statement of Power Supply Systems for Portable Electronic Devices on Part 25 Airplanes, makes it clear that these outlets are are NOT approved for this use.  

Most aircraft 110-volt AC outlets  today deliver 500 volt-ampere power to whatever is plugged into them, like the cleaning crew’s vacuum cleaner. An iPad is not a vacuum cleaner. Like most PEDs, it has a lithium-polymer battery. Feeding too much juice to lithium batteries can lead to bad things. In   thermal runaway a battery can  deliver shocks, burns, and smoke. And overloading the PSS circuit can shut down the electrical bus it is connected to, and maybe even the generator that powers it.

To avoid these problems—and their consequences—the FAA  requires “smart” PSSs that deliver “Goldilocks” power, not too much, not too little, just right for the PED’s operating needs. In a 1997 policy memo, the FAA said 100-watts adequately powered the laptops of that era, so it was the PSS’s max output. With the maturation and proliferation of the extended PED family, in 2005 the current memo doubled the power limit to 200 watts, still less than half that in dumb outlets.  

In an AC circuit, the 200-watt PSS maximum is better specified in volt-ampere (VA), which is like a watt but not identical. Electrical engineers prefer the volt-ampere because it is the unit of measurement used in the selection of conductors and devices that protect a circuit. Regardless the measurement, the consequences of too much power are the same.

PEDs today have no “novel or unusual design features” that require specific mention of them in federal aviation regulations or requirements, says the policy memo. The current regs and requirements provide an adequate level of safety and the memo lists all that apply to the certification of a PED PSS. Dated March 18, 2005, the memo supersedes 1997 policy for the installation of in-seat power supply systems. The current policy covers all PED power supply systems regardless of the outlet’s location: the cockpit, seats, cabin baseboards, or a cabinet on the aft bulkhead.

Related regulatory guidance can be found in two other policy memos: ANM-100-2000-00105 (September 18,2000), Certification of In-Flight Entertainment Systems, addresses wire installation and cabin components, including “smart” outlets. ANM-111-2002-01-04 (January 28, 2003), provides guidance on wiring design and instructions for continued airworthiness.

Limiting the PED PSS to 200 VA prevents its use for unintended functions, like driving a curling iron or hair dryer. It is for PEDs only, and further guidance can be found in Volume 4 of FAA Order 89001, which covers electronic flight bags (EFBs). A tablet computer like an iPad, worn as a kneeboard, is a Class I EFB. Mount it in a bracket and it is a Class II EFB. Regardless, it is still a portable electronic device that needs power.

Of particular interest is section 4-1644E, Power Sources: When the iPad’s battery is the primary power source, aircraft power can be secondary, recharging the battery in flight.  Continuing this thought, Section 4-1648A, EFB Power Source, points back to the PED PSS installation requirements. A note reiterates the safety hazards posed by over-charging or discharging lithium-ion batteries. “Operators should have lithium ion battery charging procedures which are in total accordance with the battery manufacturer’s charging instructions and prevent aggravation of lithium ion battery thermal hazards.”

With a “dumb” outlet that delivers a fixed flow of energy, this is easier said than done because every manufacturer has slightly different charging instructions. Some prevent overcharging by automatically reducing the AC input when the battery is topped off. Others tell the user to pull the plug when the LED stops flashing.

Therein lies the beauty of a smart power supply system like ASIG’s Astronics AES EmPower® system: it reacts to the load of the connected device and ensures against over-current, over/under-voltage, and frequency differential conditions. Once satisfied that the connected device does not demand more than these thresholds, it provides only the amount of volt-amperes deemed suitable for PEDs as established by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Naturally, there is much more involved in installing a power supply system specifically for PEDs whether they are video games, smart phones, or iPads. For more specifics, contact ASIG.

Until next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!

Technorati Tags: Personal Electronic Devices,Portable Electronic Devices,Power Supply Systems,In-Flight Entertainment,iPad,Electronic Flight Bag,EFB

Compliance & Implementation: STC Symphony Part III

Welcome to Wired!

Part I: Certification Management is ASIG’s STC Symphony

Part II: Plan the Certification, Certify the Plan

With the certification plan accepted, the project manager and ASIG-FAA team assigned, Phase III of the STC symphony, Compliance Planning, begins, says Luke Ribich, ASIG’s managing director. It completes the certification plan by itemizing how tests and inspections will verify its realization.

How involved the FAA is in this effort depends on the project’s complexity, the available resources, and the experience of the applicant and its designated engineering and airworthiness representatives. Triggers for increased FAA involvement include rulemaking for special conditions, determining ELOS—equivalent levels of safety—developing issue papers, and tasks it never delegates.

Typically, the FAA delegates all but its direct responsibilities, so DERs and DARs, conduct the conformity inspections that demonstrate engineering and manufacturing quality and show compliance. Using common compliance means, such as those outlined in advisory circulars, streamlines the process. Parts built to a TSO have already earned FAA approval, and a Parts Manufacturer Approval, also handled by ASIG, does the same for equipment built specifically for the STC.

Ultimately, the ACO identifies critical test items that generate data for 100 percent compliance, providing special test instructions as necessary. Compliance planning completes the Certification Plan, and if everything it contains is successfully executed, the results will show compliance.

In Phase IV, Implementation, ASIG starts submitting the actual data to the project manager, according to the timetable. Type design data includes drawings, specs, dimensions, materials, processes, airworthiness limitations, and more. Other data comes from design evaluations and conformity inspections of parts, assemblies, installations, test articles and setups, and functions. The FAA evaluates it all to ensure that it matches everything specified in the certification plan.

The FAA can conduct any conformity inspection it wants, and the project must pass them before ground and/or flight testing can begin. When ASIG manufactures an installation kit, it must pass a conformity inspection, usually conducted by a staff DAR, before it can be installed, Ribich says. A second conformity inspection verifies, down to the smallest fastener, that the kit was appropriately installed.

During conformity inspections the test team is finalizing its comprehensive plan, which covers everything from the test items, process, and setup to when and where and witnesses. As with every other aspect of the certification plan, “everyone is on the same page about the level of testing,” and conformity inspections verify that the tests followed the approved plan. Meanwhile, the FAA’s aircraft evaluation group (AEG) is reviewing other aspects, like the electrical wiring interconnection system plan, ICA, and flight manual supplement.

When it is clear the aircraft will meet the certification basis, the FAA issues a Type Inspection Authorization, an internal document clearing the aircraft is ready for its final certification inspections and tests. If these tests deliver as all previous data has predicted, and the AEG has signed off on its reviews, the FAA issues the STC.

Issuance of the STC begins Phase IV, Post-Certification Activities. With the airline in charge of operational safety and airworthiness accountability with ASIG, as appropriate they evaluate, report, and remedy any applicable problems and disseminate this information to all involved, because the rewards of an STC symphony also come with continuing responsibility.

Until next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!

Technorati Tags: STC,Certification Management,FAA ACO,Compliance Inspections Testing,Designated Engineering Representative,Designated Airworthiness Representative,Airline Fleet Upgrades,EWIS,ICA,EmPower,OnBoard,In-flight Entertainment

Plan the Certification, Certify the Plan: STC Symphony Part II

Welcome to Wired!

Part I: Certification Management is ASIG’s STC Symphony

In an STC symphony the certification plan is the score, the major-domo document that tells who is to play what note when. It is a living manuscript, says Luke Ribich, ASIG’s managing director. It changes as it matures because “stuff always pops up along the way.”

Its genesis begins in Phase I, Conceptual Design, with the kickoff meeting where ASIG familiarizes the FAA Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) with the project and what FAA resources will be needed to complete it, “if we don’t already have access to them, which we usually do,” says Ribich.

Occasionally this briefing can take place virtually, says Ribich, but ASIG prefers meeting face to face, just as it does with its customers, because it simplifies mutually beneficial show-and-tell, the gathering’s essential purpose. Given the depth of detail derived from the definition of work with the operator, ASIG briefing includes who will supply major equipment and any related vendor relationships.

For example, in addition to “certification management and technology insertion,” ASIG may distribute the equipment it’s installing, such as EmPower and the OnBoard IFE system. Such arrangements rarely cause problems because everyone knows about them up front, just like any technical issues related to the STC, or unique or novel features it introduces.

In the simplest terms, in Phase I ASIG and the ACO discuss every aspect of the certification plan before ASIG writes it. The FAA reviews the submitted plan in Phase II, Requirements Definition, which leads to the project’s first milestone, FAA acceptance of the plan.

Briefly, the certification plan includes General Information, a complete, concise description of the modification. It specifies compliance methods and verification data, including ground, air, and component testing. This must be congruent with the certification basis, says Ribich. In certain cases, a project may use a historic level of certification rather than current regulations.

The Schedule of Project Completion predicts all major milestones, submission of data and test plans, and when and where design, manufacturing, parts, installation, and conformity inspections will take place. Meeting deadlines is the key to avoiding delays, so ASIG coordinates all schedule changes with the ACO.

To expedite certification and reduce the demand on ACO resources, at the kickoff meeting ASIG requests that its staff DERs and DARs perform all appropriate engineering and airworthiness work on the FAA’s behalf. The certification plan lists this mutually agreed upon cadre of experts and their contribution to the project.

The Continued Airworthiness Plan tells how the design change will affect the instructions for continued airworthiness and the forthcoming updates. Likewise, there is a conformity plan. If the project involves hardware and/or software not already approved by TSO or conforming to RTCA standards, this, too, must be addressed in the plan.

When the plan passes muster, the FAA accepts it and the ACO assigns a project manager, and it is ready for Phase III, Compliance Planning.

Until next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!

Technorati Tags: STC,Certification Management,FAA ACO,Compliance Inspections Testing,Designated Engineering Representative,Designated Airworthiness Representative,Airline Fleet Upgrades,EWIS,ICA,EmPower,OnBoard,In-flight Entertainment

Certification Management: ASIG’s STC Symphony

Welcome to Wired!

At first utterance, certification management sounds like a mundane process. Far from it, says Luke Ribich, managing director of ASIG. It is a synonym for earning an supplemental type certificate (STC), a complex, overlapping five-phase effort illustrated by a flowchart that fills two pages in AC 21-40A, Guide to Obtaining a Supplemental Type Certificate. At almost every step, he says, there can be “a lot of gotchas for the unaware.”

Managing an STC effort is not unlike writing and arranging a symphony. Composing the score is just the first step. Then comes hiring the musicians, renting the hall, rehearsing, promoting the performance, and then conducting it for an audience of critics. To get a good review—the desired STC—everyone must play their parts without error, with each section reaching its crescendo on cue.

Anyone who covets such a composition can attempt the process on their own, but as his noble patrons immediately realized, commissioning Beethoven provided less costly gratification more quickly, saving them the time and gotchas of learning to do it themselves. Once commissioned, ASIG employs its SEMPER process to learn about and define an operator’s specific requirements.

Upon completing this conceptual research, the operator’s “job is to sit back and make decisions as presented, and provide any baseline data that we request,” Ribich says. ASIG handles almost everything with the FAA, delivering regular reports so everyone knows where the project is on its detailed timeline.

As in music, understanding the process enriches appreciation of the product. In this, the first of three parts, Wired will reveal the structure of ASIG’s STC symphony. Who participates in the conceptual sessions with ASIG depends on what equipment and/or capabilities the operator wishes to add to its fleet, says Ribich. ASIG recommends that the ensemble include all interested stakeholders from within engineering, tech service, and maintenance to operations. ASIG also recommends that the airline’s principal operations, avionics, or maintenance inspectors attend.

Involving the appropriate FAA inspectors early can be important on STC projects that involve operational approvals. ASIG handles every aspect of the certification, says Ribich, but the airline’s certificate management team must deal directly with the FAA on all operational approvals. Installing an iPad based electronic flight bag is a good example, Ribich says. ASIG develops the installation right down to the mounting bracket’s effect on human factors. But to use the approved installation the airline must get the approval of its POI. Involving the inspector early reduces the chances of a last-minute surprise.

During this process, ASIG writes and refines a detailed definition of the operator’s requirements. It ranges from regulations and policy on which the STC is based to cost configurations, ground and flight testing, and sourcing parts. When certain that no note is sour, ASIG schedules a kickoff meeting with the FAA Aircraft Certification Office, which starts Phase I of the STC symphony, Conceptual Design.

Until Next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!

Technorati Tags: STC,Certification Management,FAA ACO,Compliance Inspections Testing,Designated Engineering Representative,Designated Airworthiness Representative,Airline Fleet Upgrades,EWIS,ICA,EmPower,OnBoard,In-flight Entertainment

Aging Aircraft Safety Rule Deadline, Fatigue-Critical Structures & ASIG

Welcome to Wired!

In medicine, the guiding principle is “First, Do No Harm.” In other words, treating the malady is not supposed to adversely  affect the patient’s immediate health or long-term quality of life.

A similar rule will soon affect Part 121 and 129 operators. At the heart of the Aging Aircraft Safety Rule (AASR) is the requirement that the repair, alteration, or modification of fatigue-critical structures does not affect airframe integrity and safety. To ensure this outcome, by December 20, 2010, operators must have in place a maintenance program based on the airframe’s damage tolerance.

“Aging,” however, is a misnomer. AASR affects every US-registered airplane in 121/129 service that was delivered before the December 20, 2010 deadline. Whether you’re flying a venerable DC-8 or a 777 that was delivered yesterday, AASR applies to you. At best guess, it affects roughly 4,000 airplanes and 240 operators. (That number could more than double if Transport Canada and EASA decide to adopt its requirements.)

In the FAA dictionary, a fatigue-critical structure “is susceptible to fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure.” This includes structures that become susceptible to catastrophic fatigue cracking due to alteration or repair.

ASIG has built considerable knowledge of and experience with  AASR requirements and processes through years of STC work.  Since  January 11, 2008, the rule has required that STCs include damage tolerance inspections of fatigue-critical structures. It has made the same requirements for new or revised repair and master-change service bulletins. The point is that regardless of how the information is delivered, STC or service bulletin, the essential process for acquiring the necessary data is the same.

 Advisory Circular 120-93, Damage Tolerance Inspections for  Repairs and Alterations, provides the necessary guidance. To comply, by December 20 operators must reassess their structural maintenance programs and how they handle repair approvals. They must survey all active airplanes and document what existing  repairs, alterations, and modifications require damage tolerance inspections. Compliance might sound easy, but it requires complex process and procedural changes and revisions to existing maintenance programs.

In the FAA dictionary, an “existing” repair, alteration, or modification will have been performed before December 20, 2010 on a fatigue-critical structure not already covered by a damage tolerance evaluation and resulting inspections.

The survey and evaluation process starts with an “as-delivered” aircraft, with  OEM supplied documents setting the baseline.  These documents define and list fatigue-critical structures and include updated damage-tolerance maintenance data in repair manuals and in  fleet and master-change service bulletins. STC holders, such as ASIG, provide baseline data for applicable modifications.

The Operator Implementation Plan (OIP) is built on the foundation of baseline data. It includes a timeline for such milestones as completing the fleet survey, determination of damage tolerance inspections, and accomplishment of those first inspections. The OIP is due by December 20, 2010, and the operator’s FAA principal maintenance inspector must review and approve it.  ASIG’s leadership team has its foundation in air carrier engineering management.  Their efforts have led to the derivation of a variety of FAA accepted procedural compliance programs supporting airframe “thumb-printing,” specifically those tracking, detailing and analyzing damage tolerance.   Damage tolerance programming and DTA show-compliance determinations are at the very core of ASIG’s Structural DER cadre.

Once the OIP and the individual airframe applications are approved, the work continues after the deadline as operators follow their OIP to compile their damage tolerance data and revise their maintenance programs that sustain fatigue-critical structures and airframe integrity.

ASIG extends its sincere thanks to thanks to Mr. Mike Gray of Sun Country Airlines for suggesting we address this industry critical topic.

Until next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!

Technorati Tags: Aging Aircraft Safety Rule,Fatigue-critical Structure,Damage Tolerance,Maintenance Plans,Operator Implementation Plan