A method and system for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance

Abstract

This application belongs to the field of aircraft design technology, and specifically relates to a method and system for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance. It involves acquiring development and flight data of the aircraft model to be certified, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of airworthiness compliance using expert scoring, and determining the verification scope of the current model based on the degree of compliance. The verification scope includes the aircraft level, system level, equipment level, and hardware / software level. It acquires single-aircraft or group certification configuration data, performs configuration impact analysis on each system within the system level, and determines the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system. Based on the error allocation threshold, it conducts optimized design of the corresponding system equipment. The optimized system is then subjected to tiered verification. At the equipment level, a benchmarking analysis is performed between development standards and airworthiness standards for each piece of equipment. This tiered verification by aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software level fully reuses existing data, reduces redundant testing and flight trials, significantly shortens the certification cycle, and lowers verification costs.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application belongs to the field of aircraft design technology, and specifically relates to a method and system for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance. Background Technology

[0002] Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) refers to reducing the vertical separation of aircraft from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet (300 meters) within the flight altitude range of FL290-FL410 (approximately 8,900 meters to 12,500 meters). my country implemented RVSM airspace operations in 2007, and aircraft must obtain airworthiness approval from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) before entering this airspace.

[0003] Currently, the existing RVSM airworthiness certification for transport category aircraft has the following deficiencies:

[0004] 1. Prerequisites for certification: It must rely on the certification of the whole aircraft TC. According to the certification practice of domestic large aircraft, the total cycle of whole aircraft TC certification and post-certification RVSM group capability certification is more than 15 years. Uncertified aircraft cannot carry out RVSM single capability certification independently.

[0005] 2. Incomplete verification system: There is no hierarchical and reusable conformity verification path, and existing research, development, testing and flight test data cannot be fully reused, resulting in long certification cycles and high costs;

[0006] 3. Inconsistent certification standards: There is a lack of unified verification standards for both single-machine and group modes, and group certification lacks manufacturing consistency inspection standards and quantitative methods for key static pressure areas of the machine head.

[0007] To ensure that an aircraft obtains RVSM airspace flight qualification, a more effective conformity verification method needs to be developed to demonstrate compliance with RVSM-related airworthiness requirements, thereby ensuring the successful achievement of certification objectives. Summary of the Invention

[0008] To address the aforementioned issues, this application provides a method and system for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance, thereby resolving the problem in the prior art that data from the development phase cannot be directly used to demonstrate compliance with RVSM-related airworthiness requirements.

[0009] The technical solution of this application is: a method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance, comprising:

[0010] The development and flight data of the aircraft model to be certified are obtained, and the aircraft is evaluated for compliance with airworthiness requirements at the aircraft level by using expert scoring. Based on the degree of compliance of the comprehensive evaluation, the verification scope after the aircraft level is determined. The verification scope after the aircraft level includes the system level, equipment level and software and hardware level.

[0011] Acquire single-aircraft or group certification configuration data, conduct configuration impact analysis on aircraft shape and each system within the system level, and determine the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system; based on the error allocation threshold, carry out the optimization design of the corresponding system equipment;

[0012] All systems after optimization design include both optimized and non-optimized systems. The optimized systems are then subjected to hierarchical verification. Non-optimized systems reuse existing data to demonstrate compliance, while optimized systems undergo supplementary testing and system-level flight test verification.

[0013] A benchmarking analysis of the development standards and airworthiness standards is conducted on each piece of equipment at the equipment level to determine whether it meets the equipment level requirements for airworthiness compliance. If so, proceed to the next step.

[0014] A benchmarking and gap analysis is conducted on the software and hardware at the software and hardware level to determine whether the software and hardware requirements for airworthiness compliance are met. If so, proceed to the next step.

[0015] Determine the RVSM flight envelope, test flight subjects and test flight methods, and use the group rounding method to conduct ground checks on the consistency of aircraft manufacturing;

[0016] After verification at the aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software levels, as well as ground checks to ensure consistency in aircraft manufacturing, conformity documents are compiled.

[0017] Preferably, an expert scoring method is used to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the aircraft's compliance with aircraft-level airworthiness requirements, specifically as follows:

[0018] An expert review panel composed of airworthiness review experts, aircraft design experts, and flight test experts was established. For different aircraft models, an RVSM (Real Estate Management System) review scoring system was developed, encompassing six dimensions: error control indicators, system functional compliance, equipment qualification compliance, hardware and software security, flight test data validity, and manufacturing consistency. For each dimension, quantitative scoring standards and weighting coefficients were set according to airworthiness regulations. The expert panel assigned scores based on Level 4 verification data, test / flight test reports, and ground inspection records. A weighted average score was calculated to obtain a comprehensive score. Once the comprehensive score reached a preset pass threshold, the aircraft model was deemed to have passed the RVSM review and verification. Expert review opinions were then formed and included in the RVSM airworthiness compliance evidence package.

[0019] Preferably, the system level includes an altitude measurement system, an altitude display / reporting system, an altitude deviation alarm system, and an altitude holding system. The configuration impact analysis of each system within the system level is performed, specifically as follows:

[0020] Conduct configuration impact analysis on the altitude measurement system, altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation warning system, and altitude hold system respectively, identify the impact weights of configuration differences, equipment configurations, installation status, and working modes of each system on altitude measurement errors; sort according to system importance and error contribution degree, and decompose the overall aircraft altitude measurement error index to each system level by level to form independent error allocation thresholds for each system; among them, the altitude measurement system is the core system with the largest error contribution, and the altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation warning system, and altitude hold system are allocated corresponding error weights in sequence according to the functional correlation degree.

[0021] Preferably, based on the error allocation thresholds of each system, conduct optimization design on the skin of the static pressure critical area, static pressure sensors, and other altitude-related airborne equipment of the altitude measurement system. Specifically:

[0022] Decompose the control requirements for the overall aircraft altitude measurement error into quantitative control indicators for the skin waviness of the static pressure critical area, the protrusion and depression of rivets in the critical area, and the installation step difference of the static pressure sensor, and conduct optimization design for the surface quality, installation accuracy, and equipment layout of the skin until the actual error of the altitude measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation threshold.

[0023] Preferably, for the unoptimized systems, directly reuse the existing test, flight test, and certification data to equivalently demonstrate airworthiness compliance; for the optimized systems, supplement and conduct in-air and ground tests of the static pressure system, functional performance tests, and system matching verification, and complete the RVSM special flight test verification. After the verification results meet the error allocation threshold and airworthiness requirements, determine that the system-level verification is qualified.

[0024] Preferably, conduct a comparison and analysis of the development standards and airworthiness standards for each equipment at the equipment level. Specifically: conduct item-by-item comparison of the airborne equipment supporting the four major systems of altitude measurement, altitude display / reporting, altitude deviation warning, and altitude hold according to the environmental adaptability standards; the comparison content includes temperature, vibration, humidity, mildew, salt spray, electromagnetic compatibility, and power supply characteristics; equipment without design changes directly uses the original certification data to demonstrate compliance; for equipment that has been optimized or does not meet the standards, supplement and conduct functional performance verification and environmental adaptability tests, and include the test results as evidence of equipment-level compliance after passing the tests.

[0025] Preferably, conduct comparison and gap analysis on the software and hardware at the software and hardware level. Specifically:

[0026] Based on model development data and airworthiness standards, a gap analysis of development assurance levels is conducted on highly relevant airborne software and hardware. The systems are categorized into A / B and C levels: A / B level systems verify the coverage, robustness, and integrity of fault injection test data; if these are not met, supplementary testing is conducted. C level systems verify the safe flight hours and operational records; if the preset duration and absence of abnormal conditions are met, compliance is deemed acceptable. Finally, a software / hardware gap analysis report and compliance evidence are generated, serving as the basis for airworthiness review.

[0027] Preferably, a group rounding method is used for ground checks on the consistency of aircraft manufacturing, specifically:

[0028] For multiple aircraft within the same certification group, batch ground inspections are conducted using standardized boundaries, inspection items, and acceptance criteria for the key static pressure area of ​​the nose. A combination of pre-set sampling and full inspection rules is used to quantitatively inspect design configuration, skin surface waviness, rivet head protrusion / concavity, static pressure sensor installation step difference, surface defects, and skin seam assembly gaps. The inspection results of individual aircraft are compared with the group's baseline values. If the requirements of the group's baseline values ​​are met, the aircraft is deemed to have achieved consistent surface quality.

[0029] Another technical solution of this application is: an aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance system, comprising:

[0030] The airworthiness evaluation module is used to acquire aircraft development and usage data, and to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the aircraft's airworthiness compliance using expert scoring. Based on the degree of compliance of the comprehensive evaluation, the verification scope after the aircraft level is determined. The verification scope after the aircraft level includes the system level, equipment level, and software and hardware level.

[0031] The configuration analysis module is used to acquire configuration data for single aircraft or groups, perform configuration impact analysis on the aircraft shape and each system within the system level, determine the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system, and carry out the optimization design of the corresponding system equipment based on the error allocation threshold.

[0032] The system verification module includes all systems, including optimized and unoptimized systems. It performs hierarchical verification on the optimized systems. Unoptimized systems reuse existing data to demonstrate compliance. Optimized systems undergo supplementary testing and system-level flight test verification.

[0033] The equipment verification module is used to perform benchmarking analysis between the development standards and airworthiness standards for each piece of equipment at the equipment level, and to determine whether it meets the equipment-level requirements for airworthiness compliance. If so, the next step is performed.

[0034] The software and hardware verification module is used to perform gap analysis on the software and hardware at the software and hardware level to determine whether the software and hardware requirements for airworthiness compliance are met. If so, proceed to the next step.

[0035] The flight and ground inspection module is used to determine the RVSM flight envelope, test flight subjects and test flight methods. For group certification, the group rounding method is used to perform ground inspections on the consistency of surface quality in the key static pressure areas of the nose.

[0036] The document processing module is used for verification at the aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software levels, as well as for compiling conformity documents after the ground checks on the aircraft fleet manufacturing have passed.

[0037] Preferably, in the airworthiness evaluation module, an expert review group is formed, consisting of airworthiness review experts, aircraft design experts, and flight test experts. For different aircraft models, an RVSM audit scoring system is established, encompassing six dimensions: error control indicators, system functional compliance, equipment qualification compliance, hardware and software security, flight test data validity, and manufacturing consistency. Quantitative scoring standards and weighting coefficients are set for each dimension. The expert group independently scores the data based on Level 4 verification data, test / flight test reports, and ground inspection records. A weighted comprehensive score is obtained. Once the comprehensive score reaches a preset pass threshold, the aircraft model is deemed to have passed the RVSM audit verification, and an expert review opinion is formed and included in the RVSM airworthiness compliance evidence package.

[0038] Preferably, in the configuration analysis module, configuration impact analysis is performed on the height measurement system, height display / reporting system, height deviation alarm system, and height holding system respectively, identifying the influence weights of configuration differences, equipment configuration, installation status, and working mode of each system on the height measurement error; the overall height measurement error index is decomposed to each system level by level according to the importance and error contribution of the system, forming an independent error allocation threshold for each system; among which, the height measurement system is the core system of error contribution and is assigned the largest error weight, while the height display / reporting system, height deviation alarm system, and height holding system are assigned corresponding error weights in sequence according to their functional correlation.

[0039] Preferably, in the configuration analysis module, when carrying out optimization design, the overall height measurement error control requirements are decomposed into quantitative control indicators such as skin waviness in key static pressure areas, rivet concavity and convexity in key areas, and installation step difference of static pressure sensors. Optimization design is carried out for skin surface quality, installation accuracy, and equipment layout until the actual error of the height measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation threshold.

[0040] The aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance method and system proposed in this application have the following advantages:

[0041] 1. Overcoming the TC pre-restriction: Transport category aircraft that have not obtained the complete aircraft type certificate can conduct RVSM single-item airworthiness certification separately and obtain RVSM airspace operation qualification.

[0042] 2. Four-level tiered verification: Verification is carried out in stages according to aircraft, systems, equipment, and hardware and software. Existing data is fully reused, repeated tests and flight tests are reduced, the certification cycle is significantly shortened, and verification costs are reduced.

[0043] 3. Standalone / Group Dual Mode: Unified evidence collection configuration and verification specifications, clear standards for consistency inspection of group evidence collection manufacturing, and verification results are quantifiable, reviewable, and approvable.

[0044] 4. Compliance closed loop: Fully compliant with CCAR-25-R4, AC-21-13 and related airborne equipment, software and hardware standards, forming a complete evidence package that can pass the Civil Aviation Administration's airworthiness review. Attached Figure Description

[0045] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the conformity verification method used for aircraft RVSM airworthiness certification in this application. Detailed Implementation

[0046] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this application clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application will be described in more detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the drawings, the same or similar reference numerals denote the same or similar elements or elements having the same or similar functions throughout. The described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of this application. The embodiments described below with reference to the accompanying drawings are exemplary and intended to explain this application, and should not be construed as limiting this application. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of this application without inventive effort are within the scope of protection of this application. The embodiments of this application will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0047] The first aspect of this application provides a method for verifying the airworthiness compliance of an aircraft for RVSM certification, such as... Figure 1 As shown, it includes the following steps:

[0048] Step S100: Obtain the development and flight data of the aircraft model to be certified, and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the aircraft's compliance with airworthiness requirements at the aircraft level using expert scoring. Based on the degree of compliance of the comprehensive evaluation, determine the verification scope after the aircraft level. The verification scope after the aircraft level includes the system level, equipment level, and software and hardware level.

[0049] Preferably, an expert scoring method is used to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the aircraft's compliance with aircraft-level airworthiness requirements, specifically as follows:

[0050] An expert review panel composed of airworthiness review experts, aircraft design experts, and flight test experts was established. For different aircraft models, an RVSM (Real Estate Management System) review scoring system was developed, encompassing six dimensions: error control indicators, system functional compliance, equipment qualification compliance, hardware and software security, flight test data validity, and manufacturing consistency. For each dimension, quantitative scoring standards and weighting coefficients were set according to airworthiness regulations. The expert panel assigned scores based on Level 4 verification data, test / flight test reports, and ground inspection records. A weighted average score was calculated to obtain a comprehensive score. Once the comprehensive score reached a preset pass threshold, the aircraft model was deemed to have passed the RVSM review and verification. Expert review opinions were then formed and included in the RVSM airworthiness compliance evidence package.

[0051] By combining multi-disciplinary expert review, quantitative scoring, and weighted scoring with real names, the RVSM airworthiness capability of different aircraft models can be objectively, fairly, and quantitatively evaluated. The scoring results can be directly included in the evidence package, enhancing the authority of model selection and the credibility of airworthiness review, and avoiding compliance risks caused by subjective judgment.

[0052] Step S200: Obtain single-aircraft or group certification configuration data, perform configuration impact analysis on aircraft shape and each system within the system level, and determine the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system; based on the error allocation threshold, carry out the optimization design of the corresponding system equipment.

[0053] Preferably, the system level includes an altitude measurement system, an altitude display / reporting system, an altitude deviation alarm system, and an altitude holding system. A configuration impact analysis of each system within the system level is performed, specifically as follows:

[0054] Configuration impact analysis was conducted on the altitude measurement system, altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation alarm system, and altitude holding system to identify the weights of each system's configuration differences, equipment configuration, installation status, and operating mode on altitude measurement errors. The overall altitude measurement error index was then decomposed level by level to each system according to system importance and error contribution, forming independent error allocation thresholds for each system. The altitude measurement system, as the core system contributing to error, was assigned the largest error weight. The altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation alarm system, and altitude holding system were assigned corresponding error weights sequentially based on their functional relevance.

[0055] Based on the error allocation thresholds for each system, optimization design was carried out on the skin of the hydrostatic key area of ​​the altitude measurement system, the hydrostatic sensor, and other altitude-related airborne equipment, specifically as follows:

[0056] The overall height measurement error control requirements are broken down into quantitative control indicators such as skin waviness in key static pressure areas, rivet protrusion in key areas, and installation step difference of static pressure sensors. Optimization designs are made for skin surface quality, installation accuracy, and equipment layout until the actual error of the height measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation threshold.

[0057] In a specific example, the sources of systematic errors in altitude measurement are analyzed according to the RVSM standard, and error indicators are allocated according to individual aircraft / group; the skin waviness within the wavelength range of 100 mm - 200 mm ≤ 2.5‰ and the installation step difference of the integral static pressure sensor ≤ 0.15 mm are identified as the core control indicators, and the optimization design of the skin and altitude-related equipment in the key static pressure area is completed.

[0058] Quantitative analysis of configuration impacts is carried out for the four core systems, the overall aircraft error indicators are decomposed according to the error contribution degree, and it is clarified that the altitude measurement system is the core weighted system; the error allocation is made computable, traceable, and verifiable, providing an accurate indicator basis for subsequent optimization design and system verification.

[0059] Step S300, all systems after the optimization design, including the optimized systems and non-optimized systems, are subjected to hierarchical verification. For non-optimized systems, the existing data is reused to equivalently demonstrate compliance, and for optimized systems, supplementary tests are conducted and system-level flight tests are carried out for verification.

[0060] During hierarchical verification, for non-optimized systems, the existing test, flight test, and certification data are directly reused to equivalently demonstrate airworthiness compliance; for optimized systems, supplementary in-aircraft ground tests, functional and performance tests, and system matching verification of the static pressure system are carried out, and RVSM special flight tests are completed. After the verification results meet the error allocation threshold and airworthiness requirements, the system-level verification is determined to be qualified.

[0061] Step S400, for each equipment at the equipment level, a comparative analysis is carried out between the development standards and airworthiness standards to determine whether it meets the equipment-level requirements for airworthiness compliance. If so, the next step is carried out.

[0062] Preferably, a comparative analysis is carried out between the development standards and airworthiness standards for each equipment at the equipment level, specifically: the airborne equipment supporting the four major systems of altitude measurement, altitude display / reporting, altitude deviation warning, and altitude hold is逐项 compared according to the DO-160G environmental adaptability standard; the comparison content includes temperature, vibration, humidity, mold, salt spray, electromagnetic compatibility, and power supply characteristics, etc.; for equipment without design changes, the original certification data is directly used to demonstrate compliance; for equipment that has been optimized or does not meet the standards, supplementary functional and performance verification and environmental adaptability tests are carried out, and after the tests are qualified, they are included in the equipment-level compliance evidence.

[0063] In a specific example, a gap analysis is carried out according to the DO-178C and DO-254 environmental adaptability standards, and hierarchical verification is carried out according to the development assurance level (DAL): for A / B-level software and hardware, 12 additional tests are carried out, including requirement coverage, robustness, and fault injection tests, with a coverage rate of 100%; for C-level software and hardware, the cumulative safe flight hours are more than 100,000 flight hours without abnormalities, demonstrating compliance.

[0064] The airborne equipment was checked against environmental adaptability standards, ensuring that no equipment data was modified and no supplementary tests were required; the equipment-level verification was standardized and fully covered to ensure that all highly relevant equipment met the airworthiness requirements of civil aircraft.

[0065] Step S500: Compare and analyze the software and hardware at the software and hardware level to determine whether they meet the software and hardware requirements for airworthiness compliance. If so, proceed to the next step.

[0066] Preferably, benchmarking and gap analysis are performed on both software and hardware at the software and hardware levels, specifically as follows:

[0067] Based on model development data and airworthiness standards, a gap analysis of development assurance levels is conducted on highly relevant airborne software and hardware. The systems are categorized into A / B and C levels: A / B level systems verify the coverage, robustness, and integrity of fault injection test data; if these are not met, supplementary testing is conducted. C level systems verify the safe flight hours and operational records; if the preset duration and absence of abnormal conditions are met, compliance is deemed acceptable. Finally, a software / hardware gap analysis report and compliance evidence are generated, serving as the basis for airworthiness review.

[0068] Based on airworthiness standards, the software and hardware are classified and judged according to the development assurance level. Level A / B requires supplementary testing, and Level C requires flight hours for certification. Through the above design, both safety and efficiency are taken into account, forming a complete software and hardware evidence chain to meet the review requirements of DO-178C and DO-254.

[0069] Step S600: Determine the RVSM flight envelope, test flight subjects, and test flight methods, and use the group rounding method to perform a ground check on the consistency of aircraft manufacturing.

[0070] Preferably, a group rounding method is used for ground checks on the consistency of aircraft manufacturing, specifically:

[0071] For multiple aircraft within the same certification group, batch ground inspections are conducted using standardized boundaries, inspection items, and acceptance criteria for the key static pressure area of ​​the nose. A combination of pre-set sampling and full inspection rules is used to quantitatively inspect design configuration, skin surface waviness, rivet head protrusion / concavity, static pressure sensor installation step difference, surface defects, and skin seam assembly gaps. The inspection results of individual aircraft are compared with the group's baseline values. If the requirements of the group's baseline values ​​are met, the aircraft is deemed to have achieved consistent surface quality.

[0072] By adopting a unified group standard, quantitative testing, and benchmark comparison, batch inspection of manufacturing consistency in key areas of nose static pressure is achieved; the altitude measurement characteristics of aircraft in the same group are consistent, the group altitude error is stably controlled, and batch models can quickly pass RVSM group certification.

[0073] After step S700, verification at the aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software levels, as well as ground checks to ensure consistency in aircraft manufacturing, is completed, conformity documentation is compiled.

[0074] In summary, this application has the following advantages:

[0075] 1. Overcoming the TC pre-restriction: Transport category aircraft that have not obtained the complete aircraft type certificate can conduct RVSM single-item airworthiness certification separately and obtain RVSM airspace operation qualification.

[0076] 2. Four-level tiered verification: Verification is carried out in stages according to aircraft, systems, equipment, and hardware and software. Existing data is fully reused, repeated tests and flight tests are reduced, the certification cycle is significantly shortened, and verification costs are reduced.

[0077] 3. Standalone / Group Dual Mode: Unified evidence collection configuration and verification specifications, clear standards for consistency inspection of group evidence collection manufacturing, and verification results are quantifiable, reviewable, and approvable.

[0078] 4. Compliance closed loop: Fully compliant with CCAR-25-R4, AC-21-13 and related airborne equipment, software and hardware standards, forming a complete evidence package that can pass the Civil Aviation Administration's airworthiness review.

[0079] Another technical solution of this application is: an aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance system, comprising:

[0080] The airworthiness evaluation module is used to acquire aircraft development and usage data, and to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the aircraft's airworthiness compliance using expert scoring. Based on the degree of compliance of the comprehensive evaluation, the verification scope at the aircraft level is determined; the verification scope at the aircraft level includes the system level, equipment level, and hardware and software level.

[0081] The configuration analysis module is used to acquire configuration data for single aircraft or groups, perform configuration impact analysis on the aircraft shape and each system within the system level, determine the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system, and carry out the optimization design of the corresponding system equipment based on the error allocation threshold.

[0082] The system verification module includes all systems, including optimized and unoptimized systems. It performs hierarchical verification on the optimized systems. Unoptimized systems reuse existing data to demonstrate compliance. Optimized systems undergo supplementary testing and system-level flight test verification.

[0083] The equipment verification module is used to perform benchmarking analysis between the development standards and airworthiness standards for each piece of equipment at the equipment level, and to determine whether it meets the equipment-level requirements for airworthiness compliance. If so, the next step is performed.

[0084] The software and hardware verification module is used to perform gap analysis on the software and hardware at the software and hardware level to determine whether the software and hardware requirements for airworthiness compliance are met. If so, proceed to the next step.

[0085] The flight and ground inspection module is used to determine the RVSM flight envelope, test flight subjects and test flight methods. For group certification, the group rounding method is used to perform ground inspections on the consistency of surface quality in the key static pressure areas of the nose.

[0086] The document processing module is used for verification at the aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software levels, as well as for compiling conformity documents after the ground checks on the aircraft fleet manufacturing have passed.

[0087] Preferably, in the airworthiness evaluation module, an expert review group is formed, consisting of airworthiness review experts, aircraft design experts, and flight test experts. For different aircraft models, an RVSM audit scoring system is established, encompassing six dimensions: error control indicators, system functional compliance, equipment qualification compliance, hardware and software security, flight test data validity, and manufacturing consistency. Quantitative scoring standards and weighting coefficients are set for each dimension. The expert group independently scores the data based on Level 4 verification data, test / flight test reports, and ground inspection records. A weighted comprehensive score is obtained. Once the comprehensive score reaches a preset pass threshold, the aircraft model is deemed to have passed the RVSM audit verification, and an expert review opinion is formed and included in the RVSM airworthiness compliance evidence package.

[0088] Preferably, in the configuration analysis module, configuration impact analysis is performed on the height measurement system, height display / reporting system, height deviation alarm system, and height holding system respectively, identifying the influence weights of configuration differences, equipment configuration, installation status, and working mode of each system on the height measurement error; the overall height measurement error index is decomposed to each system level by level according to the importance and error contribution of the system, forming an independent error allocation threshold for each system; among which, the height measurement system is the core system of error contribution and is assigned the largest error weight, while the height display / reporting system, height deviation alarm system, and height holding system are assigned corresponding error weights in sequence according to their functional correlation.

[0089] Preferably, in the configuration analysis module, when carrying out optimization design, the overall height measurement error control requirements are decomposed into quantitative control indicators such as skin waviness in key static pressure areas, rivet concavity and convexity in key areas, and installation step difference of static pressure sensors. Optimization design is carried out for skin surface quality, installation accuracy, and equipment layout until the actual error of the height measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation threshold.

[0090] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method of aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance, characterized in that, include: The development and flight data of the aircraft model to be certified are obtained, and the aircraft is evaluated for compliance with airworthiness requirements at the aircraft level by using expert scoring. Based on the degree of compliance of the comprehensive evaluation, the verification scope after the aircraft level is determined. The verification scope after the aircraft level includes the system level, equipment level and software and hardware level. Acquire single-aircraft or group certification configuration data, conduct configuration impact analysis on aircraft shape and each system within the system level, and determine the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system; based on the error allocation threshold, carry out the optimization design of the corresponding system equipment; All systems after optimization design include both optimized and non-optimized systems. The optimized systems are then subjected to hierarchical verification. Non-optimized systems reuse existing data to demonstrate compliance, while optimized systems undergo supplementary testing and system-level flight test verification. For each piece of equipment at the equipment level, a benchmark analysis is conducted between the development standards and airworthiness standards to determine whether the equipment level requirements for airworthiness compliance are met. If so, proceed to the next step. A benchmarking and gap analysis is conducted on the software and hardware at the software and hardware level to determine whether the software and hardware requirements for airworthiness compliance are met. If so, proceed to the next step. Determine the RVSM flight envelope, test flight subjects and test flight methods, and use the group rounding method to conduct ground checks on the consistency of aircraft manufacturing; After verification at the aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software levels, as well as ground checks to ensure consistency in aircraft manufacturing, conformity documents are compiled.

2. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 1, wherein, The aircraft's compliance with airworthiness requirements is comprehensively evaluated using an expert scoring method, specifically as follows: An expert review panel composed of airworthiness review experts, aircraft design experts, and flight test experts was established. For different aircraft models, an RVSM (Real Estate Management System) review scoring system was developed, encompassing six dimensions: error control indicators, system functional compliance, equipment qualification compliance, hardware and software security, flight test data validity, and manufacturing consistency. For each dimension, quantitative scoring standards and weighting coefficients were set according to airworthiness regulations. The expert panel assigned scores based on Level 4 verification data, test / flight test reports, and ground inspection records. A weighted average score was calculated to obtain a comprehensive score. Once the comprehensive score reached a preset pass threshold, the aircraft model was deemed to have passed the RVSM review and verification. Expert review opinions were then formed and included in the RVSM airworthiness compliance evidence package.

3. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 1, wherein, The system level includes an altitude measurement system, an altitude display / reporting system, an altitude deviation alarm system, and an altitude holding system. A configuration impact analysis of each system within this system level is performed, specifically: Configuration impact analysis was conducted on the altitude measurement system, altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation alarm system, and altitude holding system to identify the weights of each system's configuration differences, equipment configuration, installation status, and operating mode on altitude measurement errors. The overall altitude measurement error index was then decomposed level by level to each system according to system importance and error contribution, forming independent error allocation thresholds for each system. The altitude measurement system, as the core system contributing to error, was assigned the largest error weight. The altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation alarm system, and altitude holding system were assigned corresponding error weights sequentially based on their functional relevance.

4. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 3, wherein, According to the system error allocation thresholds, optimize the design of the skin of the key static pressure areas, the static pressure sensors, and other airborne equipment related to altitude of the altitude measurement system. Specifically: Decompose the requirements for controlling the overall aircraft altitude measurement error into quantified control indicators for the skin waviness of the key static pressure areas, the protrusion and depression of rivets in the key areas, and the installation step difference of the static pressure sensors. Optimize the design of the skin surface quality, installation accuracy, and equipment layout until the actual error of the altitude measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation thresholds.

5. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 3, wherein, For the unoptimized system, directly reuse the existing test, flight test, and certification data to equivalently demonstrate airworthiness compliance; for the optimized system, supplement and conduct on-board and ground tests of the static pressure system, functional performance tests, and system matching verification, and complete the RVSM special flight test verification. After the verification results meet the error allocation thresholds and airworthiness requirements, determine that the system-level verification is qualified.

6. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 3, wherein, Conduct a comparative analysis of the development standards and airworthiness standards for each equipment at the equipment level. Specifically: For the airborne equipment supporting the four major systems of altitude measurement, altitude display / reporting, altitude deviation warning, and altitude hold, conduct item-by-item comparison according to the environmental adaptability standards; the comparison content includes temperature, vibration, humidity, mildew, salt spray, electromagnetic compatibility, and power supply characteristics; For equipment without design changes, directly use the original certification data to demonstrate compliance; For equipment that has been optimized or does not meet the standards, supplement and conduct functional performance verification and environmental adaptability tests, and include the test results in the equipment-level compliance evidence after passing the tests.

7. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 3, wherein, Conduct a comparison and gap analysis of the software and hardware at the software and hardware level. Specifically: Based on the model development data and airworthiness standards, conduct a gap analysis of the development assurance levels of the altitude-related airborne software and hardware; Classify and judge according to Class A / B and Class C: For Class A / B software and hardware, check the coverage, robustness, and integrity data of the fault injection test. If not satisfied, supplement the test; For Class C software and hardware, check the safe flight hours and operation records. If the preset duration and no abnormal conditions are met, it is determined to meet the requirements; Finally, form a software and hardware gap analysis report and compliance evidence as the basis for airworthiness review.

8. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of claim 1, wherein, Adopt the group rounding method to conduct consistency ground inspections for fleet manufacturing. Specifically: For multiple aircraft within the same certification group, conduct batch ground inspections with unified nose static pressure key area boundaries, inspection items, and acceptance criteria; Combine the preset sampling rules and full inspection rules to conduct quantitative inspections on the design configuration, skin surface waviness, rivet head protrusion and depression, static pressure sensor installation step difference, surface defects, and skin butt joint assembly gap; Compare the test results of a single aircraft with the group reference value. When the requirements of the group reference value are met, determine that the aircraft meets the consistency qualification of the surface quality.

9. An aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance system employing the aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance method of any one of claims 1-8, wherein, Including: An airworthiness evaluation module, which is used to obtain the development data and usage data of the aircraft, conduct a comprehensive airworthiness compliance evaluation of the aircraft by means of expert scoring, and determine the verification scope after the aircraft level according to the degree of compliance of the comprehensive evaluation; The verification scope after the aircraft level includes the system level, equipment level, and software and hardware level; The configuration analysis module is used to acquire configuration data for single aircraft or groups, perform configuration impact analysis on the aircraft shape and each system within the system level, determine the error allocation threshold for the corresponding system, and carry out the optimization design of the corresponding system equipment based on the error allocation threshold. The system verification module includes all systems, including optimized and unoptimized systems. It performs hierarchical verification on the optimized systems. Unoptimized systems reuse existing data to demonstrate compliance. Optimized systems undergo supplementary testing and system-level flight test verification. The equipment verification module is used to perform benchmarking analysis between the development standards and airworthiness standards for each piece of equipment at the equipment level, and to determine whether it meets the equipment-level requirements for airworthiness compliance. If so, the next step is performed. The software and hardware verification module is used to perform gap analysis on the software and hardware at the software and hardware level to determine whether the software and hardware requirements for airworthiness compliance are met. If so, proceed to the next step. The flight and ground inspection module is used to determine the RVSM flight envelope, test flight subjects and test flight methods. For group certification, the group rounding method is used to perform ground inspections on the consistency of surface quality in the key static pressure areas of the nose. The document processing module is used for verification at the aircraft, system, equipment, and hardware / software levels, as well as for compiling conformity documents after the ground checks on the aircraft fleet manufacturing have passed.

10. The aircraft RVSM certification compliance system of claim 9, wherein, In the airworthiness evaluation module, an expert review group is formed, consisting of airworthiness review experts, aircraft design experts, and flight test experts. For different aircraft models, an RVSM audit scoring system is established, encompassing six dimensions: error control indicators, system functional compliance, equipment qualification compliance, hardware and software security, flight test data validity, and manufacturing consistency. Quantitative scoring standards and weighting coefficients are set for each dimension. The expert group independently scores the data based on Level 4 verification data, test / flight test reports, and ground inspection records. A weighted comprehensive score is obtained. Once the comprehensive score reaches a preset pass threshold, the aircraft model is deemed to have passed the RVSM audit verification, and an expert review opinion is formed and included in the RVSM airworthiness compliance evidence package.

11. The aircraft RVSM certification compliance system of claim 9, wherein, In the configuration analysis module, configuration impact analysis is performed on the height measurement system, height display / reporting system, height deviation alarm system, and height holding system respectively. The influence weights of configuration differences, equipment configuration, installation status, and working mode of each system on the height measurement error are identified. The overall height measurement error index is decomposed to each system level by system importance and error contribution, forming an independent error allocation threshold for each system. Among them, the height measurement system is the core system of error contribution and is assigned the largest error weight. The height display / reporting system, height deviation alarm system, and height holding system are assigned corresponding error weights in sequence according to their functional relevance.

12. The aircraft RVSM certification compliance system of claim 11, wherein, In the configuration analysis module, when carrying out optimization design, the overall height measurement error control requirements are decomposed into quantitative control indicators such as skin waviness in key static pressure areas, rivet concavity and convexity in key areas, and installation step difference of static pressure sensors. Optimization design is carried out for skin surface quality, installation accuracy, and equipment layout until the actual error of the height measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation threshold.

Images