A method and system for RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of an aircraft

Abstract

The application belongs to the technical field of aircraft design, and particularly relates to a method and system for RVSM certification airworthiness compliance of an aircraft, research and flight data of a type of aircraft to be certified are acquired, an expert scoring method is used to comprehensively evaluate the airworthiness compliance of the aircraft, and a verification range of the current type is determined according to the comprehensive evaluation compliance degree; the verification range includes an aircraft level, a system level, a device level and a software and hardware level; single or group evidence configuration data is acquired, configuration influence analysis of each system in the system level is respectively performed, and error allocation thresholds of corresponding systems are determined; optimization design of corresponding system devices is carried out according to the error allocation thresholds; the system after the optimization design is verified in stages; and a comparison analysis of research standards and airworthiness standards is performed on each device of the device level. The verification is performed in stages according to the aircraft, the system, the device and the software and hardware, existing data is fully reused, repeated tests and test flights are reduced, and the certification period is significantly shortened and the verification cost is reduced.

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] 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.

[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] Configuration impact analysis is carried out on the altitude measurement system, altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation warning system and altitude holding system respectively, to identify the influence weight of configuration differences, equipment configuration, installation status and working mode of each system on altitude measurement error; sorted according to system importance and error contribution, the overall aircraft altitude measurement error index is decomposed to each system step by step, and independent error distribution thresholds for each system are formed; wherein the altitude measurement system is the core system for error contribution, and is assigned the maximum error weight, while the altitude display / reporting system, altitude deviation warning system and altitude holding system are assigned corresponding error weights in sequence according to functional relevance.

[0021] Preferably, according to the error distribution threshold of each system, optimal design is carried out on the skin of static pressure key areas, static pressure sensors and other altitude-related airborne equipment of the altitude measurement system, specifically:

[0022] Decompose the overall aircraft altitude measurement error control requirements into quantitative control indicators for the skin waviness of static pressure key areas, the unevenness of rivets in key areas, and the installation step difference of static pressure sensors, and carry out optimal design for skin surface quality, installation accuracy and equipment layout until the actual error of the altitude measurement system meets the corresponding error distribution threshold.

[0023] Preferably, for unoptimized systems, existing test, flight test and qualification data are directly reused to equivalently demonstrate airworthiness compliance; for optimized systems, on-board ground tests, functional and performance tests and system matching verification for the static pressure system are additionally carried out, and special RVSM flight test verification is completed; after the verification results meet the error distribution threshold and airworthiness requirements, the system-level verification is determined to be qualified.

[0024] Preferably, benchmarking analysis between development standards and airworthiness standards is carried out for each device at the equipment level, specifically: the airborne equipment supporting the four major systems of altitude measurement, altitude display / reporting, altitude deviation warning and altitude holding are benchmarked item by item in accordance with environmental adaptability standards; the benchmarking content includes temperature, vibration, humidity, mold, salt spray, electromagnetic compatibility and power supply characteristics; devices without design changes directly use the original qualification data to demonstrate compliance; for optimized devices or devices that do not meet the standards, functional performance verification and environmental adaptability tests are additionally carried out, and they are included in equipment-level compliance evidence after passing the tests.

[0025] Preferably, benchmarking and gap analysis are carried out on 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, the design of the hydrostatic key area skin, hydrostatic sensor, and other altitude-related airborne equipment of the altitude measurement system was optimized, 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 embodiment, the error source analysis of the altitude measurement system is carried out in accordance with the RVSM standard, and error indicators are allocated by single unit / group; the skin waviness not exceeding 2.5‰ within the wavelength range of 100mm-200mm and the installation step difference of the integrated static pressure sensor not exceeding 0.15mm are identified as core control indicators, and the optimized design of the skin in the key static pressure area and altitude-related equipment is completed.

[0058] Quantitative analysis of configuration influence is carried out for the four core systems, the overall aircraft error indicators are decomposed according to error contribution, and the altitude measurement system is defined as the core weight system; error allocation is realized to be calculable, traceable and verifiable, which provides accurate indicator basis for subsequent optimized design and system verification.

[0059] Step S300: all systems after optimized design include optimized systems and non-optimized systems, graded verification is performed on the systems after optimized design: non-optimized systems reuse existing data to equivalently demonstrate compliance, while optimized systems receive supplementary tests and system-level flight test verification.

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

[0061] Step S400: benchmarking analysis between development standards and airworthiness standards is performed for each device at the device level, to determine whether the device-level requirements for airworthiness compliance are met, and if yes, proceed to the next step.

[0062] Preferably, the benchmarking analysis of development standards and airworthiness standards for each device at the device level is specifically as follows: the airborne equipment supporting the four major systems of altitude measurement, altitude display / reporting, altitude deviation alarm and altitude holding are item-by-item benchmarked in accordance with the DO-160G environmental adaptability standard; the benchmarking content includes temperature, vibration, humidity, mold, salt spray, electromagnetic compatibility and power supply characteristics, etc.; devices without design changes directly use the original certification data to demonstrate compliance; devices that have been optimized or do not meet the standard are supplemented with functional performance verification and environmental adaptability tests, and are included in device-level compliance evidence after passing the tests.

[0063] In a specific embodiment, gap analysis is carried out according to the DO-178C and DO-254 software and hardware standards, and graded verification is performed based on the Development Assurance Level (DAL): 12 additional tests are supplemented for Class A / B software and hardware, including requirement coverage, robustness and fault injection tests, with a coverage rate of 100%; for Class C software and hardware, the cumulative safe flight exceeds 100,000 flight hours with no abnormalities, which demonstrates 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 levels 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 for 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. Benchmarking and gap analysis are performed 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 as described in claim 1, characterized in that, 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 as described in claim 1, characterized in that, 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 as described in claim 3, characterized in that, According to the error allocation threshold of each system, optimization design is carried out for the skin in the key static pressure area of the altitude measurement system, the static pressure sensor and other altitude-related airborne equipment, specifically: Decompose the overall altitude measurement error control requirements into quantitative control indicators for the skin waviness in key static pressure areas, the amount of protrusion and depression of rivets in key areas, and the installation step difference of static pressure sensors, and carry out optimization design for skin surface quality, installation accuracy and equipment layout until the actual error of the altitude measurement system meets the corresponding error allocation threshold.

5. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance as described in claim 3, characterized in that, For unoptimized systems, the existing test, flight test and qualification data are directly reused to equivalently demonstrate airworthiness compliance; for optimized systems, supplementary on-board ground tests, functional and performance tests and system matching verification for the static pressure system are carried out, and the special RVSM flight test verification is completed. After the verification results meet the error allocation threshold and airworthiness requirements, the system-level verification is determined to be qualified.

6. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance as described in claim 3, characterized in that, Benchmarking analysis between development standards and airworthiness standards is carried out for each device at the equipment level, specifically: the airborne equipment supporting the four major systems of altitude measurement, altitude display / reporting, altitude deviation alarm and altitude holding is benchmarked item by item in accordance with environmental adaptability standards; the benchmarking content includes temperature, vibration, humidity, mold, salt spray, electromagnetic compatibility and power supply characteristics; devices without design changes directly use the original qualification data to demonstrate compliance; for devices that have been optimized or do not meet the standards, functional performance verification and environmental adaptability tests are supplemented, and after passing the tests, they are included in the equipment-level compliance evidence.

7. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance as described in claim 3, characterized in that, Benchmarking and gap analysis are carried out for software and hardware at the software and hardware level, specifically: According to the model development data and airworthiness standards, development assurance level gap analysis is carried out for altitude-related airborne software and hardware; classification judgment is carried out according to Class A / B and Class C: for Class A / B software and hardware, the data of verification coverage, robustness and integrity of fault injection test shall be supplemented if the requirements are not met; for Class C software and hardware, the safe flight hours and operation records shall be verified, and it is determined to meet the requirements when it meets the preset duration and the condition of no abnormality; finally, the software and hardware gap analysis report and compliance evidence are formed as the basis for airworthiness review.

8. The method for aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The group rounding method is adopted for the consistency ground inspection of fleet manufacturing, specifically: For multiple aircraft within the same certification group, batch ground inspection is carried out with unified nose static pressure key area boundaries, inspection items and acceptance criteria; quantitative detection of design configuration, skin surface waviness, rivet head protrusion and depression, static pressure sensor installation step difference, surface defects and skin seam assembly gap is carried out by combining preset sampling rules and full inspection rules; the detection result of a single aircraft is compared with the group reference value, and when the requirements of the group reference value are met, the aircraft is judged to be qualified in surface quality consistency.

9. An aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance system, employing the aircraft RVSM certification airworthiness compliance method as described in any one of claims 1-8, characterized in that, It includes: An airworthiness evaluation module, configured to obtain the development data and operation data of the aircraft, carry out a comprehensive airworthiness compliance evaluation of the aircraft by means of expert scoring, and determine the post-aircraft-level verification scope according to the compliance degree of the comprehensive evaluation; the post-aircraft-level verification scope includes 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 airworthiness compliance system as described in claim 9, characterized in that, 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 airworthiness compliance system as described in claim 9, characterized in that, 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 airworthiness compliance system as described in claim 11, characterized in that, 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