Flight Warning System Maturity Verification Method
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The development of aircraft Flight Warning Systems (FWS) is currently empirical and resource-intensive, with extensive software iterations and verification processes conducted late in the development planning, often requiring costly and scarce test aircraft resources, and lacking a systematic approach to measuring maturity.
Innovation Solution
A method for developing FWS that involves a structured series of maturity criteria calculations and verifications, using a simulator with predefined lists and behavioral models to guide the development process, allowing for progressive verification and measurement of maturity without real trials, except as a last resort, and a device comprising a central processing unit, storage, and man-machine interfaces to implement this method.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If extensive software iterations and verification processes are conducted on complete system test bench or test aircraft, then the reliability of FWS development is improved, but the loss of time and productivity deteriorate due to blocking scarce test resources
Solution Approach 1:
The verification process is segmented into multiple independent maturity criteria (C1-C10) that can be evaluated separately. Each criterion addresses a specific aspect of FWS development (warnings completeness, logic coherence, procedure verification), allowing parallel assessment without requiring complete system integration testing, thus reducing blocking of test resources while maintaining verification reliability
Solution Approach 2:
The method performs preliminary verification actions through maturity criteria assessment before committing to extensive system testing. By evaluating warnings completeness, logic coherence, and procedure accuracy in advance through calculable metrics, the method identifies and resolves issues early, reducing the need for repeated iterations on expensive test resources
2Adaptability or versatility
If FWS development is carried out in an empirical manner with numerous software iterations, then the adaptability to aircraft equipment behaviors is improved, but the loss of time and development cost worsen
Solution Approach 1:
The method implements continuous feedback through maturity criteria calculation that quantitatively measures the state of FWS development. Each criterion provides feedback on specific aspects (warnings coverage, logic consistency, procedure completeness), enabling developers to adjust and adapt the system systematically rather than through empirical trial-and-error, thereby reducing development time while maintaining adaptability
Solution Approach 2:
The method changes the development approach from empirical to parameter-driven by introducing measurable maturity criteria. Instead of relying on experience-based iterations, the system uses calculable parameters (maturity levels C1-C10) to guide development progress, allowing for more efficient adaptation to aircraft equipment behaviors through systematic parameter optimization
3Device complexity
If verification is carried out late in the development planning, then the device complexity is reduced, but the loss of time worsens as real trials are required
Solution Approach 1:
The method performs verification actions preliminarily through maturity criteria assessment that can be conducted throughout the development process rather than only at the end. By continuously evaluating warnings completeness, logic coherence, and procedure accuracy through calculable metrics, verification is integrated into the development workflow, enabling early detection of issues without requiring late-stage real trials
Data Source
AI summary
A method to develop a system for management of warnings and electronic procedures for an aircraft, comprising a database of parameters relating to the warnings and to logic and procedures, the aircraft comprising ATA equipment, comprises definition and calculation of maturity criteria for development of the system, which comprises, in order: A) verification of warnings in the database with respect to predefined lists of warnings and calculation of a maturity criterion, B) if the criterion of A>predetermined threshold, verification of the coherence of the logic for the warnings then definition and calculation of a maturity criterion, C) if the criterion of B>predetermined threshold, verification of the existence of the procedures and, for each warning, analysis of its logic with respect to its procedure, then definition and calculation of a maturity criterion, the system being fully set up when the latter criterion>predetermined threshold.