[Webinar Recap] The New ARP4754B: Tips for Engineers & Quality Teams
|
In this blog, we recap our webinar, “The New ARP4754B: Tips for Engineers & Quality Teams” – Click HERE to watch it in it’s entirety.
Navigating the updates to ARP4754B can be challenging.
Understanding new safety analysis methods, validation and verification flexibility, and strategies to mitigate unintended behaviors is crucial for advancing aerospace development and ensuring compliance.
Join us as Cary Bryczek, Director of Aerospace and Defense Solutions at Jama Software, shares practical tips for engineers and quality teams to navigate the most impactful changes in ARP4754B.
Gain Insights On:
- Changes from ARP4754A to ARP4754B
- Model-Based Safety Analysis (MBSA) and Cascading effects Analysis (CEA)
- Identifying and mitigating unintended system behaviors
- Tying your safety analyses to requirements in Jama Connect
- The updates to verification and validation methods
Below is an abbreviated transcript and a recording of our webinar.
The video above is a preview of this webinar – Click HERE to watch it in its entirety!
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
The New ARP4754B: Tips for Engineers & Quality Teams
Cary Bryczek: We’re going to have fun talking about the changes from ARP4754B revision A to revision B. We’ll spend some time a little bit more deeply on its emphasis on model-based design and safety. I’ll talk about enhanced integration of safety and requirements management and some of the changes to validation and verification. At the end, we’ll have some time for Q&A.
A quick refresher on what ARP4754B is. Its title is Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft. It’s an industry guideline developed by SAE International that provides recommended practices for the development of complex civil aircraft and systems. It outlines a structured systems engineering process for the integrating of hardware, software, and human factors to ensure safety, reliability, and performance across the system lifecycle. The document emphasizes traceability, verification, and validation from initial concept through to certification with a strong focus on meeting regulatory safety and design assurance standards.
ARP4754B also aligns and is used in conjunction with other key aerospace standards like DO-178C and DO-254 offering detailed guidance on how to meet safety and certification requirements in the context of modern integrated aircraft systems. ARP4754 revision B is meant to expedite consistency with ARP4761 revision A, the safety assessment process, which was it was released on the same day in December of 2023.
The guideline describes generic aircraft system development process, which establishes a framework for discussing the process. ARP4754B doesn’t imply a preferred method or process, nor does it imply a specific organizational structure. At its simplest, it emphasizes the flow down of intended aircraft function through the system requirements management process and allocation of function to systems, subsystems, and hardware and software items.
Integral processes in the context of 4754B refer to key processes that are interwoven throughout the entire development lifecycle of aerospace systems from concept to design, integration, verification, and certification. Now, these processes ensure that various engineering disciplines, your systems engineering teams, your hardware and software engineering safety are fully integrated, aligned, and contribute to the overall success of the project.
RELATED: Buyer’s Guide: Selecting a Requirements Management and Traceability Solution for Aerospace
Bryczek: This diagram from 4754B outlines the key stages of the aircraft system development process and provides a framework for understanding how safety is integrated into each stage. The safety are the ones that are in the lightest white or gray. The standard approach ensures that the safety risks are identified, analyzed, and mitigated early in the design process, and are continuously assessed throughout the system lifecycle.
I want to point out that lifecycle phases really are iterative and independent. 4754B emphasizes that the phases of system development aren’t strictly linear. For example, design and development may loop back to earlier phases such as the requirement’s definition. If issues are found during those later stages, sort of this iterative approach ensures that safety concerns can be identified and corrected throughout the lifecycle.
You’ll also notice that safety and hazard analysis is integrated throughout the development phases. Safety assessments are continuous activities throughout the development process. Safety considerations such as your functional hazard assessments, your fault tree analysis to your cascading effects analysis are embedded within multiple phases, particularly the design, development, and verification phases.
Let’s get to the meat of what has changed. So ARP4754B builds on the foundation laid by 4754A but offers a much more structured, detailed, and modern approach to developing complex aerospace systems. This is in response to the increasing complexity of our modern aircraft, tighter safety requirements, and evolving certification processes, particularly the need for rigorous system integration, traceability, and safety assessment practices. It provides greater clarity around the development assurance levels and how they relate to the overall system and safety requirements.
RELATED: Jama Connect Airborne Systems
Bryczek: While A provided a basic framework, B refines the application of DALs throughout the system lifecycle. B expands the understanding of development assurance levels in the context of aircraft and system development, and it places a greater emphasis on safety, traceability, and integration across the lifecycle stages. The updated standard provides a more comprehensive guidance on managing the DALs and aligning the safety assessments with the system requirements, and it ensures that development processes are rigorous enough to meet the increasing complexity of the modern aircraft systems.
With the increased use of model-based techniques, 4754B highlights the benefits of using models to perform safety assessments. It recognizes that simulation-based safety analysis can help engineers assess the safety of complex integrated systems much more efficiently by modeling different failure scenarios and responses, so the standard supports using simulation tools to model those failure scenarios and validate the robustness of safety-critical systems. And this all just improves the accuracy of safety analysis, and it helps identify the potential issues earlier in the design process.
THIS HAS BEEN A PREVIEW OF OUR WEBINAR, WATCH IT IN ITS ENTIRETY:
The New ARP4754B: Tips for Engineers & Quality Teams
Cary is the Director of Solutions Architecture for Aerospace and Defense with a focus on the specialized business and technical needs unique to this market. She helps lead the company in Systems Engineering and Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) domain. She has over 25 years of experience leading Systems Engineering in the A&D industry with roles at the US Government, Lockheed Martin, PTC, and Jama Software. She is a member of the International Counsel on Systems Engineering and member of the Women in Aerospace organization. Outside of work she enjoys playing jazz guitar and gardening around her farm which sometimes requires the operation of tractors and UAVs.
Latest posts by Cary Bryczek (see all)
- [Webinar Recap] The New ARP4754B: Tips for Engineers & Quality Teams - December 30, 2024
- [Webinar Recap] Elevating MBSE with SysML: Jama Connect® and CATIA Magic in Action - September 17, 2024
- SysML is Not Enough: Why You Still Need a Requirements Management Tool - July 18, 2024