Appendix 2 to ETSO-C153a – Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) Module Minimum Performance Standard (MPS)

This Appendix provides a Specific Minimum Performance Standard for IMA modules.

Principle

An IMA module is composed of hardware components or hardware and software components performing the intended function(s) whose minimum performance requirements are specified in this Appendix.

This Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) is structured as a common-requirements section and a set of classes specifying IMA module intended functions:

— COMMON: Minimum Performance Standard applicable whatever IMA module and whatever the implemented intended function class(es);

— CLASS RH: Rack Housing intended function;

— CLASS PR: Processing intended function;

— CLASS GP: Graphical Processing intended function;

— CLASS DS: Data Storage intended function;

— CLASS IF: Interface intended function;

— CLASS PS: Power Supply intended function; and

— CLASS DH: Display Head intended function.

To apply for an ETSO-C153s authorisation, the IMA module shall comply with a common Minimum Performance Standard and implement at least one Intended Function Class as defined in this Appendix.

When applying for an ETSO-C153a authorisation, the applicant shall include in the certification basis all classes for which the intended function is implemented in the IMA module/platform.

Naming convention

This document contains ‘shall’, ‘should’ and ‘may’ statements with the following meanings:

— the use of word ‘shall’ indicates a mandated criterion, i.e. compliance with the criterion is mandatory and no alternative may be applied;

— the use of word ’should’ (and phrases such as ‘It is recommended that...’, etc.) indicate that though the procedure or criterion is regarded as the preferred option, alternative procedures, specifications or criteria may be applied, provided that the manufacturer, installer or tester can provide information or data to adequately support and justify the alternative;

— the use of word ‘may’ indicates that though the criterion is regarded as the preferred option, alternative criteria may be applied. In such cases, alternatives should be identified in appropriate approval plans and agreement sought from the approval authority.

Verification Procedures

For verification procedures, the following definitions and symbols are used in this Appendix:

Analysis (A)

Analysis is the method of verification which consists in comparing design with known scientific and technical principles, technical data, or procedures and practices to validate that the proposed design will meet the specified functional or performance requirements.

Demonstration (D)

Demonstration is the method of verification where qualitative versus quantitative validation of a requirement is made during a dynamic test of the system/equipment. In general, software functional requirements are verified by demonstration since their functionality must be observed through some secondary media.

Inspection (I)

Inspection is the method of verification to determine compliance with requirements and consists primarily of visual observations or mechanical measurements of the system/equipment, physical location, or technical examination of the engineering support documentation.

Test (T)

Test is the method of verification that will exercise equipment functions and measure system/equipment performance under a specific configuration and load conditions and after the controlled application of known stimuli. Quantitative values are measured, compared against previously predicated success criteria, and then evaluated to determine the degree of compliance.

Y

The test is mandated under the indicated conditions.

m/n

Either verification method ‘m’ or verification method ‘n’ may be used to verify the requirement (i.e. D/A can be verified by Demonstration or Analysis).

m+n

Both verification methods must be used to verify the requirement (i.e. D+A means that the requirement must be verified by Demonstration and Analysis).

[Amdt ETSO/10]

[Amdt ETSO/16]