This article was originally published on TechDesignForums and is reproduced here by permission.
At first glance the DO-254 aviation standard, ‘Design Assurance Guideline for Airborne Electronic Hardware’, seems daunting. It defines design and verification flows tightly with regard to both implementation and traceability.
Here’s an example of the granularity within the standard: a sizeable block addresses how you write state machines, the coding style you use and the conformity of those state machines to that style.
This kind of stylistic, lower-level semantic requirement – and there are many within DO-254 – makes design managers stop and think. So it should. The standard is focused on aviation’s safety-critical demands, assessing the hardware design’s execution and functionality in appropriate depth right up to the consequences of a catastrophic failure.
Nevertheless, one pervasive and understandable concern has been the degree to which such a tightly-drawn standard will impact on and be compatible with established flows. This particularly goes for new entrants in avionics and its related markets.
Your company has a certain way of doing things so you inevitably wonder how easily that can be adapted and extended to meet the requirements of DO-254… or will a painful and expensive rethink be necessary? Can we realistically do this? (more…)