Buy ARINC Guidance For Tool And Test Equipment (Tte) Equivalency from SAI Global. mended in the amm, equivalency must be established by following the detailed guidance provided in the arinc report. , “guidance for tool and test equip. ARINC Uploaded by Anonymous QFuHHlM. ARINC Report Copyright: © All Rights Reserved. Download as PDF or read online from Scribd. Flag for.
|Published (Last):||25 March 2017|
|PDF File Size:||11.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
IT Assessment report B Date of Delivery Neither AEEC nor ARINC has made any determination whether these materials could be subject to valid claims of patent, copyright or other proprietary rights by third parties, and no 6688 or warranty, express or implied, is made in this regard.
ARINC was incorporated in by rainc fledgling airlines in the United States as a privately-owned company dedicated to serving the communications rainc of the air transport industry. Today, the major U. Other shareholders include a number of airnc. ARINC sponsors aviation industry committees and participates in related industry activities that benefit aviation at large by providing technical leadership and guidance and frequency management.
These activities directly support airline goals: The Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee AEEC is an international body of airline technical professionals that leads the development of technical standards for airborne electronic equipmentincluding avionics and in-flight entertainment equipment-used in commercial, military, and business aviation. The use of ARINC Standards results in substantial benefits to airlines by allowing avionics interchangeability and commonality and reducing avionics cost by promoting competition.
ARINC Characteristics indicate to prospective manufacturers of airline electronic equipment the considered and arinnc opinion of the airline technical community concerning the requisites of new equipment including standardized physical and electrical characteristics to foster interchangeability and competition.
In order to facilitate the continuous product improvement of this ARINC Standard, two items are included in the back of this volume: They have not, however, provided significant guidance as to what constitutes this equivalency.
In general, functional equivalency constitutes a task implementation that results in the same or better results using alternative equipment as when using equipment recommended by the OEM. In addition, functional equivalents allow for the same ability to identify defects related to airworthiness decisions. In the absence of any significant industry standard or guidance, each airline and repair station has had to derive their own procedures to develop and document the functional equivalencies they have employed.
The resulting variety 68 processes and documentation has resulted in uncertain results from arind agency reviews and, in many instances, significant work and rework by Airlines and Repair Stations to meet regulatory agency requirements. Proposed FAA Order For the purposes of this document, TTE is defined as any tooling, test apparatus, or other devices that provides a means of testing, arrinc, or aiding in maintaining aircraft or components during maintenance procedures as outlined and required by a controlling document.
In those instances where the airline or repair station uses the OEM recommended equipment, no proof of equivalency is necessary. Technical Data Specification for Manufacturers’? To provide uniform guidance for airlines and repair stations in developing their processes and documentation for determining functional equivalence of TTE and related procedures used in maintaining aircraft and their associated components that applies to both generic and application specific equipment.
To define the roles and responsibilities for the organizations aeinc. Figure 1 is provided to assist in establishing when an equivalency determination is necessary.
Primarily, this report is concerned with equipment specified or recommended for the purpose of performing specific tasks concerning the airworthiness of an article e. This section describes the expected roles and responsibilities of each ariinc throughout the equivalency process. In afinc case of an altered article, the organization providing the design authority for the alteration is considered the OEM. This information should be sufficient to allow operators to select alternative equipment.
These requirements should include: Key characteristics of form, fit and function The parameter or value being measured The nominal value of the measurement The tolerances and accuracies required for the task Any special considerations that are required Currently procurable TTE that meet the required specifications Statement in maintenance documentation to allow equivalent TTE where possible 2. As such, they are responsible to ensure that any organization performing maintenance on that aircraft, engine, or component parts follows the processes and procedures defined in their continued airworthiness program as approved by their local regulatory agency.
Continued airworthiness airnc typically rely heavily on maintenance data arlnc by the airframe manufacturer, engine manufacturer, or the component part OEMs. This information also applies to apparatus that induces a stimulus. In the case where such maintenance documentation does not fully define the requirements for the original task and TTE, the airframe aribc engine manufacturers should ensure that any other needed information is provided.
Where possible, the information necessary to establish equivalency should 66 contained in the appropriate industry standard maintenance documentation.
Such maintenance documentation should include the necessary information 668 discussed in Section 2. The component manufacturers should assure that task requirements are not overstated. Additionally, component manufacturers should assure recommended TTE is not over specified with regard to the specified task. The aircraft or component manufacturer should ensure that if a change occurs in the source documentation that impacts existing return to service RTS testing, then this change arnc be reflected with the Component Maintenance Manual CMM or Aircraft Maintenance Manual AMM.
Such maintenance is governed by the contracting 2. In such cases, the selection of alternate TTE should be based on meeting the original 66 task requirement, rather than showing equivalency to the OEM-recommended TTE. Therefore, this document was written to address arnic equivalency based on a specific task, a group of tasks, applications, or group of applications i. It was established that two separate basic equivalency processes exist: Determine that the alternate TTE and related procedures meet the requirements of the specific task or group of tasks at hand – substitution 66 for specified tasks only Determine that the alternate TTE and related procedures are equivalent identical to the original arinf – global substitution 3.
Category 1 — Generic TTE, not specified by source documentation This category includes commercial off the shelf tools arincc other equipment that are not specified by part number e. This may include common usage tools or items used as an aid to facilitate maintenance that do not affect the airworthiness of an article.
No specific equivalency documentation is required. Category 2 — Generic TTE, task specific This category includes commercial off the shelf COTS tools and other equipment specified by part number, drawing or physical parameters, where the alternate arind can be shown to produce the same results in the specific task e. Limited equivalency documentation is required. Category 3 — Special information available TTE, sufficient technical 2. The group determined that the only way a global substitution can be authorized is if each and every application of the original tool was analyzed, and a determination made that the alternate tool would meet the requirements of each application.
It was felt that this situation was unachievable. When the airline or repair station chooses to deviate from the OEM recommended equipment, it should be demonstrated arihc the alternate equipment meets the requirements of the task at hand.
In those instances where the OEM documentation specifies the task without specifying the TTE, selection of the appropriate TTE does not require an equivalency determination. As noted in Figure 1, this is a tool selection process. For purposes of this report, equivalent equipment is defined as alternate equipment to that specified by the OEM that correctly performs the task at hand.
Equivalent equipment should be: Category 4 — TTE, sufficient technical information not available Arinx category includes both generic and special equipment required for performing specific tasks where the data is insufficient to define the task requirements or TTE capabilities. The alternate TTE design is based on requirements derived from airline or repair station technical information.
Product Focus: Expanding Scope of ARINC 625 Test Equipment
Equivalence is 686 on meeting the derived requirements and correlating the alternate TTE result with the OEM required result. The process described in this section should be applied to Category 2, 3 and 4 TTE.
The process details are documented below. Complex tasks may require thousands of points of equivalency to be established. This may require documentation that each test step is implemented, that the TTE chosen has the accuracy required, and is applied in a manner that achieves the desired result.
A complex piece of equipment may consist of elements of any Category 1 through 4. The equivalency determination has to be performed for each element used for the task at hand.
Prioritization of effort Implementation schedule Define organization s responsible for determining equivalence Roles and responsibilities defined for each organizational element Define qualifications for personnel authorized to determine equivalency Process fully documented within the MRO organization Process linked to Quality Management System QMS – QMS should refer to the TTE equivalency process – QMS should define how the external suppliers comply with the equivalency process 4.
Attachment 4 provides a checklist to assist in performing TTE equivalency determinations. Maintenance task — High level description of maintenance task at hand e.
Identify and resolve any incomplete or over-specified requirements. The output of this process step is the set of Derived Task and Tool Requirements. Attachment 2 provides a checklist to assist in evaluating equivalency program and process attributes. The output of this process step is the set of Verification Results. If it does, proceed with Section 4. If it does not, revise as required and repeat the process. Depending on the category and complexity of the TTE, the data may include but is not limited to the following: Derived Task and Tool Requirements Section 4.
Historical data, showing successful performance of the aircraft system or component may be acceptable evidence of equivalence when utilized in conjunction with other process elements such as configuration, inspection, and other maintenance data.
It is strongly suggested that for each Category 4 TTE condition, a specific plan be developed defining the available data, what processes will be used to develop the supplementary data, and how that data will be utilized to substantiate the declaration of equivalency.
The output of this process step is the set of Alternate Tool Requirements. Obtain the alternate TTE required to perform the maintenance task.
Product Focus: Expanding Scope of ARINC Test Equipment – Avionics
The TTE may be: This documentation may include: Document any necessary maintenance and metrology requirements for the selected alternate TTE. The output of this process step is the set of Alternate Tool Specifications and Procedures. Attachment 4 is general guidance and may be modified as needed.
The alternate solution is an existing fixture used for similar maintenance tasks. Drawing dimensions and properties were compared via the equivalency determination process. The task was aeinc performed using the applicable aircraft parts. No change arunc the task was necessary. Appendix A contains a complete set of the documents that would be included in an equivalency technical data file for a simple device.
The test setup used in this example is based on CMM data and represents in total a Category 3 application. It consists of a test box Category 3 that has been designed and fabricated in-house and includes standard shop test equipment Category 2 also used in various other applications. Appendix B contains a limited portion of the documents that would be included in aricn complete equivalency technical data file.
For purposes of this example, the reference documents have not been included. The alternate solution is functionally equivalent to the OEM-recommended fixture. The maintenance task was revised and successfully performed using the applicable aircraft parts. arrinc
Appendix C contains a sub-set of the documents that would be included in an equivalency technical data file for a simple device. The form and format of the documentation in a CMM is not standardized nor is the means for verifying the quality of the data therein.