Browse Topic: Quality control
Software Diagram https://wcm14-tst.cld.sae.org/site/binaries/content/gallery/mobilus-brx/digital-supplements/software-diagram.png/software-diagram.png/sae%3Amedium
The work performed for the Adaptive Resilient Engineered Structures (ARES) program sponsored by the U.S. Army constitutes a trade study and resulting proposal for a structural demonstrator platform. The trade study was conducted using the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) process and a subsequent Artificial Intelligence (AI) exercise to find clusters of technologies for structural efficiency and resilience from Boeing's internal research activities. From a selection of approximately 150 technologies at different TRLs, Boeing subject matter experts (SMEs) for structural technologies identified several characteristics that could potentially determine the development of ARES structural demonstrator. Through the QFD process, the list of technologies was down selected about 50 unique technologies for consideration. The next stage of the QFD process entailed in identifying 37 different attributes or criteria long which each of these technologies would be assessed. They were grouped under two different categories: vehicle performance criteria and program performance criteria. Importance scores were provided by the SMEs independently and then a statistical approach for AI was used to distill them to 9 significant ones (labeled as 'Pillars') and a further distillation to 3 significant features (labeled as 'Super Metrics'). Clustering algorithms were then employed to group the set of technologies that could provide the resiliency targets sought for the demonstrator platform. The clusters were compared a hypothetical ideal platform to determine suitability and finally, 12 technologies merited attention toward the stated goals of the demonstrator platform.
Low-level flight, defined by high-speed operations near terrain, represents a significant challenge in military rotorcraft missions while providing strategic advantages, such as radar evasion and heightened surprise. Recent conflicts highlight the urgent need for advanced low-level flight capabilities in the design of new rotorcraft. The close proximity to ground obstacles, combined with the complexities of piloting, necessitates precise control and robust handling qualities to prevent accidents. However, existing handling quality standards, such as MIL-DTL-32742, reveal limitations in assessing low-level maneuvers. Given the diverse array of new rotorcraft designs, driven by initiatives like the U.S. Army's Future Vertical Lift and NATO's Next Generation Rotorcraft Capabilities, a customized handling qualities evaluation for each design is impractical. In response, a performance-driven strategy has been implemented, scaling Mission Task Elements to align with aircraft performance capabilities. This approach identifies handling quality gaps across the Operational Flight Envelope, concentrating on the aircraft’s effectiveness in achieving task success under varied conditions. Prior simulator studies validate the effectiveness of this method for assessing different configurations. This paper presents flight test results using DLR's ACT/FHS research helicopter, confirming a set of scalable Mission Task Elements developed at DLR's AVES and NASA's VMS simulators. Pilots utilized a Head-Mounted Display for task cueing, eliminating the need for physical infrastructure. The Mission Task Elements proved suitable for evaluating the low-level handling qualities of the ACT/FHS. Although the provided Head-Mounted Display facilitated Handling Qualities evaluations, it encountered some hardware limitations. The scaling for different airspeeds met pilot expectations, and wind compensation functioned as anticipated, enhancing the independence of flight tests from environmental conditions. These findings lead to recommended updates for task descriptions and course cueing requirements, confirming desired performance tolerances.
This standard establishes supplemental requirements for 9100 and 9145 and applies to any organization receiving it as part of a Purchase Order or other contractual document from a customer. AS13100 also provides details of the Reference Materials (RM13xxx) developed by the SAE G-22 AESQ committee and listed in Section 2 - Applicable Documents, that can also be used by organizations in conjunction with this standard.
In the early days of quality management, prior to 1980s, the focus seemed to be on "Quality Control" or "Quality Assurance". Emphasis was placed on inspection and testing. Quality was about conformance to specification. Non-Conformance Reports were representative of quality control. Our understanding of quality management has evolved, largely based on the Toyota Quality and Concurrent Engineering Approach of moving it off the production line for Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) [1]. In the late 1980s industry experienced similar difficulties in understanding and adopting quality management. The ideas behind managing quality are quite abstract. Quality is primarily about understanding and satisfying a customer's expectations. This includes implicit expectations, as well as explicit expectations. The techniques of specification, inspection and testing only make sense in that wider context. Formal risk management was developed in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s. Risk management principles are now widely understood and applied. Functional Safety Management (FSM) simply applies quality management to systems that are designed to control risk. [2] The standards for FSM and Development Assurance (DA) are relatively new. SAE ARP 4754 and ARP 4761 for complex aircraft systems were introduced in 1996 and DO-178 for software in 1998. In 2010 ARP 4754A [3] was created for movement from federated avionics systems to distributed integrated avionics systems which set the stage for Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) in DO 297 [4]. The Army identified IMA as a critical technology in its Joint Common Architecture (JCA) Final Report [5] and is seeking to provide a Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) approach to its Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programs. [6] The aim is to build and upgrade FVL mission systems without expensive proprietary interfaces. New capabilities from a choice of developers will adapt to emerging threats. The mission system architecture demonstration (MSAD) Program has awarded six contracts to avionics vendors to develop MOSA tools and rules. A capstone demonstration wraps-up this December 2020 and will generate a final report and provide guidance for Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA), FLRAA and FUAS architectures. MOSA flexibility and economy come to legacy helicopters with the Aviation Mission Common Server (AMCS), which transitions the legacy fleet from single-purpose/single-vendor architectures to more adaptable modules and components. Nonproprietary, government-controlled, open system standards interface new software applications without going to each platform maker for integration. [6] This paper will review FSM, DA, and Open IMA in these civil aircraft standards, compare them with Army Aviation's current Army Military Airworthiness Certification Criteria (AMACC) [7] and recommend a Civil Military FSM DA Framework for FVL and on how AMACC could be modified for FVL Open Systems Architectures (OSA) Certification using a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA). [8]
A concept of operations (CONOPS) is proposed for providing U.S. Marine Corps squads with mission-tailored small unmanned aerial systems (SUASs) using additive manufacturing. This is done on a tactically relevant timescale, ensuring that design improvements can be fielded far faster than with a traditional acquisition process. The CONOPS includes the following stages: mission planning and UAS selection/allocation/modification, order production and transmission, additive manufacturing, assembly and quality control, packaging and delivery, field assembly, field training and guidance, pre-mission checks, and mission use. The stages were developed through extensive discussions and interviews with Marine end users and iterated through several rounds of realistic wargaming. A comprehensive one-week training session was created that equipped Marines to demonstrate all design, manufacturing, and operational skills outlined in the CONOPS.
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 1164