P e/

U.S.Deportmmr olTronsportotion Federal Aviation Administration -

Advisory Circular
Initiated by: ANN- 110
Dntc: G/21/88 ACNo: CJWF 25.1309-1A

Subject:

SYSTEM DESIGN AND ANALYSlS

PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) 1. for showing compliance with the requirements the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). guidance for the experienced engineering form the basis for'compliance findings. may be used if they show compliance with 2. CANCELLATION. AC 25.1309-l dated

describes various acceptable means of fi 25.1309(b), (c), and (d) of These means are intended to provide and operational Judgment that must They are not mandatory. Other means this section of the FAR. is hereby cancelled.

g/7/82,

3. APPL!CABILITY. Section 25.13U9(b) provides yeneral requirements for a logical and acceptable inverse relationship between the probability and the and Ej 25.1309(d) requires that compliance severity of each failure condition, be shown primarily by analysis. Section 25.1309(c) provides general requirements for system monitoring, failure warniny, and capaaility for appropriate corrective crew action. Because 0 25.1309(b) and (c) is a regulation of general applicability, it may not be used to replace or alter any allowed design practices or specific requirements of Part 25, and each requirement of 6 2S.l309(b) and (c) applies only if other applicable sections of Part 25 do not provide a specific system requirement that has a similar purpose. While 9 25.13i19(b) and (c) does not apply to the performance, flight characteristics, and structural loads and strength requirements of Subparts B and C, it does apply to any system on which compliance with any of those requirements is based. For example, it does not apply to an airplane's inherent stall characteristics or their evaluation, but it does apply to a stall warning system used to enable compliance with 5 25.207. The Part 25 airworthiness standards dre based on the fail-safe 4. BACKGROUND. design concept that has evolved over the years. A brief description is provided in Paragraph 5. Section 25.1309(b) and (c) sets forth certain Many systems, objective safety requirements based on this design concept. and their installations have been successfully evaluated to*the equipment, applicable requirements of Part 25, including $j 25.1309(b), (c), and (d), However, in recent without usiny structured means for safety assessments. years there has been an increase in the degree of system complexity and integration, and in the number of safety-critical functions performed by systems. Difficulties had been experienced in assessing the hazards that could result from failures of such systems, or adverse interactions amony them. These difficulties led to the use of structured means for showing compliance

AC 25.1309-1A

6/21/88

with Q 25.1309(b). acceptable means

For this of-compliance

and other reasons, with $ 25.1309(b),

yuidance was needed (c), and (d).

on

Section 25.1309(b) and (d) specifies required safety levels in a. qualitative terms, and requires that a safety assessment be made. Various assessment techniques have been developed to assist applicants and the FAA in determining that a logical and acceptable inverse relationship exists between the probability and the severity of each failure condition. These techniques include the use of service experience data of similar, previously-approved systems, and thorough qualitative analyses. b. In addition, difficulties had been experienced in assessing the acceptability of some designs, especially those of systems, or parts of that have a high degree of integration, that use new systems, that are complex, technoloyy or new or different applications of conventional technology, or that perform safety-critical functions. These difficulties led to the selective use of rational analyses to estimate quantitative probabilities, and the development of related criteria based on historical data of accidents and hazardous incidents caused or contributed to by failures. These criteria, expressed as numerical probability ranyes associated with the terms used in b ecame commonly-accepted for evaluatiny the quantitative analyses Ej 25.1309(b), that are often used in such cases to support experienced engineering and operational judgment dnd to supplement qualitative analyses and tests. 5. THE FAA FAIL-SAFE DESIGN CONCEPT. The Part 25 airworthiness standards are based on, dnd incorporate, the obJectives, and principles or techniques, of the fail-safe design concept, which considers the effects of failures and Combinations of failures in defining a safe desiyn. a. The following basic objectives pertaining to failures apply:

(1) component, or deceleration .sinyle failures significantly to cope with

In any system or subsystem, the failure of any sinyle element, connection duriny any one flight (brake release through ground to stop) should be assumed, reyardless of its probability. Such should not prevent continued safe flight and landing, or reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew the resulting failure conditions. during the same flight, whether detected or should also be assumed, unless their joint is shown to be extremely improbable.

(2) Subsequent failures latent, and combinations thereof, probability with the first failure

Par 4

6/21/88

AC 25.1309-1A

b. The fail-safe design concept uses the following design principles or The use of only one of these techniques in order to ensure a safe design. principles or techniques is seldom adequate. A combination of two or more is usually needed to provide a fail-safe design; i.e., to ensure that major failure conditions are improbable and that catastrophic tailure conditions are extremely improbable.'

(1)
intended (2) any single hydraulic (3) of one does independence. (4) to (5) (6) continued (7)

Desiyned Inteyrity function and prevent

and Quality, failures.

including

Life

Limits,

to

ensure

Redundancy or Backup Systems to enable (or other defined number of) failure(s); flight control systems, etc. systems, Isolation not cause of the Systems, failure Components, of another.

continued e.g., two

function or more

after engines,

and Elements Isolation is

so that the also termed

failure

unlikely

Proven Reliability occur during the Failure Flightcrew flight Checkability: Warning

so that same flight. or Indication

multiple,

independent

failures

are

to

provide

detection. ion, to action. 's enable

safe

Procedures and landing the

for use after by specifying capability Limits, impact to

failure detect crew corrective check a component

condition. to

sustain

(8) Designed Failure to limit the damage, (9) Designed in a way that Fdilure limits

Effect safety

or

including effects

the capability of a failure. the effects

failure

Path to control and direct its safety impact. of Safety to allow for

of

(10)
unforeseeable

haryins adverse

or Factors conditions.

any

undefined

or

(11)
errors during maintenance.

Error-Tolerance the airplane's

that considers design, test,

adverse manufacture,

effects of operation,

foreseeable and

The following definitions apply to the system design and 6. DEFINITI3NS. analysis requirements of 0 25,1309(b), (c), and (d) and the guidance material provided in this AC. They should not be assumed to apply to the same or

Par 5

.AC 25.1309-1A

6/21/88

similar dictionary

terms used definitions

in

other regulations apply are not

Terms or ACs. defined herein. or

for

which

standard

Attribute: A feature, a. device, or a condition affecting design, construction, technology, environmental operational uses, functions, with other systems,

characteristic, its operation. installation, and operational and flight or

aspect of a system or a Some examples would include functions, applications, stresses, and relationships structural characteristics.

Certification Check Requirement (CCR): A recurring flightcrew or b. groundcrew check that is required by design to help show compliance with 0 25.1309(b) and (d)(2) by detecting the presence of, and thereby limiting the exposure time to, a significant latent failure that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events identified in a safety analysis, result in a hazardous failure condition.

c. Check: physicalintegrity

An examination or functional

(e.g., an inspection or capability of an item.

test)

to

determine.the

A system is considered to be complex if structured methods,of d. Complex: A structured analysis are needed for a thorough and valid safety assessment. method is very methodical and highly organized. Failure modes and effects, fault tree, and reliability block diagram analyses are examples of structured methods. e. Continued controlled flight procedures, but airplane damage upon landing. Safe Flight and and landing at without requiring may be associated Landing: The capability for continued a suitable airport, possibly using emergency exceptional pilot skill or strength. Some with a failure condition, during flight or

f. Conventional: conventional if it is approved systems that 9* thereof. Failure:

An attribute of a system is considered the same as, or closely similar to, that are commonly-used. of function, or a malfunction, of

to be of previously-

A loss

a system

or a part

h. Failure Condition: The effects on the airpl-ane and its occupants, both caused or contributed to by one or more failures, direct and consequential, considering relevant adverse operational or environmental conditions. Failure conditions may be classified according to their severities as follows:

Failure (1) Minor: airplane safety, and which capabilities. Minor failure reduction in safety margins

conditions which would not significantly reduce involve crew actions that are well within their conditions may.include, for examp'le,.a.slight or functional capabilities, a slight increase in

Par

6/21/88
crew workload, occupants. such as routine fliyht plan changes, or

AC 25.1303-1A

some inconvenience

to

airplane to the

Failure conditions (2) Major: or the ability of the crew to extent that there would be, for A significant a siynificant crew efficiency, (i)

which would reduce the capability of cope with adverse operating conditions example, --

the

capabilities, impairing

reduction in safety margins or functional increase in crew workload or in conditions or some discomfort to occupants; or

(ii) In more severe cases, a large reduction in safety margins or higher workload or physical distress such that the functional capabilities, crew could not be relied on to perform its tasks accurately or completely, or adverse effects on occupants. (3) safe flight Catastrophic: and landing. Failure conditions which would prevent continued

i. Redundancy: The presence of more than one accomplishing a given function or flight operation. necessarily be identical. L airplane k. methods Qualitative: safety in Quantitative: to assess

independent means Each means need

for not

Those analytical processes that a subjective, nonnumerical manner. Those analytical and airplane processes safety. that

assess

system

and

apply

mathematical

system

and (d) requires substantiation by analysis, and where necessary, by, appropriate ground, flight, or simulator tests, that a logical and acceptable inverse relationship exists between the probability and the severity of each failure condition. However, tests are not required to verify failure conditions that are postulated to be catastrophic. As discussed in Paragraph 3, some systems and some functions must be evaluated for compliance with certain specific system requirements that take precedence over certain requirements of 5 25.1309(b) and (c) that have similar purposes. In either case, however, the goal is to ensure an acceptable overall airplane safety level, considering all failure conditions of all systems. a. The requirements of 6 25.1309(b) and (d) are intended to ensure an orderly and thorough evaluation of the effects on safety of foreseeable failures or other events, such as errors or external circumstances, separately or in combination, involving one or more system functions. The interactions these factors within a system and among relevant systems should be considered.

7.

IILSCUSSION. Section

25.1309(b)

of

Par

AC 25.1309-1A
b. following The severities considerations: (1) degradations operations, (2) workload that environmental (3) of failure conditions may be evaluated according

6/21/88
to the

Effects-on the airplane, such as reductions in safety margins, in performance, loss of capability to conduct certain flight or potential or consequential effects on structural integrity. Effects on the crewmembers, would affect their ability conditions or subsequent Effects on the occupants; such as increases above,their to cope with adverse operational failures. i.e., design severities accepted passenyers assessments, as minor, definitions and crewmembers. failure conditions major, or of these terms. normal or

c. For convenience in conducting may be classified according to their catastrophic. Paragraph 6h provides

The classification of failure conditions does not depend on whether or not a system or function is required by any specific regulation. Some systems required by specific regulations, such as transponders, position lights, and public address systems, may have the potential for only minor failure conditions. Conversely, other systems not required by any specific management systems and automatic landing systems, regulation, such as flight may have the potent ial for major or catastrophic failure condi'tions. (2) Regard less of the types of assessment used, the classification of failure conditions should always be accomplished with consideration of all relevant factors; e.g., system, crew, performance, operational, external, etc. Examples of factors would include the nature of the failure modes, any effects or limitations on performance, and any required or likely crew action. It is particularly important to consider factors that would alleviate or intensify the severity of a failure condition. An example of an alleviating factor would be the continued performance of identical or operationally-similar functions by other systems not affected by a failure condition. Examples of intensifying factors would include unrelated conditions that would reduce the ability of the crew to cope with a failure condition, such as weather or other adverse or failures of other unrelated systems operational or environmental conditions, or functions. d. The probability that a failure condition probable, improbable, or extremely improbable. Paragraphs 9e and 1Ub. Each failure condition would occur may be assessed These terms are explained in should have a probability as

(1)

Par

c/21/88 that is inversely-related to illustrates Consequence Graph, (1) (2) (3) Minor Major failure failure its severity. Figure this relationship. may be probable. must conditions be improbable. must be extremely 1, Probability

AC 25.1309-1A
vs.

conditions conditions failure

Catastrophic

improbable.

Figure 1: Probability vs. Consequence Graph

Procedures
Procedures

Emergency

Probability of Failwe Condition

e. An assessment to identify and classify failure conditions is necessarily qualitative. On the other hand, an assessment of the probability of a failure condition may be either qualitative or quantitative. An analysis may range from a simple report that interprets test results or compares two similar systems to a detailed analysis that may (or may not) include estimated The depth and scope of an analysis depends on the numerical probabilities. types of functions performed by the system, the severities of system failure conditions, and whether or not the system is complex. Regardless of its type, an analysis should show that the system and its installation can tolerate failures to the extent that major failure conditions, are improbable and catastrophic failure conditions are extremely improbable. (1) Experienced engineering and operational judgment should be applied when determining whether or not a system is complex. Comparison with similar, previously-approved systems is sometimes helpful. All relevant system

Par

AC 25.1309-1A
attributes should be considered; to program a digital computer-based software is assessed and controlled Paragraph 7i. -

6/21/88
however, the complexity of the software used system should not be considered because the by other means, as described in

(2) An analysis should always consider the application of the failsafe design concept described in Paragraph 5, and give special attention to ensuring the etfective use of design techniques that would prevent single failures or other events from damaying or otherwise adversely affecting more than one redundant system channel or more than one system performing operationally-similar functions. When considering such common-cause failures or other events, consequential or cascading effects should be taken into account if they would be inevitable or reasonably likely. (3) Some examples of such potential common-cause failures or other events would include rapid release of energy from concentrated sources such as uncontained failures of rotating parts' or pressure vessels, pressure differentials, noncatastrophic structural failures, loss of environmental conditioning, disconnection of more than one subsystem or component by overtemperature protection devices, contamination by fluids, damage from localized fires, loss of power, excessive voltage, physical or environmental interactions among parts, use of incorrect, faulty, or boyus parts, human or machine errors, and foreseeable adverse operational conditions, environmental conditions, or events external to the system or to the airplane. f. As discussed in Paragraphs 8c(l) and 8d(2), compliance for a system part thereof that is not complex may sometimes be shown by design and installation appraisals and evidence of satisfactory service experience on other airplanes using the same or other systems that are similar in their relevant attributes. or

a failure condition resulting from a single failure mode of Y- In general, a device cannot be accepted as being extremely improbable. In very unusual cases, however, experienced engineering judgment may enable an assessment that such a failure mode is not a practical possibility. When making such an assessment, all possible and relevant considerations should be taken into account, including all relevant attributes of the device. Service experience showiny that the failure mode has not yet occurred may be extensive, but it can never be enough. Furthermore, flightcrew or groundcrew checks have no value if a catastrophic failure mode would occur suddenly and without any prior indication or warning. The assessments logic and rationale should be so straightforward and readily-obvious that, from a realistic and practical viewpoint, any knowledgeable, experienced person would unequivocally conclude that the failure mode simply would not occur, unless it is associated with a wholly-unrelated failure condition that would itself be catastrophic.

Par

6/21/88

AC 25.1309-1A

h. Section 25.1309(c) provides requirements for system monitoring, failure warning, and capability for appropriate corrective crew action. Guidance on acceptable means of compliance is provided in Paragraph 89. i. In general, the means of compliance described in this AC are not directly applicable to software assessments because it is not feasible to if any, that may remain after assess the number or kinds of software errors, the completion of system design, development, and test. Advisory Technical Commission for Circular ZO-115A dated August 12, 1986, "Radio or later revisions thereto, provides Aeronautics Document RTCAIDO-17BA," acceptable means for assessinq and controlling the software used to program digital computer-based systems. Uocument RTCA/DO-178A dated March 22, 1985, "Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification," defines and uses certain terms to classify the criticalities of functions. For information, these terms have the following relationships to the terms used in failure conditions adversely affecting this AC to classify failure conditions: non-essential functions would be minor, failure conditions adversely affecting essential functions would be major, and failure conditions adversely affecting critical functions would be catastrophic. 8. ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUES. The applicant is responsible for applying reasonable criteria and experienced engineering and operational judgment to identify and classify each failure condition and to choose the methods of assessment to be used to determine compliance with 0 25.1309(b), (c), and (d). All relevant applicant engineering organizations, such as systems, structures, propulsion, and flight test, should be involved in the identification and classification of failure conditions. The applicant should then obtain early concurrence of the cognizant certificating office on the failure conditions, their classifications, and the choice of an acceptable means of compliance. This paragraph describes acceptable techniques, but not the only techniques, for determining compliance. (Paragraph 12 briefly and partially summarizes these techniques.) Regardless of the techniques used, the considerations described in Paragraphs 7c and 7e should always be taken into account. a. Functional Hazard Assessment. A useful preliminary step is to conduct a functional hazard assessment (FHA)to identify and classify potentiallyhazardous failure conditions, and to describe them in functional and operational terms. An FHA is qualitative and is conducted usiny experienced engineering and operational judgment. The criteria described in Paragraph 7f are sometimes sufficient for systems as described therein. For other systems, an FHA tends to be structured because it involves a comprehensive, systematic, deductive, high-level examination of system functional failures to identify and classify the resulting failure conditions. An FHA is often used by applicants as a preliminary engineering tool to help determine the acceptability of a to identify potential problem areas or desirable design design concept, changes, or to determine the need for and scope of any additional analyses. At the applicant's option, an FHA may be included in the certification documentation. In some cases, it may show that additional documentation is not needed.

Par 7

AC 25.1309-1A

6121188

b. Analysis of Minor Failure Conditions. An analysis, which could be an FHA, should consider the effects of system failures on other systems or their It is complete if it shows that system failures would cause only functions. minor failure conditions. If the system, in itself, has the potential for only minor failure conditions, and the common design practice of providing physical and functional isolation between it and other systems is used, an analysis that shows such isolation is usually sufficient.
C. Analysis of Major Failure Conditions. Major failure conditions must be shown to be improbable. Those that are more severe (reference Paragraph 6h(2)(ii)) should have smaller probabilities than those that are less severe (reference Paragraph 6h(2)(i)). The considerations described in Paragraphs 7c and 7e should always be taken into account.

(1) Using experienced engineering and operational Judgment, an assessment as described in Paragraph 7f is often sufficient. Compliance may also be shown qualitatively by a failure modes and effects analysis, or by a fault tree or reliability block diagram analysis. A quantitative analysis is sometimes used to support experienced judgment and to supplement qualitative analysis for the more severe major failure conditions. (2) An analysis of a redundant system is usually complete if it shows isolation between redundant system channels and satisfactory reliability for each channel. For complex systems, a failure modes and effects analysis or a fault tree or reliability block diagram analysis is often used to show that isolation actually exists (i.e., that any single failure would not affect more than one redundant system channel), and to show that the failure modes of the system do not have any adverse effects on safety-related functions performed by other systems. d. Analysis of Catastrophic Failure conditions must be shown to be extremely assessment is necessary. The considerations should always be taken into account. (1) qualitative and 1U. The assessment and quantitative Conditions. improbable. described Catastrophic failure A very thorough safety in Paragraphs lc and-7e

usually consists analyses, such

of an appropriate as those described

combination of in Paragraphs 9

(2) Using experienced engineering and operational judgment, an assessment as described in Paragraph 7f is sometimes sufficient, provided that the service experience data, which should be based on commonly-used systems that are identical or have a very close similarity in their relevant

10

Par 8

6/21/88

AC 25.1309-1A

show that no potentially-catastrophic attributes, in the identical or similar~systems or their

defects installations.

have

been

discovered

e. Operational or Environmental Conditions. A probability of one should usually be used for encountering a discrete condition for which the airplane is such as instrument meteorological conditions or Category III weather desiyned, operations. On the other hand, reasonable and rational consideration of the statistically-derived probability of a random condition may usually be included in an analysis, provided it is based on an applicable supporting data base and When combining the probability of such a random its statistical distribution. condition with that of a system failure, care should be taken to ensure that the condition and the system failure are independent of one another, or that Two examples of the reasonable any dependencies are properly accounted for. and rational use of such random conditions are the encountering of hazardous turbulence or gust levels after the failure of a structural load alleviation and the availability of a suitable alternate airport having a crosswind system, lower than that at the intended destination airport after a system failure that The applicant should obtain early results in a loss of high rudder authority. concurrence of the cognizant certificating office when such conditions are to be included in an analysis. A latent failure is one which is inherently f. Latent Failures. undetected when it occurs. A sionificant latent failure is one which would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a* hazardous failure condition. Because the frequency at which a device is checked directly affects the probability that any latent failure of that device CCRs (reference Paragraph 6b) may be used to help show compliance with exists, 5 25.1309(b) and (d)(2) for significant latent failures. However, the use of CCRs or other checks in lieu of practical and reliable failure monitoring and warning systems to detect siynificant latent failures when they occur does not comply with 5 25.1309(c) and (d)(4). A practical failure monitoring and warniny system is one which is considered to be within the state-of-the-art. A reliable failure monitoring and warning system is one which would not result in either excessive failures of a yenuine warning, or excessive or untimely false warnings which can sometimes be more hazardous than lack of provision for, or failures of, yenuine but infrequent warninys. Experienced judgment should be applied when determining whether or not a failure monitoring and warning system would be practical and reliable. Comparison with similar, previously-approved systems is sometimes helpful. Paragraphs Bg(4) and 11 provide further guidance on the use of CCRs. 9* requires system action. Acceptable means of compliance with 6 25.1309(c). Section 25.1309(c) that warning information must be provided to alert the crew to unsafe operating conditions, and to enable them to take appropriate corrective It also requires that systems, controls, and associated monitoring

Par

11

AC 25.1309-1A

6/21/88

and warning additional

means must be designed to minimize crew errors Compliance with this section is shown hazards.

which COlJld qualitatively.

create

(1) Failure warning or indication may either be natural (inherent) or In either case, it should be timely, rousing, obvious, designed into a system. It should occur at a point in a potentiallyclear, and unambiguous. catastrophic sequence of failures where the airplane's capability and the crew's ability still remain sufficient for appropriate corrective crew action. (2) Unless they crew to follow after the the FAA-approved Airplane are accepted as normal airmanship, procedures for occurrence of failure warning should be described Flight Manual (AFM) or AFM revision or supplement. the in

affected necessary examples safety landing result Warning flight. warning action

(3) Even.if operation or performance is unaffected or insignificantly at the time of failure, warning is required if it is considered for the crew to take any action or observe any precautions. Some being aware of a reduction in would include reconfiguring a system, changing the fliyht plan or regime, or makiny an unscheduled margins, to reduce exposure to a more hazardous failure condition that would from subsequent failures or operational or environmental conditions. is also required if a failure must be corrected before a subsequent If operation or performance is unaffected or insignificantly affected, may be inhibited during specific phases of flight where corrective by the crew is considered more hazardous than no action. :

(4) The use of CCRs or other checks in lieu of practical and reliable failure monitoring and warning systems to detect siynificant latent failures when they occur does not comply with 0 25.1309(c) and (d)(4). Paragraphs 8f and 11 provide further guidance on the use of CCRs. (5) The assumptions of Paragraph lla that the flightcrew will take appropridte corrective action dnd perform required checks correctly are based on compliance with the requirement for a design that minimizes the potential for hazardous crew errors; however, quantitative assessments of tne probabilities of cr,ew errors are not considered feasible. Particular attention should be given to the placement of switches or other control devices, relative to one another, so as to minimize the potential for inadvertent incorrect crew action, especially during emeryencies or periods of high workload. Extra protection, such as the use of guarded switches, may sometimes be needed. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT. Various methods for assessing severities, and likelihood of potential failure conditions support experienced engineering and operational judgment. methods are structured. The various types of analysis are

9.

the causes, are available to Some of these based on either

12

Par 8

6/21/88

AC 25.1309-1A

inductive or deductive approaches. Descriptions of typical types of and explanations of qualitative probability terms are provided below. a. Design Appraisal. A qualitative An effective appraisal of the design. accordance with Paragraph 7e, should conditions that are likely to prevent

analysis

appraisal of the integrity and safety requires experienced judgment, and in place special emphasis on any failure continued safe flight and landing.

b. Installation Appraisal. A qualitative appraisal of the integrity and safety of the installation. An effective appraisal requires experienced judgment, and in accordance with Paragraph 7e, should place special emphasis on any failure conditions that are likely to prevent continued safe flight and landing. Any deviations from normal, industry-accepted installation practices, such as clearances or tolerances, should be evaluated, especially when appraising modifications made after entry into service.

c. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. A structured, inductive, bottom-up analysis which is used to evaluate the effects on the system and the airplane of each possible element or component failure. When properly formatted, it and the possible causes of each will aid in identifying latent failures, failure mode.
d. Fault Tree or Reliability Block Diagram Analysis. Structured, deductive, top-down analyses which are used to identify the conditions, failures, and events that would cause each defined failure condition. They are graphical methods of identifying the logical relationship between each particular failure condition and the primary element or component failures, other events, or combinations thereof that can cause it. A failure modes and effects analysis is usually used as the source document for those primary A fault tree analysis is failure-oriented, and is failures or other events. conducted from the perspective of which failures must occur to cause a defined failure condition. A reliability block diagram analysis is success-oriented, and.is conducted from the perspective of which failures must not occur to preclude a defined failure condition. e. Qualitative Probability Terms. determine compliance with $ 25.1309(b), probability terms used in this regulation accepted as aids to engineering judgment: When using qualitative analyses to the following descriptions of the and this AC have become commonly-

(1)
more times

Probable during the

failure entire

conditions operational

are life

those anticipated of each airplane.

to

occur

one or

(2) Improbable failure during the entire operational may occur occasionally during one type.

conditions are those not anticipated to occur life of a single random airplane. However, they the entire operational life of all airplanes of

Par

13

AC 25.1309-1A

6121188

they are airplanes

(3) not of

Extremely anticipated one type.

Improbable to occur

tailure during

conditions the entire

are those operational

so unlikely that life of all

analysis may be used to support 10. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT. A quantitative experienced engineering and operational judgment and to supplement qualitative analyses. A description of such an analysis, discussion and guidance information, and explanations of quantitative probability terms are provided below. A quantitative analysis is often used for catastrophic or severe major failure conditions of systems that are complex, that have insufficient service experience to help substantiate their safety, or that have attributes that differ significantly from those of conventional systems.

a. Probability Analysis. A failure modes and effects, fault tree, or reliability block diagram analysis which also includes numerical probability i nformdti on. The probabilities of primary failures cdn be determined from failure rate data and exposure times, using failure rates derived from service experience on identical or similar items, or acceptable industry standards. The conventional mathematics of probability can then be used to calculate the estimated probdbility of each tailure condition as a function of the estimated probabilities of its identified contributory failures or other events. (1) It is recognized that, for various reasons, component failure rate data are not precise enough to enable accurate estimates of the probabilities of failure conditions. This results in some degree of uncertainty, as indicated by the wide line on Figure 1, Probability'vs. Consequence Graph, and the expression "on the order of" in the descriptions of the quantitative probability terms that are provided in Paragraph lob. When calculating the estimated probability of each failure condition, this uncertainty should be accounted for in a way that does not compromise safety.
(2) Because the improbable range is broad (reference Paragraph 8c), the applicant should obtain early concurrence of the cognizant certificating office on an acceptable probability tor each major failure condition. Unless acceptable probability criteria are provided elsewhere, such as in other ACs, acceptable probabilities for failure conditions should be derived from complete event scenarios leading to an inability for continued safe flight and landing. The considerations described in Paragraphs 7c dnd 7e should always be taken into account so that the probability requirements are rational and realistically-based. Using experienced engineering and operational judgment, acceptable probabilities should have reasonable tolerances because the uncertainty is accounted for as discussed in Paragraph lOa(1). b. Quantitative Probability help determine compliance with probability terms used in this accepted as aids to engineering Terms. 5 25.1309(b), regulation judgment. When using quantitative analyses to the following descriptions of the and this AC have become commonlyThey are usually expressed in terms

14

Par

6/2i/aa

AC 25.1309-1A

of acceptable numerical probability ranges for flight of mean duration for the airplane type. is used only during a specific flight operation; 'the acceptable probability should be based on, flight operation's actual duration.
yreater (1) than (2) of (3) probability Probable failure on the order of Improb$ble condl$ions are

each flight-hour, based on a However, for a function which e.g., takeoff, landing, etc., and expressed in terms of, .the

those

having

a probability

1 X 10

.
are than those having on the order are a probabil,Jty of 1 X 10 having a on

the

order

1 X 10

or

failure less,

conditions but greater

Extremely on the order

Improbable-4ailure of 1 X 10 or

conditions less.

those

This AC addresses only those 11. OPERATIONAL AN0 MAINTENANCE CUNSIUEKATIONS. operational and maintenance considerations that are directly related to compliance with 5 25.1309(b), (c), and (d); other operational and maintenance considerations are not discussed herein. Flightcrew and groundcrew tasks related to compliance with this regulation should be appropriate and reasonable. However, as discussed in Paragraph 8g(5), quantitative assessments of the probabilities of crew errors are not considered teasible. Therefore, reasonable tasks are those for which full credit can be taken because the flightcrew or groundcrew can realistically be anticipated to perform them correctly and when they are required or scheduled. In addition, based on experienced engineering and operational judgment, the discovery of obvious failures during normal operation and maintenance of the airplane may be considered, even though such failures are not the primary purpose or focus of the operational or maintenance actions. Action. When assessing the ability of the flightcrew to a. Flightcrew cope with a failure condition, the warning information and the complexity of the required action should be considered (reference Paragraph 8g(5)). If the evaluation indicates that a potential failure condition can be alleviated or overcome during the time available without jeopardizing other safety-related flightcrew tasks and without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, credit may be taken for correct and appropriate corrective action, for both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Similarly, credit may be taken for correct flightcrew performance of CCKs if overall flightcrew workload during the time available to perform them is not excessive and if they do not require exceptional pilot skill or strength. Unless flightcrew actions are accepted as normal airmanship, they should be described in the FAA-approved AFM or AFM revision or supplement. Credit may be taken for correct groundcrew b. Groundcrew Action. accomplishment of reasonable CCRs, for both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Such requirements should be provided for use in FAA-approved maintenance programs.

Par

10

15

AC 25.1309-1A

6/21/88

As discussed in Paragraphs 6b Certification Check Requirements. and 8f, CCRs (also referred to as Certification Maintenance Requirements, or CMRs).may be needed to help show compliance with 5 25.1309(b) and (d)(Z) for Rational methods, tihich usually involve significant latent failures. quantitative analyses or relevant service experience data, should be used to These intervals should have reasonable tolerances determine CCR intervals. that CCRs can be performed concurrently with other maintenance, inspection, check procedures not required by design for compliance with 9 25.1309(b) Such tolerances are dCCeptdble because the uncertainty described and (d)(Z). If CCRs are used, in Paragraph lOa(1) is accounted for as discussed therein. and any post-certification changes, they and their intervals and tolerances, procedures provided in the type design for an airplane owner or operator to should be approved by, or with the concurrence of, the make such changes, certificating office having cognizance over the type design that relates to system and its installation.
C.

so or

or

the

(1)
flightcrews the airplane

Any applicant originatiny CCRs that dre to be performed by should provide all relevant information to owners and operators in the FAA-approved AFM or AFM revision or supplement.

of

(2) Any applicant originating CCRs that are to be performed by groundcrews should provide all relevant information to owners and operators of the airplane early enough for well-planned, timely incorporation into FAAapproved maintenance programs. If appropriate, approved procedures for reasonable adjustments to CCR intervals as a result of knowledge acquired from service experience may be provided for use in FAA-approved maintenance programs. (3) Any owner or operator of an airplane CCRs or their intervals be allowed and specified in approved under the applicable operating regulation FAA-approved maintenance program. As discussed in of the certificating office having cognizance over to the system and its installation is necessary. may request that alternative an operator's specification or in accordance with an Paragraph llc, concurrence the type design that relates

d. Flight with Equipment or Functions Inoperative. Any applicant may elect to develop a list of equipment and functions which need not be operative for safe flight and landiny, based on stated compensating precautions that should be taken; e.g., operational or time limitations, or flightcrew or groundcrew checks. The documents used to show compliance with 5 25.1309(b), (c), and (d), together with any other relevant information, should be considered in the development of this list, which then becomes the basis for a Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). Experienced engineering and operational Judyment should be applied during the development of the MMEL.

16

Par

11

6/21/88 12. STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE. This are provided primarily for the various methods and procedures safety assessments.
guide and Fi.ure 2, Depth who are by industry of Analysis

AC 25.1309-1A Flowchart, with the design

use of app +-icants

not familiar
to conduct

Conduct functional hazard assessment. (Reference Paragraph

I 8a) I

Fiaure

Depth of Analysis Flowchafl

Show that the failure conditions are minor. (Reference Paragraph

8b)

complex?

(Reference

those used in other airplanes in its relevant attributes?

Justifysimilarity. : (Reference Paragraphs 71, and 8c(l) or 8d(2))

in its relevant attributes?

~onuucr qualnarrve assessments. (Reference Paragraphs EC or Ed, and 9)

m--2..-

-__-lt.--L.-

---------_

Failure condition

classification:

Mapr
Severe Major, or Catastrophic

Conduct qualitative assessments, andquantitative assessmentsas appropriate. (Reference Paragraphs EC or Ed, 9, and 10)

This guide and Figure 2 are not certification checklists, include all the information provided in this AC. There app'licant to use them or for the FAA to accept them, in

and they do not is no necessity for,an whole or in part, to

Par

12

17

AC X.1309-1A

6121188

show compliance with any regulation. Their sole purposes are to assist applicants by illustrating a systematic approach to design safety assessments, to enhance understandiny and communication by summariziny some of the information provided in this AC, and to provide some suggestions on documentation.

a. Define the system and its interfaces, the system is to perform. Determine whether similar to systems used on other airplanes,

and identify the functions or not the system is complex, and conventional.

that

Identify and classify the significant (i.e., non-trivial) b. conditions. All relevant applicant engineeriny organizations, structures, propulsion, and flight test, should be involved in This identification and classification may be done by conductiny is usually based on one of the following methods, as appropriate:

failure such as systems, this process. an FHA, which

(1) If the system is not complex, and if its relevant attributes are similar to those of systems used on other airplanes, this identification and classification may be derived from design and installation appraisals and the service experience of the comparable, previously-approved systems. (2) If the system is complex, postulate the effects on the safety of from any possible failures, considered with other failures or events. it is necessary to systematically the airplane and its occupantsresultiny both individually and in combination

Choose the means to be used to determine compliance with The depth and scope of the analysis depends on the 5 25.:309(b), (c), and (d). types of functions performed by the system, the severities of system failure conditions, and whether or not the system is complex. For major failure conditions, experienced engineering and operational judgment, desiyn and installation appraisals, and comparative service experience data on similar systems may be acceptable, either on their own or in conjunction with qualitative analyses or selectively-used quantitative analyses. For catastrophic failure conditions, a very thorough safety assessment is necessary. The applicant should obtain early concurrence of the cognizant certificatiny office on the failure 'conditions, their classifications, and the choice of an acceptable means of compliance. d. Implement the design certificating office as being feasible, an analysis should other documents needed should the followiny information to and produce the data which are dgreed with the acceptable to show compliance. To the extent be self-contained; however, if it is not, all be referenced. A typical analysis should include the extent necessary to show compliance: the functions, boundaries, and interfaces of the

(1)
system.

A statement

of

18

Par

12

:5/21/88

AC 25.1309-1A

(2) A list of the component parts and their design standards. is comprised, Technical Standard Orders documents; e.g.-, .specifications, etc.

and equipment of which the system This list may reference other (TSOs), manufacturer's or military

(3) The conclusions, including a statement and their classifications and probabilities (expressed quantitatively, as appropriate), that show compliance 0 25.1309(b), (c), and (d). (4) A description that establishes traces the work leading to the conclusions. the basis for the classification of each It ground, flight, or simulator tests.) precautions taken against common-mode or data such as component failure rates and support any assumptions made, and identify groundcrew actions, including any CCRs.

of

the failure conditions qualitatively or with the requirements

of

correctness and completeness and This description should include failure condition (e.g., analysis or should also include a description of common-cause failures, provide any their sources and applicability, any required flightcrew or

(6

LEROY A. Manager,

KEITH Aircraft

Certification

Division

Par

12

19