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.
| Author: | Kagakora Akigore |
| Country: | Namibia |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Music |
| Published (Last): | 16 April 2018 |
| Pages: | 58 |
| PDF File Size: | 4.21 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 6.76 Mb |
| ISBN: | 918-6-59273-614-7 |
| Downloads: | 27814 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Gogal |
ARINC REPORT ()_图文_百度文库
The process details are documented below. List of the documents that control the local TTE equivalency process: Category 1 — Generic TTE, not specified by source documentation This category includes commercial off the shelf tools and other equipment that are not specified by part number e. Forthe working group is seeking to make the document more generic and easier to work with, relating to all types of test programs.
The TTE may be: Another problem with previous versions aginc ARINC was that manufacturers would send incomplete information to the operator or third-party TPS provider. 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.
Committee Evaluation and Acceptance or Rejection The annual work program for each Committee is normally established at its annual meeting. The process of determining whether or not the arijc of each phase of the TTE equivalency process fulfills the requirements established by the previous phase. ARINC was incorporated in by four fledgling airlines in the United States as a privately-owned company dedicated to serving the communications needs of the air transport industry.
The alternate tool was properly marked and entered into the configuration management system as an alternate for AGE Rev Basic.
Deferred to a subcommittee for refinement — the subcommittee will be ariinc to, for example, gain stronger airline support or resolve architectural issues?
For instance, includes references to a number of procedures and guidelines to determine equivalency between an independent test provider and OEM test specifications defined in the Arnic. Calibration Equipment The equipment required to perform this calibration must be selected to ensure a 4: Today, the major U. The Testing and Troubleshooting section, Chapter 3.
Attachment 4 provides a checklist 6668 assist in performing TTE arrinc determinations. Identify and resolve any incomplete or over-specified requirements. Charter Flights And Wi-Fi: All necessary precautions relating to the safety, cleanliness and operation of the equipment are to be followed at all times. The output of this process step is the set of Derived Task and Tool Requirements. Additional work tasks may be evaluated at other meetings held during the year.
The test sequence is equivalent to this procedure and the individual test steps of the automatic tests are referenced in the manual procedure.
Product Focus: Expanding Scope of ARINC 625 Test Equipment
The component manufacturers should assure that task requirements are not overstated. 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 qrinc other applications. Rejected — the proposal is not seen as being appropriate, e.
Category 3 — Special information available TTE, sufficient technical 2. The test setup used in this example is based on CMM data and represents in total a Category 3 application. Nil Permanent No Classification: How the process is maintained and updated? All projects are typically approved on a calendar year basis.
ARINC | Guidance For Tool and Test Equipment (TTE) Equivalency | Document Center, Inc.
In order to provide access to the cockpit printer from several different avionics sources, a single protocol is needed. Seller Furnished Equipment Seller Purchased Equipment Tool and Test Equipment The process of evaluating the equivalency of the TTE to ensure compliance with the functional, performance and interface requirements of the task.
Proposals may be edited to present a style consistent with the committee evaluation process. Category 4 — TTE, sufficient technical information not available This 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. Reason for Correction State why the correction is necessary. If it does not, revise as required and repeat the process.
Do the process documents define: To ensure sufficient calibration history is obtained and to increase confidence in the performance of new tooling before the maximum period is arunc, an initial calibration period of 1 year which may be extended to the maximum of 4 years in accordance with AOP The following documents are revision sensitive documents that may affect the continued equivalency of the TTE if they are revised.
The major difference between the two tools is in the method by which the bearing centreline arnic is obtained. The Transient Nature of Digital Design.
This is an enhancement to the OEM information and does not affect the process or information contained in the Component Maintenance Manual. This section provides justification for the allocation of both IA and airline resources. Documents to be produced and date of expected result The name and number if already assigned of the proposed ARINC standard to be either newly produced or modified.
Specifications for Starrett extra long range dial indicator Model J. WithBatson says, the group decided “not to specify what language to use from one system to the next. If the AMC group defines methods that make it easy for the TPS provider to understand the OEM-supplied document, he continues, “then that reduces the cost of the equivalency verification, because it becomes more obvious how the implementations are equivalent.