DO-178C is often criticized as being ‘’too expensive’’, but to what extent is this accurate?
Recent research suggests increased costs are likely to only affect individuals who previously ‘’cut corners’’.
Can Aviation software have it all? An analytical insight
A plethora of users around the world have complained about the added costs that are associated with DO-178B.
According to Afuzion, DO-178C, on the other hand, tends to ‘’streamline’’ a few of these costs- offsetting others with increased efficacy.
Of course, DO-178C is by no means cheap (especially not on the first project); but there is indubitably a large difference between being not cheap, and being ‘’too expensive’’.
What the Afuzion study says:
A recent study produced by AFuzion- a prominent boutique company that specialises in ‘’infusing’’ the knowledge of a plethora of leading avionics colossals, has shown that- in fact, in comparison to DO-178B, DO-178C tends to reduce costs if incorporated ‘’correctly and rigorously’’.
There is also the question of to what extent reliability is affected when complying with DO-178C, and in what specific areas is the DO-178C actually more expensive than DO-178B?
Below we will take a look at the recent Vance Hilderman Whitepaper released by AFuzion- which provides critical industry analysis, in our attempt to extrapolate the most accurate answers to these questions.
DO-178: A Quick Analysis
According to Vance Hilderman, DO-178 has significantly increased the expected industry standards in practically all forms of commercial avionics (with the only exception being experimental aircraft).
In the last decade or so, both DO-178B and DO-178C have propelled in popularity- becoming mandatory for most areas of Military avionics.
The newly released DO-178C has introduced a variety of both minor and very large changes; these will likely mean that the individual’s that were relying on cutting costs by ‘’cutting corners’’ with the DO-178B will likely see a significant increase in their total costs.
Having said that, it should be noted that DO-178 possess characteristics and attributes that are widely apparent in all of the essential safety domains- including planning, determinism, consistency, and proof of the preceding attributes.
Put simply, DO-178 by nature relies on a prolific degree of ‘’verification’’- such as tests, analysis, and reviews, in order to accurately assess and examine the quality of avionics. Obviously, avionics quality is derived from a plethora of additional processes as well (such as quality process, implementation and design), and not just from testing.
Avionics Hardware and Software
The DO-254 (hardware) and the aforementioned DO-178 (software) standards inherently presume that both hardware and software must operate in complete harmonic unison, each with proven liability.
‘’In truth, both avionics software and hardware encompass a significant part of an overall ‘ecosystem’ of avionics- which includes Safety, Systems, and Ancillary guidelines’’- Vance Hilderman, CEO and Founder of AFuzion.
In the past, avionics hardware was widely considered to be ‘’visible’’in nature, this meant that it was directly exempt from the objectives targeted by DO-178B.
That exemption, however, effectively led to functionality shifting from software to hardware so as to ‘escape’ or avoid the procedural rigmarole that software verifications entailed.
Furthermore, the undeniable developments that have been made in the field of hardware has meant that their increased complexity has evolved to the point where hardware is often just as- if not more, complex than its software counterparts. This is due to the embedded logic within ASICs, FPGAs and PLDs.
Nowadays, most persons recognise that a combination of both hardware and software is required so as to constitute an inextricable, high quality chain.
Both DO-178 and DO-254 encompass five distinct levels of criticality. These range from Level A (the most critical), to Level E (the least critical). The higher the level of criticality, the higher the degree of rigor that tends to be associated with its: design, reviews, implementation, documentation, and verification, and consequently the higher the costs as well.
Each avionics system is assigned to at least one level of criticality, and each component within that aforementioned system must either ‘’meet or exceed’’ its specified criticality level.
Final Take: Is the DO-178C Too Expensive?
As briefly touched on above, critics of DO-178C have created this popular myth that it is ‘’too expensive’’, relative to its predecessor (DO-178B).
A look at the specifics would unlikely serve as evidence for this however; for example, the costs of Level D (which has full planning, implementation, reviews, and a fully functional testing process of all high-level requirements), is only 15% higher than the average quality consumer and financial software that has been developed via the typical CMMI level 2 and 3 processes.
This is because Level D is constituted almost entirely from normal industry-standard software engineering principles. Additionally, DO-178C’s Gap Analysis activity means that companies that previously relied on DO-178B will not have to repeat all of their efforts in relation to their previous: planning, designs, tests, reviews, and requirements.
Suggested Video for you by Afuzion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMzLRzcahJE