Bookmark and Share
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2007

Become a Fan

« Software Estimation | Main | Misbehaving Software »

October 24, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341e1f8c53ef00e54efdae268833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Control Categories CC1 and CC2 in DO-178B :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Harold

I think that in the focus on understanding the CC1/CC2 mechanisms of DO-178, a fundamental principle of Aircraft System Design and Analysis Assurance is missed, namely the greater the hazard, the greater the need for prevention, detection, and removal of error. (see AC 25.1309B-Arsenal draft)

The correlation suggested between CC1/CC2 of DO-178 and the document/record controls of ISO9001/AS9100 is a poor one; the latter is not explicitly safety-oriented, rather poorly organized, non-sensitive to degrees of risk, and its requirements really don’t line up well against CC1/CC2 objectives.

I view control of critical data as a set of concentric rings, with the greatest control at the center and the least control at the fringes -- central controls are built upon the outer controls. As my first DER said, “You don’t review reviews and you don’t test tests.” (Well, you do, if it is really critical, but to a lesser extent.)

The simplest distinction I see between CC1 and CC2 is in the relative risk-driven need for independent verification. Most of the differences between CC1 and CC2 are to meet the needs of repeatable independent verification. If the function is catastrophic or hazardous, you need to remember what was independently verified, remember what problems verification found, and remember whether all of those problems were ever fixed. If the item is less than hazardous, it does not need (from a safety perspective) independent verification (no baselining or problem reporting). If the item does not need independent verification, then changes do not need independent verification (no change baselining or change review). Records are associated with CC2 only because error in records is presumed to be less hazardous than errors in requirements, design or code. At lower DAL, errors in requirements, design or code become less hazardous and so are subject to less control.

bedroom furniture

great man :D

RMH

It is hard to see why you are having trouble understanding the differences between the two categories. It is almost as though you have read the Annex A tables but not the text. In very simple terms, the required attributes of all data items controlled to CC1 are as follows:

Configuration Identification: In accordance with Section 7.2.1
Baselines: In accordance with Section 7.2.2a, b, c, d, e
Traceability: In accordance with Section 7.2.2f, g
Problem Reporting: In accordance with Section 7.2.3
Change Control - integrity and identification: In accordance with Section 7.2.4a, b
Change Control - tracking: In accordance with Section 7.2.4c, d, e
Change Review : In accordance with Section 7.2.5
Configuration Status Accounting: In accordance with Section 7.2.6
Retrieval: In accordance with Section 7.2.7a
Protection against Unauthorized Changes: In accordance with Section 7.2.5b(1)
Media Selection, Refreshing, Duplication: In accordance with Section 7.2.7b(2), (3), (4), c
Release: In accordance with Section 7.2.7d
Data Retention: In accordance with Section 7.2.7e

The required attributes of all data items controlled to CC2 are as follows:

Configuration Identification: In accordance with Section 7.2.1
Traceability: In accordance with Section 7.2.2f, g
Change Control - integrity and identification: In accordance with Section 7.2.4a, b
Retrieval: In accordance with Section 7.2.7a
Protection against Unauthorized Changes: In accordance with Section 7.2.5b(1)
Data Retention: In accordance with Section 7.2.7e

I hope this helps clarify matters for you.

records management

I am quite confused in between CC1 and CC2. What I am able to understand is that CC1 is just like analogous to controlled documents and CC2 is analogous to quality records. That's all.

RMH

This error was corrected in the Errata (number 12) to DO-178B/ED-12B published in DO-248/ED-94 ten years or so ago.

The error, obviously, does not appear in DO-178C/ED-12C.

Amitabh

Actually @CAMARA the error is not in the Control Categorisation. CC2 is correct. However, the SVCP is a typo. It should be SVR (Software Verification Result).

CAMARA

I think that the typo error in the table A-7 is that the SVCP must be in CC1 instead of CC2 for level A.

Amitabh Mukherjee

Thank you Agave for your response. I am in complete agreement with you. And you analogy is apt.
The inhouse tool is built around configuration management. It is an integrated suite of tools that helps us at AK Aerotek execute projects without using paper. It seamlessly merges all aspect of HR, Project Management and technical activities that are required to execute project.

Agave

The separation into CC1 and CC2 eases the burden of CM workload. If everything was CC1 it would be extremely time consuming to maintain all of the required documentation. CC1 is analagous to controlled documents in ISO 9001, and CC2 is analagous to quality records (evidence of work done) in ISO 9001. The analogy is not exact but useful to help to understand the split.

I'm interested in hearing about your in house tool? What is it and what can it do. We've created our own in-house tool as well.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

My Photo

Life sometimes turns on a dime. Especially when you are actively looking out for a change. I now work at HCL Technologies. And all I am looking for is to make a difference. By the way, the blog contents remain my own. It does not reflect the official position of HCL.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz