Certifying QNX under DO-178B
Karl Osen
system under the RTCA DO-178B standard (requirements for software in
aeronautical systems)?
Karl Osen
Admirantys BV
Richard Copeman
Richard
Enea OSE Systems Ld.
Karl Osen <ka...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:82diqf$leu$1...@news.swissonline.ch...
Karl Osen
choice for our application. But you just cannot imagine how hard it is for a
Norwegian to admit that the best RTOS in the world has been developed by
Swedes :-)
Karl Osen
Admirantys BV
Richard Copeman wrote in message
<944570475.23566.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Inge Vabekk
>Thanks, I have already discovered that Enea's OSE probably is the perfect
>choice for our application. But you just cannot imagine how hard it is for
a
>Norwegian to admit that the best RTOS in the world has been developed by
>Swedes :-)
There's a bizarre conclusion here, that basically says: Because no one has
performed (or even bothered to perform) a certain test, or it has been done
but the result is not known, the assumption is that it wouldn't pass the
test.
>>> Have anybody tried to certify (or been successful in certifying) a
>>QNX-based
>>> system under the RTCA DO-178B standard (requirements for software in
>>> aeronautical systems)?
In my ignorance I have never heard about the above mentioned test, but I
know that QNX is being used in a lot of critical systems around the world
(fatalities will occur if they fail to perform according to requirements),
and my experience with QNX makes me biased enough to assume that most of the
things OSE can do for you, QNX can do better.
Of course, any given result would depend on the knowledge and experience of
the programmer.
Oh, BTW, even though QNX hasn't been developed by Norwegians, I still
believe that it's the best RTOS today, most things considered. Neutrino has
some good things coming, but QNX4 already has most of what anyone would
need, including self-hosted development.
--
~~~ Algorhythmics ~~~
ing...@c2i.nxt (replace 'x' by 'e' to reply by mail)
Karl Osen
based) applications for my company, and I don't regret that decision one
second! However, to get FAA and JAA approval for use of a software system in
an aircraft you are confronted with rules and regulations where actual
performance and reliability is not enough. Unless your system passes the
DO-178B tests your system is simply NOT authorized for use in an aircraft!
To obtain DO-178B certification (by my current level of understanding) of
your system, all the software components and tools used, as well as your own
code, has to be tested and certified. Unless the OS manufacturer has
certified the OS according to DO-178B (or given a customer access to all
relevant information including the OS source code), then that OS apparenty
cannot be used. Furthermore, certifying an OS costs several 100k dollars
(with no guarantee of success...). Therefore, unless QNX has been certified
(or is certifyable) we regretfully have no choice but to look elsewhere for
an airborne OS.
Karl Osen
Admirantys BV
Inge Vabekk wrote in message ...
Inge Vabekk
>I personally chose QNX as the operating system for all non-airborne (and PC
>based) applications for my company, and I don't regret that decision one
>second! However, to get FAA and JAA approval for use of a software system
in
>an aircraft you are confronted with rules and regulations where actual
>performance and reliability is not enough. Unless your system passes the
>DO-178B tests your system is simply NOT authorized for use in an aircraft!
>(or is certifyable) we regretfully have no choice but to look elsewhere for
>an airborne OS.
I understand. However, it still doesn't say that QNX is an inferior OS. All
it does is to place a question whether it has passed the above test.
All this being said, AFAIK QNX *is* being used in aircrafts, rockets,
missiles, nuclear power plants etc.
Karl Osen
Inge Vabekk wrote in message ...
>
>missiles, nuclear power plants etc.
>
>--
Now, this is getting interesting! What is AFAIK QNX? (as opposed to QNX4?)
Karl Osen
Admirantys BV
Pat Ford
{
{ Inge Vabekk wrote in message ...
As Far As I Know
{
{ Karl Osen
{ Admirantys BV
{
{
{
--
Pat Ford email: pf...@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
Inge Vabekk
>
>Inge Vabekk wrote in message ...
>>
>>All this being said, AFAIK QNX *is* being used in aircrafts, rockets,
>>missiles, nuclear power plants etc.
>
OK, so you're a newbie on usenet. You've already got the explanation for
AFAIK.
By QNX, I mean all QNX systems, QNX2/3, QNX4, and QNX/Neutrino.
Richard Copeman
Thanks Karl, that cheered me up
Richard.
Karl Osen <ka...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:82k1s2$ba2$1...@news.swissonline.ch...
> Thanks, I have already discovered that Enea's OSE probably is the perfect
> choice for our application. But you just cannot imagine how hard it is for
a
> Norwegian to admit that the best RTOS in the world has been developed by
> Swedes :-)
>
> Karl Osen
> Admirantys BV
>
> Richard Copeman wrote in message
> <944570475.23566.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >For a DO-178B certified RTOS take a look at www.enea.com.
> >
> >Richard
> >Enea OSE Systems Ld.
> >
> >Karl Osen <ka...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> >news:82diqf$leu$1...@news.swissonline.ch...
> >> Have anybody tried to certify (or been successful in certifying) a
> >QNX-based
> >> system under the RTCA DO-178B standard (requirements for software in
> >> aeronautical systems)?
> >>
> >> Karl Osen
> >> Admirantys BV
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Jim Stewart
LynxOS from Lynx Real-Time Systems has been certified to DO-178B Level C by
Aerospatiale for the Airbus Air Traffic Service Unit on the A320 and A340.
LynxOS has been chosen by Boeing for the mission computer upgrade for the U.S.
AWACS fleet.
For requirements like RTCA/DO-178B and IEC 61508-3, Lynx offers a Sofware
Certification Support Package to assist in gaining certification for the
software portion of mission-critical systems. Details can be obtained from
Christer Bengtsson (chri...@lynx.com), the Lynx Nordic representative.
Karl Osen wrote:
> I personally chose QNX as the operating system for all non-airborne (and PC
> based) applications for my company, and I don't regret that decision one
> second! However, to get FAA and JAA approval for use of a software system in
> an aircraft you are confronted with rules and regulations where actual
> performance and reliability is not enough. Unless your system passes the
> DO-178B tests your system is simply NOT authorized for use in an aircraft!
>
> To obtain DO-178B certification (by my current level of understanding) of
> your system, all the software components and tools used, as well as your own
> code, has to be tested and certified. Unless the OS manufacturer has
> certified the OS according to DO-178B (or given a customer access to all
> relevant information including the OS source code), then that OS apparenty
> cannot be used. Furthermore, certifying an OS costs several 100k dollars
> (with no guarantee of success...). Therefore, unless QNX has been certified
> (or is certifyable) we regretfully have no choice but to look elsewhere for
> an airborne OS.
>
> Karl Osen
> Admirantys BV
>
> Inge Vabekk wrote in message ...
> >
JimD.
<snip>
> missiles, nuclear power plants etc.
>
> ~~~ Algorhythmics ~~~
> ing...@c2i.nxt (replace 'x' by 'e' to reply by mail)
Please give references to ANY FAA certified uniprocessor applications.
QNX could not be certified for anything but DO-178B D or less without
extensive testing by the manufacture as source code is not available.
Jim Davis.
JimD.
>
> Karl:
>
> LynxOS from Lynx Real-Time Systems has been certified to DO-178B Level C by
> Aerospatiale for the Airbus Air Traffic Service Unit on the A320 and A340.
> LynxOS has been chosen by Boeing for the mission computer upgrade for the U.S.
> AWACS fleet.
>
Level C is one step up from the software that controls the
entertainment system. It does not involve any flight control or power
systems.
I don't have the document here ( at home ) but will post the
requirements
for 178B after the weekend.
From what I remember,
Level A - Failure results in loss of aircraft
Level B - Failure results in possible loss of aircraft
Level C - Failure results in increased workload of flight crew
Level D - Failure results in minor increase in workload
> > >