Talk:DO-178B

"with independence" ?

Can those in the know please define or make into a reference the term "with independence", which is unclear which is clearly being used in some technical way. --Nil0lab 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note in the article defining 'with indepedence', paraphrased from the standard. CoderGnome 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it based on discussion with members of SC-167. Testing (verification) does not need to be performed by some who is not one of the developers. For example, a QA audititor can provide the independance by witnessing the particular process. Whether or not the auditor must have a line of reporting that bypasses the line of reporting that applies to the developers, is determined by the FAA and is outside the scope of DO-178B. 71.211.239.184 (talk) kernel-package (access to my email and login information is not currently available). —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

RTCA standard infobox

I've noticed that every article of category:RTCA standards has an infobox with some fields. I propose to make the following Template:RTCA standard:

{{{id}}}
{{{title}}}
Latest Revision	{{{date}}}
Prepared by	{{{author}}}

I don't know much about these standards, so maybe there are better names for each fields. Hope this helps --surueña 15:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you managed to implement this good. Nordby73 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finally made the {{RTCA standard}}, but with some minor changes in the wikicode due to web accessibility reasons. --surueña 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{{id}}}
{{{title}}}
Latest revision	{{{date}}}
Prepared by	{{{author}}}

I like the template. I had originally intended to do one myself, but as a WikiNovice, the process for submitting a template and getting it approved looked intimidating, so I just put in the direct formatting.

The color scheme is taken from the cover of the hard copy standards. They are published in two tones of green, and I used the same color scheme in the infobox, so it looks like the cover of the standard.

I am curious about the web accessibility issue. It looks like you omitted the background color for the document number. What web accessibility issue does that address, and in what way? Aarky 05:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aarky. I made some changes to the infobox code because data tables should employ the structural elements (i.e. table caption and table headers) to allow voice browser "understand" each element.

However, I must say that those changes were wrong from the web accessibility POV because infoboxes are layout tables and not data tables. And thererefore accessible infoboxes should not use any of those structural elements, otherwise the user agent will recognize they as data tables. See the differences at Wikipedia:Accessibility#Tables.

I have now fixed the template (i.e. I have reverted to your code :-), and added your comment about where the color scheme was taken. Also, would you like to know how a color blind Wikipedia user will see the template? Go to http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php and try http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/DO-178B and also http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Main_Page . They are both OK. Best regards --surueña 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectives

Could anyone precise the objectives per DAL, please? ramtam 22:42, 03 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify what you mean by DAL? Nordby73 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAL = Design Assurance Level. 22:14, ramtam 20 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I guess DAL is the same as software level. Nordby73 21:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

I am not sure that Simulink from the Mathworks really belongs to the category software development tools for DO-178B software. As far as I know, they do not provide anything you can claim credit for in front of certification authorities. Am I wrong somewhere or should this entry be moved to another section or simply removed ? Aubanel 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for removal. Nordby73 21:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a random web surfer, I would suggest that the entire section on tools be removed.. Although not totally irrelevant, this is almost becoming a list of advertisements, and doesn't inform readers about what DO 178B is.

I also vote for removal of the entire section. I agree with the previous poster that this is looking like a list of advertisements, many of which have tenuous connection DO-178B.Aarky 11:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the list with a dmoz template. I guess dmoz needs an update now. Petter73 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SQA is for sure part of DO-178B, but not each and every SQA tool is usable in a DO-proces. As a reader, I'd be more interested in a list of COTS tools that have been qualified (provide a list of sample programs) as development tools or verification tools w.r.t. DO-178B for level A (opt B). Aubanel 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I don't think the criticism referencing the Boeing 787 belongs in this article. The cited Design News article contains the opinion a single individual has on DO-178B. This criticism is very biased and has developed out of the stress the Boeing 787 project has caused.Justus87 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and Verifiability of Claims

I have doubts about the veracity and neutrality of the changes made by by a user that goes by the username "RTCA SC-167" (184.183.13.170) on September 16, 2011. In particular, I'm referring to the following lines:

“

No life has been lost on a commercial airliner because of a bug in the implementation of avionics code. How is this achieved? By the use of rigorous techniques embodied in the DO-178B standard.^[1]

”

The reference given at the end of these sentences points to an opinion piece/article from AdaCore, published in the Military Embedded Systems magazine on September, 2011 (this very same month when these changes were made). Independently of the quality the op.ed might possess, it neither quantifies nor qualifies any of the claims and statements made by "RTCA SC-167", and his/her username suggests a relationship with (or following of) RTCA, Limited.

I think increased neutrality and better references and quantifications are in order.

References

^ "Should we put up with software that doesn't work?" Dewar, R. (2011) Military Embedded Systems.

DAL

DAL is not introduced in Do 178 but in Do 254. DAL is not even mentioned in Do 178. I'm not sure enough about the whole process to correct it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.207.46 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Should we put up with software that doesn't work?" Dewar, R. (2011) Military Embedded Systems.

[1]