XS-1_Proposers'_Day_Airworthiness_Notes_Thieman.pdf

Good morning/afternoon. I am Bruce Thieman, the Affordable Launch and Space Access lead for the Air Force Research Laboratory. Some of you have already worked through airworthiness certifications for flight test before. It has picked up more emphasis since the proliferation of unmanned and remotely piloted aerial vehicles. It is inherently a system engineering function but a certification process is now required.

DARPA slide portraying the notion that there should be one data package that satisfies both FAA and DoD requirements.

DoDD 5030.61 defines “airworthiness” as the property of an air system configuration to safely attain, sustain, and complete flight in accordance with approved usage limits.

The “airworthiness” process applies to all components of DoD and is further detailed for autonomous vehicles in FAA Title 14 CFR and Joint Service Specification Guides such as MIL-HDBK-516B.

Or saying it another way,

• “airworthiness” is focused on preventing aircraft, sub-orbital rockets and space launch failures from impacting people and property.

• An airworthiness assessment is “A technical evaluation of data against specific airworthiness criteria and determination of residual risk.” This so called “basis” is the criteria to approve a flight test program. I will talk about customizing this basis to meet your flight test needs later.

• The airworthiness certification is “an assurance by an airworthiness authority that all tenets of the airworthiness process are met to their standards and that the configuration of the aircraft or air system is safe for flight without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers, or to other third parties.”

• The XS-1 program is unique in that it is a rocket powered unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV that may be airdropped for flight testing from an aircraft. Therefore JSSG guidelines on UAVs and FAA Part 23, 25, 27, and 29 may apply for part of the program, and FAA Part 400 apply to actual rocket powered space launch.

Regardless, the FAA and Air Force guidelines essentially collect the same data that you would use in a good system engineering process. Michelle will discuss the FAA Licensing and Permit process’s later.

• So … Who is this “airworthiness authority?”

The Airworthiness Determination Authority must be independent, meaning it is made by a technical authority outside of the execution chain of the Program Manager responsible for the air system design.

Since DARPA isn’t a Military Department, it can establish either its own airworthiness authority or use that of a department, such as the Air Force Research Laboratory or AFLMC. DARPA will determine how they want to do that working with the contractors in Phase I to ensure a streamlined process and inclusion of the contractors’ recommendations.

To get acceptance from an airworthiness authority, we expect you will need to start developing a draft certification basis in Phase I, also called Conceptual Design, and get the “basis” accepted in Phase II.

We expect to hold reviews throughout the program which will likely involve independent working group SMEs that will report to the airworthiness authority.

These reviews will likely start with the final Phase I review and be part of regular program reviews (PDR, CDR, etc.)

The Associate Administrator of FAA/AST, George Nield is interested in this streamlined product that documents a vehicle that can be flown out of any commercial launch center including many of the new state space ports. Thus the need to be inclusive of DoD and FAA FAR 14 certification.

The process for good system engineering with ground test, airdrop, and flight test in Phase II should cover “airworthiness.”

It complements the process used in flight test for programs like SEEK EAGLE on the F15: That system engineering process used

• Technical Review Board to approve the Master Test Plan

• Risk Management Boards to track risk mitigation leading to ground structural and flight tests

• Airborne Technical Review Board/Safety Board to certify that testing is ready to begin.

• Flight Test Readiness Reviews before each ground or flight test campaign

• And finally a tight Configuration Control Board process to tie risk reduction, design, and as-built configruations together, especially to resolve anomalies in the test programs.

Each of you will use your own system engineering process which may not match the terms above. These may be internal contractor activities, but they should generate the data to feed the “airworthiness certification process.” The emphasis is for the contractor to create a streamlined process customized to their flight demonstration.

Again. The contractors will develop a certification basis for DARPA derived from good system engineering processes and criteria from sources such as MIL-HDBK-516B and FAA’s Special Airworthiness Certificate for unmanned experimental flight vehicles.

Note that you may have to develop additional criteria, as appropriate, for any capabilities of systems not fully addressed by the criteria contained in the references.

For example:

• There is no criteria about rocket engines. There are in the FAA Section 400 guidelines

• Likely will need to add criteria relating to thermal protection systems

• Others depending on vehicle design to achieve reusable hypersonic flight, space launch or reusable rockets.

The DARPA Director, Dr Prabhaker, is pushing these capabilites to transition to the commercial sector.