SOW_2_Warning_Horn_MACC.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 120 KB Posted Jun 20, 2013

Attached to: Aircraft Components and Accessories
Solicitation number: FA8105-13-R-0006
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center Tinker Air Force Base

About this file

From the source

MACC

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
FA810513R0006_______0008.RTF	RTF text file	Jul 12, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0007.RTF	RTF text file	Jul 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0006.RTF	RTF text file	Jul 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0004_QuestionsFromTheWarningHornRFPProcess.docx	DOCX document	Jul 3, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0004.RTF	RTF text file	Jul 3, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0005_Warning_Horn_SOWFinal3July2013.docx	DOCX document	Jul 3, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0005.RTF	RTF text file	Jul 3, 2013
SOW_1_KC135_Crash_Loading_Requirements_Memo.pdf	PDF	Jun 20, 2013
Warning_Horn_SOW_Final_20June2013.docx	DOCX document	Jun 20, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0003.RTF	RTF text file	Jun 20, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0002.RTF	RTF text file	Jun 12, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_CDRL_A001_Final.pdf	PDF	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001.RTF	RTF text file	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_SOW_2_Warning_Horn_MACC.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_CDRL_A002.pdf	PDF	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_DI-SESS-81000DT-Final.pdf	PDF	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_SOW_1_KC135_Crash_Loading_Requirements_Memo.pdf	PDF	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_DI-SESS-81766.pdf	PDF	Jun 11, 2013
FA810513R0006_______0001_Warning_Horn_SOW_Final.docx	DOCX document	Jun 11, 2013
Warning_Horn_SOW_Final.docx	DOCX document	Jun 10, 2013
FA810513R0006.RTF	RTF text file	Jun 7, 2013
FA810513R0006_Section_L_Warning_Horn_Instructions_to_Offerors.docx	DOCX document	Jun 7, 2013
FA810513R0006_Section_M_Warning_Horn_Evaluation_Factors.docx	DOCX document	Jun 7, 2013

Show all 23

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Cover Page

C/KC-135

MODIFIED AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION CRITERIA (MACC)

Replacement of KC-135R/T Warning Horn

The existing Warning Horn is no longer procurable. DLA requested a one time, lifetime purchase for the C-5, C-130 and KC-135 Program Offices as all aircraft use the same horn. An investigation revealed that the current warning horn does not meet the KC-135 explosive atmosphere requirements. The KC-135 was removed from the one-time purchase and research was initiated to identify a new Warning Horn meeting KC-135 requirements. Replacement of the existing Warning Horn with a new Warning Horn eliminates the Parts Obsolescence issues with the existing Warning Horn and adds a safety element of explosive atmosphere compliance.

System Information Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria (TACC) for the C/KC-135

This TACC document identifies the system characterisitics, features and functions that must be satisfied in order for the
C/KC-135 weapon system to meet airworthiness certification requirements.
Date:	7-Jul-2011
Revision:	Version 3.0
Managing Office:		827 ASCG
		3001 Staff Drive, Ste 2AH190B
		Tinker AFB, OK 73145-3019
System Description: This TACC document is applicable to the following C/KC-135 MDS descriptions.
Airframe	KC-135R	KC-135T
Engines	Four (4) F108-CF-100	Four (4) F108-CF-100
Crew	Three (3) or four (4)	Three (3) or four (4)
Passengers	Yes	Yes
Tail Numbers	Numerous (361 tankers + 2 special purpose)	Numerous (54 tankers)
Flight Manuals	1C-135(K)-11 1C-135(K)R(I)-11 1C-135(K)(I)-12 1C-135(K)R(II)-12 1C-135(K)R-1-1	1C-135(K)-11 1C-135(K)R(I)-11 1C-135(K)(I)-12 1C-135(K)R(II)-12 1C-135(K)R-1-1

Airframe	OC-135B
Engines	Four (4) TF33-P-5 (TR-equipped)
Crew	Three (3) or four (4)
Passengers	No
Tail Numbers	61-2670 61-2672
Flight Manuals	1C-135(O)B-1 1C-135(O)B(I)-1 1C-135(O)B-43-1-1 1C-135B-1-1

Certification Basis:

The certification basis defined by this document was derived from MIL-HDBK-516B, Airworthiness Certification Criteria,dated 26 Sep 2005, Change 1 dated 28 Feb 2008. The Baseline TACC, dated 7 Feb 2003, Version 2, was derived from MIL-HDBK-516A, Airworthiness Certification Criteria. This TACC is the new baseline based on updated airworthiness criteria and will be used for MACC submittals generated after the approval date. This TACC represents no changes from the baseline TACC and is updated based on the issuance of the MIL-HDBK-516B, Airworthiness Certification Criteria,dated 26 Sep 2005, Change 1 dated 28 Feb 2008.

Limitations:

Approved operational envelope and procedures are contained in designated flight manuals in MDS descriptions. Flight manuals followed with subscript 1 are applicable to aircraft with Block 30 avionics (Pacer CRAG) and flight manuals followed with subscript 2 are applicable to aircraft with Block 40 upgrade (GATM). Airframe designations followed by * indicate Big Safari Program aircraft; 827 ACSG/CC will ensure airworthiness of equipment common to the C/KC-135 and airframe, 645 AESG/CC will be responsible for airworthiness of installed misssion equipment.

Supplemental Data:

Maintenance procedures specific to the C/KC-135 are contained in the C/KC-135 Technical Order Library.

Applicability Warning Horn Replacement MACC Applicability

	Section	Category
Applicability	Rational for Non-Applicable Criteria
	4	Systems Engineering	Yes
	5	Structures	Yes
	6	Flight Technology	No	Warning horn does not affect flight mechanics functional areas.
	7	Propulsion and Propulsion Installations	No	Warning horn is not part of the propulsion system or propulsion installations.
	8	Air Vehicle Subsystems	No	Warning horn does not affect any of the air vehicle subsystems.
	9	Crew Systems	No	Warning horn replacement is function and interface as the existing horn. Installation will replace existing horn at the same location.
	10	Diagnostics Systems	No	Warning horn replacement does not affect any diagnostics systems.
	11	Avionics	No	Warning horn does not affect avionics.
	12	Electrical Systems	No	There is no difference in electrical interface between the new horn and the old horn .
	13	Electromagnetic Environment Effects (E3)	No	Warning horn does not induce E3.
	14	System Safety	Yes
	15	Computer Resources	No	Computer resources are unaffected by warning horn replacement .
	16	Maintenance	No	New warning horn is the same function and interface as the existing horn and will not change servicing requirements or checklists.
	17	Armament/Stores Integration	No	Warning horn doesn't affect the fuel or cargo capacity of the KC-135.
	18	Passenger Safety	No	Warning horn does not affect passenger safety. It will be replacing the existing horn in the same location.
	19	Materials	N/A	Not applicable for AF systems.
	20	Other Considerations	No	Warning horn does not affect considerations such as structural capability, flying and handling qualities, electronic compatibility.

4 Systems Eng

ParaNum	Certification Criteria	C/KC-135 Applicable (Y/N)	Warning Horn Replacement Applicable (Y/N)	Rationale for Non-Applicable Criteria	Standard	Method of Compliance	Reference
4.0	SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
4.1	Design criteria.
4.1.1	Verify that the design criteria, including requirements and rules, adequately address safety for mission usage, full permissible flight envelope, duty cycle, interfaces, induced and natural environment, inspection capability, and maintenance philosophy.	Y	Y		Allocated high level mission and safety requirements down through the design hierarchy are defined. Allocated design criteria for all system elements and components result in required levels of safety throughout the defined operational flight envelope, usage, and life.
4.1.2	Verify that the design criteria address all components, system and subsystem interfaces, and software.	Y	Y		Critical safety items (CSIs) inherent in the system design solution are defined. Design criteria and critical characteristics of these CSIs are defined, substantiated, and documented in sufficient detail to allow "form, fit, function, and interface" replacement without degrading system airworthiness.
4.1.3	Verify that, for commercial derivative air vehicles, the air vehicle's certification basis addresses all design criteria appropriate for the planned military usage.	N	N	C/KC-135 is not a commercial derivative aircraft.
4.1.4	Verify that failure conditions have been adequately addressed in the design criteria.	Y	Y		New warning horn will not increase probability of catastrophic events.
4.2	Tools and databases.
4.2.1	Verify that all tools, methods, and databases used in the requirements definition/allocation, design, risk control and assessments of safety have been adequately validated and/or certified.	Y	Y		Design and performance verification analysis tools, prediction methods, models, and/or simulations are applied appropriately and exhibit accuracy commensurate with their application.
4.3	Materials selection.
4.3.1	Verify that the material selection process uses validated and consistent material properties data, including design mechanical and physical properties such as material defects, and corrosion and environmental protection requirements.	Y	N		Material selection process selects materials covered by an industry specification or government specification (Military or Federal).
4.4	Manufacturing and quality.
4.4.1	Verify that key product characteristics have been identified.	Y	Y		Physical characteristics which are key to the successful function of critical safety items (CSIs) and components are defined and documented.
4.4.2	Verify that all critical process capabilities exist to meet key product characteristic requirements.	Y	Y		Capabilities exist to assure key product characteristics are met; drawings have been evaluated and validated.
4.4.3	Verify that all critical process controls exist to assure key product characteristic requirements are met.	Y	Y		Controls exist to assure key product characteristics are met; drawings have been evaluated and validated.
4.4.4	Verify that production allowances and tolerances are within acceptable limits and assure conformance to design.	Y	Y		A Quality System is in place to assure the as-built configuration matches the as-designed configuration. The system is oriented towards defect prevention and achieving stable, capable processes. The system employs effective methods for conducting root cause analyses and implementing corrective actions.
4.4.5	Verify that nondestructive inspection (NDI) accept/reject criteria have been validated.	Y	N	NDI not required for warning horn replacement.
4.5	Operator's and maintenance manuals/technical orders.
4.5.1	Verify that processes are in place to identify and document all restrictions, warnings, and cautions.	Y	N	New warning horn is same function and interface to the existing horn. There are no new restrictions, warnings, and cautions.
4.5.2	Verify that processes are in place to identify and document the technical data, and that the technical data reflects the defined functional and product baseline.	Y	Y		Process is defined, documented, and implemented to update product requirement, design, manufacturing, and/or maintenance data which is used to generate technical manuals (e.g., operators handbooks, maintenance manuals).
4.5.3	Verify that procedures are in place for establishing and maintaining flight vehicle integrity.	Y	N	Crew Warning Horn is inside the aircraft and will not effect flight performance.
4.6	Configuration identification.
4.6.1	Verify that the functional baseline is properly documented, established, and brought under configuration control.	Y	Y		Functional baseline is documented in AF form 1067. Requirements, explicit and derived, taken from the 1067 are documented in the Requirements Baseline Matrix (RBM).
4.6.2	Verify that the product baseline is properly documented, established, and brought under configuration control.	Y	Y		Product baseline is documented by engineering drawings and is approved by the configuration control board
4.7	Configuration status accounting.
4.7.1	Verify that the configuration status accounting (CSA) information system has the capability to track the configuration of safety-critical items.	Y	N	Configuration status accounting system is not impacted by this mod, and the warning horn is not a safety critical item.

&"Arial,Bold Italic"&14Section 4.0 Systems Engineering

&"Arial,Italic"&9MIL-HDBK-516A 20 January 2004 &"Arial,Bold Italic"&12MQ-1L (Predator) &"Arial,Italic"&8Page &P

5 Structures

ParaNum	Certification Criteria	C/KC-135 Applicable (Y/N)	Warning Horn Replacement Applicable (Y/N)	Rationale for Non-Applicable Criteria	Standard	Method of Compliance	Reference
5.0	STRUCTURES
5.1	Loads.	Y	N	Warning horn does not have any loads opposed onto it.
5.1.1	Verify that the flight load factors used in the airframe design are the maximum and minimum load factors authorized for flight use.	Y	Y		Standards Identified in DO-160E Table 7-1.
5.1.2	Verify that the airframe has sufficient structural integrity for the air vehicle to take off, land, arrest, and operate on the ground.	Y	N	Crew warning horn does not affect airframe components involved in Take-Off, Landing, Arrest or ground operations.
5.1.3	Verify that the limit loads used in the design of elements of the airframe subject to deterministic design criteria are the maximum and most critical combination of loads that can result from authorized ground and flight use of the air vehicle. These include loads during maintenance activity, system failures from which recovery is expected, and loads experienced throughout the specific lifetime usage.	Y	Y		Standards Identified in DO-160E Table 7-1
5.1.4	Verify that the airframe is designed such that all loads resulting from or following single or multiple system failures are limit loads. Also verify that loads resulting from a single component failure are designed as limit loads regardless of probability of occurrence.	Y	Y		Standards Identified in DO-160E Table 7-1
5.1.5	Verify that the airframe is designed such that ultimate loads are obtained by multiplication of limit loads by the appropriate factors of uncertainty. Also verify that the ultimate loads are used in the design of elements of the airframe subject to a deterministic design approach.	Y	Y		Standards Identified in DO-160E Table 7-1
5.1.6	Verify that the airframe is designed such that all sources of repeated loads are considered and included in the development of the service loads spectra and do not detract from the airframe service life.	Y	N	Crew Warning Horn does not have significant repeated loads.
5.1.7	Verify that the airframe is designed such that the power or thrust of the installed propulsion system is commensurate with the ground and flight conditions of intended use, including system failures, and the capabilities of the propulsion system and crew.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn does not affect the propulsion system; it is inside the aircraft.
5.1.8	Verify, in the generation of loads, that flight control and automatic control devices, including load alleviation and ride control devices, are in those operative, inoperative, and transient modes for which use is required or likely or are due to system failure conditions.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn does not affect flight control or automatic control devices.
5.1.9	Verify that flight loading conditions are based on realistic conditions of airframe response to pilot induced or autonomous maneuvers, loss of control maneuvers, and turbulence. Also verify that the realistic conditions considered are both required and expected to be encountered critical combinations of configurations, gross weights, centers of gravity, thrust or power, altitudes, speeds, and type of atmosphere and are used in the design of the airframe.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn does not affect flight loading conditions: total weight is XXXX
5.1.10	Verify that the airframe is designed for ground loading conditions which reflect ground and maintenance operations.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn does not affect ground or maintenance operations.
5.1.11	Verify that in the generation of loads the airframe is able to withstand crashes and to protect personnel to the extent reflected by the ultimate loading conditions and parameters.	Y	Y		Capabilities exist to assure key product characteristics are met; drawings have been evaluated and validated.
5.1.12	Verify that the airframe is designed to withstand foreign object damage (FOD) from birds, hail, runway, taxiway, and ramp debris.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn will not affect airframes ability to withstand FOD.
5.2	Structural dynamics.	Y	N	Warning Horn does not affect structural dynamics, it attaches to a non-load bearing structure.
5.3	Strength.
5.3.1	Verify that sufficient static strength is provided in the airframe structure to react all loading conditions loads without degrading the structural performance capability of the airframe. Verify sufficient strength for operations, maintenance functions, occurrences of systems failures, and any tests that simulate load conditions. This includes modifications, new or revised equipment installations, major repairs, extensive reworks, extensive refurbishment, or remanufacture.	Y	N	Warning horn does not alter load bearing structure.
5.3.2	Verify that the allowables for materials are minimums; are established considering statistical variability, the expected environments, fabrication processes, repair techniques, and quality assurance procedures; and are validated. Verify that conditions and properties associated with material repairs satisfy design requirements.	Y	Y		Materials and processes are selected in so that the airframe meets the operational and support requirements
5.3.3	Verify that stresses and strains in airframe structural members are controlled through proper sizing, detail design, and material selections. Verify that all limit and ultimate loads are reacted resulting in zero or positive margins of safety for all configurations within allowable operating conditions (including probable failure and defined emergency conditions).	Y	Y		G limits for the C/KC-135: 9G forward, 1.5G aft, 4G lateral, 4G up, and 8G down.
5.4	Damage tolerance and durability (fatigue).
5.4.1	Verify that all safety-of-flight (SOF) airframe structure has sufficient damage tolerance to preclude adverse safety impacts throughout its service life.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn does not affect safety-of-flight airframe structure.
5.4.2	Verify the airframe structure has sufficient durability to preclude adverse safety, economic, operational, maintenance, repair, or modification cost impacts throughout its intended service life.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn does not affect load bearing airframe structure.
5.4.3	Verify that a durability and damage tolerance control process is established and implemented in the engineering design and manufacturing process.	Y	N	Since The New Warning Horn is not flight critical, there are no ASIP inspection points.
5.4.4	Verify that corrosion prevention systems remain effective during the service life. Specific corrosion prevention and control measures, procedures, and processes are to be identified and established commensurate with the operational and maintenance capability required of the airframe.	Y	N	Warning horn doesn't introduce dissimilar materials or other modes of corrosion. Standard prevention methods are acceptable.
5.5	Mass properties.	Y	N	The New Warning Horn will be installed in the same location as the existing warning horn. Chart C will be updated to accommodate the approx. 7 lbs added.
5.6	Flight release.
5.6.1	Verify that the flight release is based on up-to-date design criteria, mass properties, and the completion of all analyses, ground, and flight tests related to loads, structural dynamics, strength, and stiffness upon which the structural data substantiates the structural design.	Y	N	New Warning Horn does not affect overall a/c structural dynamics, loads, strength, and stiffness. Chart C will be updated to reflect increase in weight of 7 lbs.

&"Arial,Bold Italic"&14Section 5.0 Structures

&"Arial,Italic"&9MIL-HDBK-516A 20 January 2004 &"Arial,Bold Italic"&12MQ-1L (Predator) &"Arial,Italic"&8Page &P

14 System Safety

ParaNum	Certification Criteria	C/KC-135 Applicable (Y/N)	Warning Horn Replacement Applicable (Y/N)	Rationale for Non-Applicable Criteria	Standard	Method of Compliance	Reference
14.0	SYSTEM SAFETY
14.1	System safety program.
14.1.1	Verify that an effective system safety program is implemented that mitigates risks/hazards attributed to hardware, software, and human system integration and that the safety program documents and tracks the risks/hazards of the design/modification.	Y	Y		MIL-STD-882, Department of Defense Standard Practice for System Safety
14.1.1.1	Verify that the system safety program incorporates system safety into all aspects of systems engineering.	Y	Y		MIL-STD-882, Department of Defense Standard Practice for System Safety
14.1.1.2	Verify that appropriate analysis tasks of MIL-STD-882 are accomplished for all programs, including temporary and permanent modifications.	Y	Y		MIL-STD-882, Department of Defense Standard Practice for System Safety
14.1.1.3	Verify that hazards/risks are tracked and residual risks documented.	Y	Y		MIL-STD-882, Department of Defense Standard Practice for System Safety
14.1.1.4	Verify that the system safety program addresses the following:
14.1.1.4.a	Flight safety	Y	N	Warning horn will not cause any single point failures.
14.1.1.4.b	Ground/industrial safety	Y	N	New warning horn will interface exactly as the existing horn.
14.1.1.4.c	Explosives and ordnance safety; non-nuclear munitions	Y	N	New warning horn does not affect the criteria of explosives and non-nuclear munitions.
14.1.1.4.d	Range safety	Y	N	New warning horn will interface exactly as the existing horn.
14.1.1.4.e	Nuclear safety	Y	N	Warning horn does not affect nuclear safety.
14.1.1.4.f	Radiation/laser safety	Y	N	Warning horn does not affect radiation/laser safety.
14.1.1.4.g	Test safety and support	Y	N	New warning horn is same function and interface as existing horn.
14.1.1.4.h	Software safety	Y	N	Warning horn does not affect software safety.
14.1.1.4.i	Materials	Y	N	New warning horn does not add risk associated with using new/alternate/substituted materials.
14.1.1.4.j	Failure modes and effects testing and built-in-test	Y	N	No testing is require, new warning horn is stock-listed item. TCTO verification will be performed.
14.1.1.4.k	Fail safe design	Y	Y		Design ensures system remains inherently safe, or that a single failure will cause system to revert to a state which will not cause a mishap.
14.1.1.4.l	Support equipment	Y	N	New warning horn does not affect support equipments.
14.2	Safety design requirements.
14.2.1	Verify that a systematic process is employed that provides for hazard identification, hazard control requirement generation and implementation, and residual risk assessment.	Y	Y		A process is in place to identify and characterize hazards, devise corrective actions, and assess residual risks. A System Safety Group is established to implement the process.
14.2.2	Verify that the design is free from unacceptable mishap risk.	Y	Y		Unacceptable risks to personnel or equipment are eliminated or controlled IAW MIL-STD-882.
14.2.3	Verify that no single-point failure unacceptably affects the safety of the system.	Y	Y		The severity of all hazards associated with single point failures are reduced to an acceptable level or have residual risk accepted IAW MIL-STD-882D. A mishap of catastrophic or critical severity cannot be caused by a single design feature.
14.2.4	Verify that the design adequately protects the power sources, controls, and critical components of redundant subsystems.	Y	N	New warning horn is the same function and interface as the existing horn.
14.2.5	Verify that all aspects of human factors are addressed and unacceptable human factors safety issues/risks are resolved in the design process.	Y	N	New warning horn is the same function and interface as the existing horn.
14.2.6	Verify that the system is produced/manufactured ensuring risk reduction of failures or hazards potentially created by human error during the operation and support of the system.	Y	Y		System design minimizes risk created by human error in the operation and support of the system.
14.2.7	Verify that the system design is within acceptable risk bounds over worst-case environmental conditions.	Y	Y		A design safety process is in place to minimize risks due to excessive environmental conditions throughout the complete range of all expected environmental conditions.
14.2.8	Verify that personnel exposure to hazards during the installation process, including hazards due to locations of systems in the air vehicle, are at an acceptable risk level.	Y	N	New warning horn is the same function and interface as the existing horn.
14.2.9	Verify that the system design isolates hazardous substances, components, and operations from other activities, areas, personnel, and incompatible material.	Y	N	New warning horn is the same function and interface as the existing horn.
14.2.10	Verify that a system safety change analysis is accomplished on changed or modified equipment or software.	Y	N	New warning horn is the same function and interface as the existing horn.
14.3	Software safety program. Note: Software safety is additionally verified through Section 15.3	Y	N	New warning horn will not affect the software safety program.
14.3.1	Verify that a comprehensive software safety program is integrated into the overall system safety program.	Y
14.3.2	Verify the software safety program requires that appropriate software safety-related analyses be performed as part of the software development process.	Y
14.3.2.a	Software safety analysis preparation	Y
14.3.2.b	Software safety requirements analysis	Y
14.3.3	Verify that the design/modification software is evaluated to ensure controlled or monitored functions do not initiate hazardous events or mishaps in either the on or off (powered) state.	Y

&"Arial,Bold Italic"&14Section 14.0 System Safety

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.