Development Assurance for Software or Hardware

Expand all questions

Who is going to define software / software assurance level (SWAL) requirements for a particular ATM/ANS system? EASA, ANSP, ...?

Did I understand correctly that the software assurance level (SWAL) assignment and stating that the equipment is safe for use is moved to design or production organisations (DPOs)? I got that impression from previous sessions and disagree since safety (as security) depends on the operational usage of the equipment. What is your opinion?

If the software design assurance level (SW DAL) of equipment depends on ATM functions of the air navigation service provider (ANSP), how do you guarantee that certified/declared equipment will be available with such an expected level? Aren't we creating a chicken-and-egg issue?

ED-153 considers that the air navigation service provider (ANSP) shall allocate the software assurance level (SWAL). Which standard support that the DPO shall allocate the SWAL? As in a previous comment, ANSP should allocate the SWAL and DPO should evidence. Why the change? (in a previous question, the answer was that the DPO allocate the SWAL)