# Reopening ED-80 ED-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware – status of EUROCAE / RTCA WG-128 / SC-243

Pascal Pampagnin, James Bezamat

► To cite this version:

Pascal Pampagnin, James Bezamat. Reopening ED-80 ED-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware – status of EUROCAE / RTCA WG-128 / SC-243. 13th European Congress of Embedded Real Time Systems (ERTS), Feb 2026, Toulouse, France. 10.82331/ERTS.2026.20. [hal-05513723](https://hal.science/hal-05513723v1)

HAL Id: hal-05513723

https://hal.science/hal-05513723v1

Submitted on 19 Feb 2026

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Reopening ED-80 ED-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware – status of EUROCAE / RTCA WG-128 / SC-243

Pascal Pampagnin¹, James Bezamat³

¹Airbus Operations SAS, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
pascal.pampagnin@airbus.com

³Cetrac.io, 20 rue de la Reynie, 75001 Paris, France
james@cetrac.io

## ABSTRACT

This paper will explain the current status for the reopening works for the Aerospace standard “ED-80 DO-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware”. The reopening is managed with EUROCAE and RTCA, with respective Working Groups WG-128 / SC-243.

The paper will explain the history of current standard, the motivations and rationale for reopening. It will explain the major stakes. The paper will show the previous works, the way of working for the Working Groups, the current status and the schedule.

## 1. HISTORY OF ED-80 DO-254

In the 90s, due to the technology changes and increase of integration, many civil aircraft systems were designed with integrated circuits, such as ASIC, PLD, FPGA. These devices were able to replace complex functions currently performed by software, and covered by existing regulation. Certification Regulations at this period didn't address this technology gap. So Aerospace Industry, in relationship with the Airworthiness Authorities, decided to create a standard to provide guidance when designing airborne electronic hardware. A joint committee from EUROCAE and RTCA was in charge of developing this standard. In 2000 the document [1] was published.

Major aircraft programs (Airbus (A380, A350, A320 NEO), Boeing (B787), Comac (C919), Embraer (KC390), Bombardier (Cseries), ...), implemented this standard. Legacy programs (Airbus (A320, A330), Boeing (B737, B777), Engines (CFM LEAP, GE9X), Helicopters (NH90, H160), ...) with multiple systems and hardware redesigns, facing obsolescence of electronic components, introducing new functions, also implemented this guidance. This standard is also applied for military aircrafts programs (fighters, freighters, helicopters, ...), which can use electronics for dual use. Widely deployed and recognized, [1] is a standard in aviation and has now several decades of experience.

## 2. MOTIVATIONS & RATIONALE FOR REOPENING

Airworthiness took time to recognize this standard (whose scope is from LRU to IP). In 2005 FAA published Advisory Circular [2], limiting the scope of application to ASIC and PLD with Design Assurance level DAL A, B and C (i.e., critical and major systems). In 2008 FAA published Job Aid [3], to help auditors to conduct airborne electronic hardware reviews.

The approach in Europe was different. EASA didn't recognize [1] by a regulatory paper, but required on a case-by-case basis the application of the document, publishing CRI for each aircraft program. Basically, the CRI, negotiated with the airframers, limited the scope on the same way that for FAA. In 2011, through a EASA Certification Memorandum [4], additional requirements were added to address specific topics, such as computing hours for service experience, determining code coverage criteria, introduce some boards considerations or proposing a useful classification for Problem Reports.

In 2020 EASA (and in 2022 FAA) published a set of acceptable means of compliance [5], to detail how to use the standard, by adding specific objectives for Custom Devices, COTS, IP and CBA. Clarifications how to use the standard were given.

EASA and FAA published other acceptable means of compliance, [6], [7], to respectively address the management of open problem reports, and the introduction of multicores processors (this is a trend in flight computers).

In parallel, several initiatives were launched by the Aerospace Industry to record and share experience about implementing [1]. DO254 Users Group Europe was created in 2004, its counterpart DO254 Users Group US was created in 2008. Aerospace companies, component manufacturers, service providers, tools providers are members, on a voluntary basis. These industry groups share experience, propose technical papers to detail some inconsistencies or to add clarifications, explain how to apply the standard on an industrial point of view. Within these industry groups, a consensus was established to push for an update, in a reasonable schedule.

Several reasons pushed to re-open [1]: sufficient experience was recorded, on a formal and informal way. With new players entering in the Aerospace Industry (VTOL, UAV, ...), a lack in details or explanations was highlighted. Some standards linked

<footnote>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</footnote>
to system [8] and software [9], plus industrial standards for electronics [10] were updated, and showed some discrepancies (in definitions for instance), omissions, or inconstancies with the current standard. Some Aerospace Suppliers proposed new topics to address, including new technologies, previously developed hardware (motivated by companies' strategy, with the notion of product line or building blocks, for instance).

A consensus was raised to update this standard.

In 2024 EUROCAE and RTCA agreed to create a working group (WG-128 SC-243) to study a strategy for reopening [1]. This group worked from April to November 2024, and prepared an IR internal report [11].

### 3. MAJOR STAKES

Several stakes were discussed and agreed between the Aerospace Industry and Airworthiness Authorities. The 1st one was to maintain safety aspects of [1], the regulation papers A(M)C, and predecessor guidance material.

The objectives introduced should contribute to safety of hardware aspects of the equipment. For simplification, removing activities not justified by safety concerns is recommended.

Another stake was to establish a compromise between deeply modifying the document, and smoothly but clearly introducing updates based on return of experience. The standard is widely used, and any update should be assessed against the industry current practices.

The consensus of the participants was also to integrate objectives of the [5] in order to get a single source standard. The A(M)C brought some clarification and had objectives. These current considerations reflect the position of Airworthiness Authorities, and should be carefully merged.

### 4. REVISION APPROACH

As updating the standard was the result of a combined Europe / US document, organization is doubled. Chairs, co-chairs are respectively Airbus, CetraC / Boeing, Honeywell. Secretaries are respectively Turkish Aerospace Industries / Joby Aviation.

The following principles were agreed by the Committee members:

* Keep existing structure: core document plus Appendix; deeply modifying the structure of the document was not possible; any additional paragraph would cause strong workload for the Industry to retrieve non modified paragraphs and to show compliance.

* Keep (and update) objective / activities structure. Some paragraphs of the current version do not have this structure, the update to make them coherent has been agreed. Keeping this structure will ease to incorporate additional objectives, if any.

* Merge A(M)C 20-152A objectives in the document; this is one of the major stakes. A(M)C created additional objectives, added detailed explanations, gave examples. After analysis it appeared that some of them could be incorporated in the corresponding paragraphs; and some of the objectives may be converted into activities.

* Give priority of (today and future) stakes; the Committee members gave priority in front of the major stakes they find in their daily work, designing and certifying electronics for airborne applications.

* Keep in mind a 2-3 years target; the Committee members decided to capture lessons learned from past and similar subgroups ([9] for software, [8] for system). So, a shorter list of topics was decided to address, in order to keep a right level of discussions and obtain an “agreed” rev A in a reasonable time.

* If no consensus then parks the topic; also based on the past experience, the Committee members decided to park some topics when non consensus is reached during the working groups meetings. Non-consensus topics will be recorded and will be put either in a FAQ document, or postponed to rev B.

The works for reopening shall guarantee that [1] remains an acceptable Means of Compliance for Certification. The relationship with Airworthiness Authorities (through their publications AMC and AC) will be clarified. When useful, links with recognized and industry standards (SAE, IEC, ...) will be updated or added. Clarification and simplification are expected; this will include an analysis of definitions which can be common with other standards (some examples: derived requirements, validation, verification, independence...).

The rev A will also recognize major existing standards for (electronic) components selection and management, used by the industry.

The creation of product lines, building blocks, proposed by some Aerospace companies will be also addressed. These developments are made to reduce cost and time to market for airborne applications. Topic to claim credit, or data package to produce will be addressed.

Due to the increase of integration, the rev A should address how to incorporate COTS, IP objectives, CBA objectives.

In case of change of an existing hardware, Change Impact Analysis should be reinforced.

The IR internal report [11] lists the topics to be addressed.

The IR proposes topics intended to not be part of [1] rev A but in a dedicated FAQ document. These topics are questions, technology related, ... the Committee members assessed them too specific to be put in the updated standard, but necessary to keep and to propose answers when possible.

Industry position papers can be proposed to start discussions (they could be included in the FAQ document).
<table><caption>Table 1. examples of topics for FAQ of ED-80 DO-254</caption><thead><tr><td>n°</td><td>Topic</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>multichip, Lead Free, Power Electronics</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Advanced simulation methods</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>SEE single event effects</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Criteria for complexity / simplicity for custom device, COTS, and CBA</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Previously developed hardware for COTS IP and COTS devices</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>COTS boards</td></tr></tbody></table>

The IR [11] also lists topics not introduced in the rev A of [1]. They have been assessed non sufficiently mature, and probably difficult to get a consensus in the defined timeslot. They are proposed for rev B or beyond. The non-exhaustive list is the following:

<table><caption>Table 2. examples of topics for ED-80 DO-254 revB</caption><thead><tr><td>n°</td><td>Topic</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Model Based Development</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Cyber Security</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>System on Chip</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Multicores</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Artificial Intelligence</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note that some topics, such as the management of open-source hardware, have not been captured as expectations from the Industry.

## 5. WAY OF WORKING

The leadership team is in charge to:

* Establish thematic subgroups

* Manage coordination between subgroups (at least one leadership member will be part of each subgroup)

* Facilitate progress and consensus

* Prepare agenda for each plenary meeting

In order to keep the target for publishing the rev A, the works are divided in several subgroups. Subgroup leaders were designated, in order to facilitate discussion between the members and propose updated text. The roadmap of the subgroups is given in the IR [11]. Another subgroup is in charge to write the FAQ document (roadmap is also included in the IR).

<table><caption>Table 3. list of subgroups for the update of ED-80 DO-254</caption><thead><tr><td>n°</td><td>Subgroup</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Validation, Verification and Appendix B</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>CBA, COTS Devices and Objectives</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>CM, OPRs and Field Loadable Devices</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Planning, Simple/Complex Custom Device, Design, PDH, Custom COTS IP</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>General Document Updates, Process Assurance, Certification</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>FAQ document</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6. MAIN CHANGES EXPECTED IN DO-254 REV A

According to the expectations expressed by participants in the Internal Report, the main changes in [1] rev A will be the following:

* Harmonization of the objective/activities approach in all the sections of the document and harmonization of the definitions and common concepts with the other standards to make easier the Design Assurance Continuum.

* Introduction or clarification of objectives and activities related to CBA, COTS, COTS IP and Previously Developed Hardware (according to A(M)C [5]), and introduction of Change Impact Analysis activity to facilitate development of such currently used items.

* Clarification and simplification of App B for DAL A and B development in relation with verification objectives and review of Life Cycle Data perimeter, as HCI, HECI and HSID to be aligned with current industry practices.

* Reinforce separation of Validation and Verification objectives and clarify expected design reviews (as expressed in [5]) to be aligned with other standards.

* Introduce a FAQ document to keep trace of detailed best practices regarding specific technologies or methods, and to prepare, through Discussion Papers, new topics for future DO-254 revisions.

## 7. SCHEDULE

The working group holds 4 plenary meetings per year, with breakout sessions before the plenary session, and remote sessions per subgroups between the plenary meetings.

All data are managed through EUROCAE and RTCA websites, access is for members of these organizations. A formal review process will be launched before official publication.
<table><caption>Table 4. schedule for the update of ED-80 DO-254</caption><thead><tr><td>Document</td><td>Target</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ED-80 DO-254 rev A Design (or Development) Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware</td><td>End 2027</td></tr><tr><td>ED-xxx DO-xxx rev - supporting document for ED-80 DO-254</td><td>Mid 2028</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 8. CURRENT STATUS

Kick-off meeting was done in Feb 2025. 3 breakout sessions and plenary meetings were performed in 2025. During these meetings, subgroups started to produce updated portions of the document. We noticed a very good level of involvement from the participants (up to 60), indicating the willingness to bring elements is well understood. The subgroup to create the supporting document (FAQ) was officially launched.

In 2025 several remote meetings were performed. Updated text has been prepared by the subgroups. Needs for clarification and management of overlaps between subgroups have been defined, and convergence is in progress for the following topics:

(a) definition of derived requirements versus refined requirements; this addresses traceability and validation aspects;

(b) scope of the rev A: it will address circuit board assemblies, with generic objectives and activities as far as possible;

(c) precisions will be given for conceptual versus detailed design data;

(d) clarification for custom device what is design and what is implementation data;

(e) integration of [5] objectives in rev A.

In 2026 all updates and data from the different subgroups will be complied, and FAQ document writing will start.

## 9. CONCLUSION

After 24 years of usage, the decision made to reopen ED-80 DO-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware was successful. Both Aerospace Industry and Airworthiness Authorities propose a dynamic, which will contribute to produce regular updates, based on return of experience and technology innovations. Active participation of the Committee members forecast a good level of involvement, ensuring a compliance to the objectives and the schedule for updating the standard. Additional detailed topics will not be forgotten, a supporting document will also help designers to implement the standard. A monitoring of new topics will be established. Other scopes (Artificial Intelligence, VTOL, UAV, hydrogen...) will also contribute to create updates. The willingness of the Aerospace Industry players will make living the standard for the next decades.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would thank EUROCAE and RTCA for their support, The Aerospace Industry members and the Airworthiness Authorities for their active involvement in this re-opening works.

## NOMENCLATURE

<table><tr><td>AC</td><td>Advisory Circular</td></tr><tr><td>AMC</td><td>Acceptable Means of Compliance</td></tr><tr><td>ASIC</td><td>Application Specific Integrated Circuit</td></tr><tr><td>CBA</td><td>Circuit Board Assembly</td></tr><tr><td>CM</td><td>Configuration Management</td></tr><tr><td>COTS</td><td>Component Off The shelf</td></tr><tr><td>CRI</td><td>Certification Review Item</td></tr><tr><td>EASA</td><td>European Agency for Safety Aviation</td></tr><tr><td>EUROCAE</td><td>European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment</td></tr><tr><td>FAA</td><td>Federal Aviation Administration</td></tr><tr><td>FAQ</td><td>Frequently Asked Questions</td></tr><tr><td>FPGA</td><td>Field Programmable Gate Array</td></tr><tr><td>IP</td><td>Intellectual Property</td></tr><tr><td>OPR</td><td>Open Problem Report</td></tr><tr><td>PDH</td><td>Previously Developed Hardware</td></tr><tr><td>PLD</td><td>Programmable Logic Device</td></tr><tr><td>RTCA</td><td>pressure coefficient</td></tr><tr><td>VTOL</td><td>Vertical Take Off and Landing</td></tr><tr><td>UAV</td><td>Unmanned Aerial Vehicle</td></tr></table>

## REFERENCES

[1] Eurocae, RTCA, "Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware ED-80 DO-254,"_, 2000.

[2] FAA Federal Aviation Administration, "Advisory Circular - document RTCA/DO-254, design assurance guidance for airborne electronic hardware AC 20-152," Washington DC, USA, 2005.

[3] RTCA Inc, "Conducting airborne electronic hardware reviews FAA-order_8110.105,"_, Washington DC - USA, 2008.

[4] EASA, "Certification Memorandum Development Assurance of Airborne Electronic Hardware CM-SWCEH-001 Issue 01 Revision 02," Köln, Germany, 2018.

[5] EASA, "Development Assurance for airborne electronic hardware (AEH) - AMC-20 Amendment 19 AMC 20-152A,"_, Köln, Germany, 2020.

[6] EASA, "The Management of Open Problem Reports (OPRs) AMC 20-189,"_, Köln, Germany, 2020.

[7] EASA, "Use of multi-core processors AMC 20-193; Annex to ED Decision 2022/001/R,"_, Köln, Germany, 2022.

[8] EUROCAE, SAE, "guidelines for development of civil aircraft and systems ED-79B,"_, Paris, France, 2023.

[9] "Software Considerations in Airborne systems and equipment certification, - DO-178-C,"_, Paris, France, 2012.

[10] SAE International, "Methods to Address Specific Issues Related to COTS Electronic Components in Airborne Electronic Hardware - ARP4795,"_, Warrendale, PA, USA, 2020.

[11] EUROCAE, "Strategy for the updating of ED-80 / DO-254 Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware EUR 355-24 / WG128-11,"_, Paris, France, 2024.