Transcript Slide 1

USSMG CPF Review
July 2012
1
Draft US CPFs
2
2012-002SE
Chap 5.2.1.3.2 Fault isolation - Info codes
New
•
Proposal:
–
Chap 8.4.1 and Chap 8.4.2 information codes:
•
–
Chap 5.2.1.3.2 Fault isolation Para 2.8.1:
–
IC415
•
•
•
By using IC421 thru IC429 for Fault isolation procedures (without any rules or guidance more than they should be used
for sequential numbering within a project!!!!!) we block information codes and a result of this is the newly included (Iss
4.1) IC443 (Post troubleshooting shutdown) incorrectly placed in IC440. IC440 is Index and must not include procedures
which belong to IC 420!
JS IC’s do not assign anything more specific to these codes, but all are allowed.
•
For each, ICV B is allocated as “Troubleshooting procedure”
Posted comments:
–
–
–
–
–
•
Don't limit IC415 to "combat system capabilities".
Other info:
–
•
Give a clear and consistent explanation on how to code Fault isolation procedures.
Justification:
–
•
Fault isolation procedures to be limited to IC 421 (and not to be a projects specific sequential number 421 thru 429). Posttrouble shutdown procedures to get its correct place in the 420 series.
Airbus - We don’t accept the proposed solution as Airbus will use IC 422 (and sub sequent IC) once the DC limit will be
reached for IC 421 (hundredths of Fault isolation procedures might be associated with a complex sub-sub systems
throughout the life cycle of an aircraft). Furthermore, we agree that IC 443 is not relevant for "post-trouble shutdown
procedures", but we do not consider that a "post-trouble shutdown procedures" is a Fault isolation and it should not be
allocated a "42X" IC. We would prefer a solution adding explanations on how to use the 421-428 IC codes in conjunction
with the DC
ATA objects and suggests IC task team.
US - The USSMG agrees that this CPF should not be included in Issue 4.1 and it requires more thorough review by the
Air, Land, & Sea WGs before the US can determine if it agrees or disagrees at all. A white paper is needed to clarify the
business case and changes. Bob Sharrer stated that the Air WG is not negatively impacted by the proposed change, but
do not agree that there is a business case for the change.
GB, DE does not support
ES Neutral
Recommendation
–
This CPF could be rejected or withdrawn and would not impact US requirements.
Last reviewed
1/2012
3
New CPFs
4
2012-003AA
Update of Cited References
New
• Proposal:
– 1000 and ISO 31 family have been replaced by ISO/IEC 80000
family. Make changes as appropriate
• Justification:
– As stated the referenced standards have been revised with
new standards.
• Posted comments:
– FR Neutral
– SE, DE, GB, ES supports
– WG - Requires further investigation to determine technical impact.
• Recommendation:
– Support
Last reviewed
New
5
2012-004AA
More Correct use of SI and Grammar Corrections
New
• Proposal:
– Corrects spacing, capitalization, and other editorial matters (See
next slide for requested corrections)
• Justification:
– Proper use of SI and grammar.
• Posted comments:
– FR, DE, WG does not support
– GB, ES supports
• Recommendation:
– Approve
Last reviewed
New
6
2012-004AA
More Correct use of SI and Grammar Corrections
New
Chap 3.4, Page 19, 2.2.2.3 Zones paragraph.
States "Sub-zone areas, where necessary, must be further subdivided into zones using the first digit of the allocated zone number (1000, 2000,
3000, etc) as shown in Table 16 and Fig 10.
The numbers “1000, 2000, 3000” should be "1, 2, 3".
Chap 3.9.1, Page 4, 2.5 Units of measurement.
List of general rules - do not use the point after the unit symbol (eg A = Ampere, mm = millimeter).
"Ampere" should be "ampere" as units of measure are considered common nouns and are not capitalized.
Chap 3.9.2.1, Page 12, at top of page there is "Legend box for fill types".
"Lines: Solid, 0,35mm". "0,35mm" should be "0,35 mm".
"Fill Lines: Solid, 0,18mm". "0,18mm" should be "0,18 mm".
Chap 3.4, Page 21.
At top of page is paragraph stating "Access points located symmetrically on opposite side of the air vehicle must be assigned the same letter
designators, even though the zone numbers can be different (eg 521 CB for the left wing, 621CB for the right wing)".
I believe "521 CB" should be "521CB". According to Fig 12 there is no space between the zone number and the suffix letters, and "621CB" does not
use a space.
Chap 3.8, Page 5, 2.4.2 Complex example, 4th paragraph, 3rd line.
"This gives further data modules with their of disassembly codes..." Delete the word "of".
Chap 3.9.2.3, Page 8, Fig 2.
At top of page is "Location Photograph Example (85mm X 61mm)". "85mm" should be "85 mm" and "61mm" should be "61 mm".
Chap 3.9.5, Page 4.
Table 2 Entity "Ohm" should be "ohm".
Chap 3.9.5.2.9.2, Page 22, Table 7.
Wire type codes "CH 600V, 150C...". "600V, 150C" should be "600 V, 150 C".
"PC 600V, 150C...". "600V, 150C" should be "600 V, 150 C".
"QC 600V, 150C...". "600V, 150C" should be "600 V, 150 C".
Last reviewed
New
7
2012-005AA
Proper SI and Grammar (continued)
New
•
Proposal:
– Corrects spacing, typos, capitalization, symbology, etc in the S1000D
interpretation of allowable SI values (see next slide for examples, CPF for full
list of corrections)
•
Justification:
– To be in compliance with SI standards and proper grammar.
•
Posted comments:
– SE neutral, would like to hear EPWGs verdict.
– DE with comments:2012-03-14: Request for editorial corrections (removal of
superfluous spaces) supported, but we are unsure about the rest. To be
analyzed by the EPWG first.
– FR with comments: Neutral, agreed with German and Swedish comments
– GB currently supports this proposal. With comments:2012-05-01: uk team
suggest this is a SC/chapter owner task ES currently supports this proposal.with
comments:2012-05-24: agreed on the business case.
– WG with comments:2012-06-13: EPWG 72.00 - The current units align with the
original POSC units standard. This CPF should be combined with the
discussion regarding ISO/IEC 80000.
•
Recommendation:
–
Approve.
Last reviewed
New
8
2012-005AA
Proper SI and Grammar
New
Allowable values
"(N/m)4/kg.m3"
Change to
"1/K"
Change to
"1/N"
Change to
"1/Pa"
Change to
"1/pPa"
Change to
"1/upsi"
Change to
"1/V"
Change to
"A.h"
Change to
"A/mm"
Change to
"A/mm2"
Change to
"acre.ft/MMstb"
Change to
Last reviewed
New
S1000D interpretation
Newton/meter fourth/kilogram meter cubed
newton/meter fourth/kilogram meter cubed
per Kelvin
per kelvin
per
per newton
per Pascal
per pascal
per pico pascal
per picopascal
per micro pounds per square inch
per micropounds per square inch
per Volt
per volt
Ampere hour
ampere hour
Ampere/millimeter
ampere/millimeter
Ampere/square millimeter
ampere/square millimeter
acre feet/million stbs, 60 deg F
acre feet/million stbs, 60 F
9
2012-006S1
Schedule correction
Pending Approval
•
Proposal:
– Modify the schedule schema to include attributes commercialClassification, and
caveat on elements <maintAllocationGroup>, <groupNumber>, <toolsList>, and
<remarksList>.
•
Justification:
– There is a discrepancy in the text of chapter 3.9.5.2.5 and the schedule schema.
In the S1000D narrative, elements <maintAllocationGroup>, <groupNumber>,
<toolsList>, and <remarksList> list attributes securityClassification,
commercialClassification, and caveat. The schema for these elements includes
securityClassification only and does not include commercialClassification, or
caveat. Either the narrative should be updated to remove the attributes
commercialClassification and caveat from these elements or the attributes
should be added to the elements <maintAllocationGroup>, <groupNumber>,
<toolsList>, and <remarksList>. Recommend the attributes be added to the
elements in the schedule schema.
•
Posted comments:
– WG currently supports: Recommend immediate incorporation into Issue 4.1 as
this puts the Schema in line with the Chapter Text.
– FR, ATA Civil Aviation, SE , DE, ES supports
•
Recommendation:
– Already at Pending Approval
– Submitted by Kim Willmott
Last reviewed
New
10
US-2012-0002
Schematic Diagrams and Associated Assembly Drawings
Draft
•
Proposal:
–
•
Justification:
–
•
•
It is a requirement of electrical and electronic equipment that reference designators
be assigned. The reference designator is the common element between an
electrical/electronic schematic diagram, an assembly drawing, and a parts list, the
three documents that define any electrical or electronic assembly. The S1000D
examples shown use the Block Numbering Method, which is not the standard method.
This is to satisfy the requirement of assigning electrical/electronic reference
designators but in a generic fashion rather than a specific method.
Posted comments:
Current US Position:
–
•
This CPF changes the examples of electrical/electronic assembly drawings to show
generic or basic reference designators along with the proper class designation letters
to use in the reference designator.
USSMG reviewed previously and asked the submitter to update the white paper to
clarify the business case.
Recommendation:
–
Working groups need to review:
•
•
•
•
Last reviewed
Does anyone in the US use the block numbering method?
Does everyone use generic or basic reference designators?
Does everyone agree with ALL of the changes requested in the white paper?
Is this CPF supported?
2/2012
11
US-2012-0002
Schematic Diagrams and Associated Assembly Drawings
Draft
•
Excerpts from the white paper
– Provides specific numbering (and terminology?) changes, for
example:
• Make the following changes:
– Item 20 Choke L4. Change "Choke" to "Inductor".
– Item 22 Circuit board. Add reference designator A#, description would be "Circuit
board A1". Item 23 Resistor R24. Add reference designator prefix A#,
description should be "Resistor A1R24".
– Item 27 Circuit board. Add reference designator A#, description would be "Circuit
board A2".
– Item 32 Capacitors C3. Each capacitor on a schematic diagram, and thus on the
associated assembly drawing, will have a separate reference designator.
Description would be "Capacitors C3, C#". [Replace # with whatever the
reference designator is of the 2nd capacitor (eg C3, C7).]
– Changes a relevant paragraph of text:
• 2.5.1 General
–
Change from:
•
–
Change to:
•
Last reviewed
“If electrical or electronic components require identification by circuit reference
designators, the designators must either be included in a legend and/or within the
associated text, but not included within the illustration itself.”
2/2012
“Electrical or electronic components always require identification by circuit reference
designators, these designators must either be included in a legend and/or within the
associated text, but not included within the illustration itself.”
12
2012-009S1
Replace BREX snsCode
New
•
Proposal:
– Remove all element /snsCode/ from the BREX Schema and replace with
applicable existing SNS attributes (systemCode, subSystemCode,
subSubSystemCode, and assyCode) to limit SNS format and lengths.
•
Justification:
– Currently, the SNS codes inserted and defined in the BREX SNS Rules section
are not limited in any manner. The element /snsCode/ is re-used each time
when defining system, subsystem, subSubSystem, and assembly codes. The
current SNS attribute definitions limit each SNS segment to only the allowed
SNS length. The alternative, to limit SNS lengths, requires multiple re-definitions
for the element /snsCode/ to prevent character limits from exceeding their
allowed lengths. These multiple re-definitions would violate the Schema
authoring rules.
•
Posted comments:
– ATA Civil Aviation, WG Support
– 2012-05-10: CAWG supports this change but as stated not for 4.1for not for 4.1.
– EPWG has determined there is a technical impact and an SPF is required. SPF
has not been reviewed.
•
Recommendation:
–
Approve
• This is Corky’s CPF.
Last reviewed
New
13
2012-010FR
Element <name> under the element <circuitBreakerDescr>
New
•
Proposal:
– Make the element <name> under the element <circuitBreakerDescr> optional
instead of mandatory.
•
Justification:
– Currently, the element under the element is mandatory instead of optional.
Looking at S1000D 4.0.1 When documenting circuit breakers via
<circuitBreakerDescr> the child <name> is mandatory. Also a mandated child is
<circuitBreakerRef>, which has a child <name> which is optional. Since
<circuitBreakerRef> is a child of other elements, such as para, I can understand
why it has <name>, but I don’t understand why <circuitBreakerDesc> has
<name> or why it is mandated. The real problem with the mandated <name>
comes when TIR referencing is used. As you know, <circuitBreakerRef> has the
TIR linking circuitBreakerNumber attribute, and explains why the child <name>
of the element is optional. However, if the TIR contains the circuit breaker name
then we end up with 2 names because of the mandated <name> for
<circuitBreakerDesc>.
•
Posted comments:
– GB, UK, ATA Civil Aviation supports
– FR currently supports with comments: With just a request, please change title of
CPF, content is understandable, but title….
•
Recommendation:
–
NEUTRAL
Last reviewed
New
14
2012-011S1
4.0.1 schema error: attentionListItemPara content restricted
New
•
Proposal:
– In the Issue 4.0.1 schema, the element attentionListItemPara content
is restricted to a single child element. The child elements should be
changed to be unbounded.
•
Justification:
– With the current error of only allowing one child element of
attentionListItemPara, a DM will cause a validation error if more than
one child element from the attentionText group are used. Examples: 1)
Using more than one emphasis tag within the same paragraph will
cause an error, and 2) Using an emphasis tag and a subscript tag
within the same paragraph will cause an error. Any number of
elements within the attentionText group should be available for use
within a single attentionListItemPara.
•
Posted comments:
–
•
ATA Civil Aviation, CAWG, WG, FR supports
Recommendation:
–
Approve
Last reviewed
New
15
2012-012S1
Schema bug - multimedia parameter issue 3.0
New
•
Proposal:
– Raise a 'patch' to make the element repeatable within
multimediaobject
•
Justification:
– In the schemas the element parameter within multimediaobject cannot
be repeated. Although there are no full definitions of this element in
this issue of the specification it is the intention that the element
parameter is repeatable within a single instance of multimediaobject.
Parameter was repeatable in issue 2.3, but is not in issue 3.0, no CPF
was raised to make that change therefore it is an error. This error
means that some projects are encountering problems and have to
reload objects to change parameters meaning, previous values and
states are lost
•
Posted comments:
–
•
FR and WG Support.
Recommendation:
–
Last reviewed
New
16
2012-013S1
Schema bug - multimedia parameter issue 4.0.1
New
•
Proposal:
– Raise a 'Patch' to make the element repeatable within
multimediaObject.
•
Justification:
– In the schemas the element parameter within multimediaobject cannot
be repeated. Although there are no full definitions of this element in
this issue of the specification it is the intention that the element
parameter is repeatable within a single instance of multimediaobject.
Parameter was repeatable in issue 2.3, but is not in issue 4.0.1, no
CPF was raised to make that change therefore it is an error. This error
means that some projects are encountering problems and have to
reload objects to change parameters meaning, previous values and
states are lost
•
Posted comments:
– FR and WG currently supports this proposal.
•
Recommendation:
–
Approve
Last reviewed
New
17
2012-014S1
Attribute Declarations on the Element <checkListStep>,
<checkListProcedure> and <checkListPara>
New
• Proposal:
– Recommend patch to 4.0.1 to bring it in line with corrections for
4.1.
• Justification:
– Necessary to correct for proper use.
• Posted comments:
– FR currently supports this proposal.
– WG currently supports this proposal.
– EPWG 72.00 - SPF Approved
• Recommendation:
– Approve
• These attributes went missing in the implementation of checklist in
Issue 4.0 and are necessary.
Last reviewed
New
18