RTCA DO-294C Guidance on Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T-PEDS) on Aircra

[JazzEngAero]

Hi.

I'm currently working on a project to approve T-PEDs on Part 23 aircraft. As an Mechanical/Aeronautical Engineer I know the basics of backdoor/frontdoor analysis and tests to certify those equipments. But, considering the size of the company I work for, my manager don't want to buy the RTCA DO-294 (the primary reference for this type of analysis, but not the only one: others like the DO-307, the DO-160 and the ARP5583, wich I already have), is it possible, if anyone have this document, to share it with me?

 

[Sparweb]

Umm...
Isn't it bad form to explicitly ask for proprietary documents, especially when the agencies that sell them are still active in supporting, updating, and improving them for the rest of us? Does your airline let people fly for free so that seats don't go empty?
Proper etiquette would dictate that you either pay up, or find some ".ru" website that harvests this stuff en-masse and download it from there. You may choose the latter, but at least hide your shame.

Hint: The cost you saved by pirating documents will PALE in comparison to the cost of the overall program to certify PED's on your aircraft.

STF

 

[JazzEngAero]

Sorry if my question was too explicit. It wasn't my intention to ask directly the document. Maybe I should reformulate the question and explain the hole situation:

The "PED" it self is a tracking device. This equipment don't have a PMA. But our customer want to install it using direct power from the aircraft (using CB and stuff). By that our aviation authority asked for an analysis (backdoor and frontdoor).
I asked about a copy of the RTCA DO-294C. It was an honestly mistake. My real concern is if it is the only document providing the test specs for the backdoor/frontdoor tests for the PEDs (and if so, not a copy of the hole document itself, but the tests specs only), or if not, if someone know if I could use any other test specs to fulfill the evaluation for the aviation authority.

Again, I sincerely apologize for the way I did the first question. Hope you guys don't understand me wrong.

Thanks for the attention.

 

[IRstuff]

Have you seen:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...ty/info/all_infos/media/2013/info13010sup.pdf

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[Sparweb]

But, you say you already have DO-160 and DO-307, which combined cost 3x more than DO-294. Why the tight purse strings today?

In the past I have been on the side of the struggle you're on. The company I worked for could not pay for many reference documents that we were expected to have, to do the work we were did. It was very difficult to assert my credibility in these situations, especially when regulatory officials asked upon what I would base my analysis/test/whatever approach. This ate up time. Time that, if saved, would have paid for the documents in many situations.

STF

 

[kontiki99]

The IP verbiage is pretty strict on RTCA documents. I doubt you will find anyone working for a member company willing to provide you access. Maybe you folks need to hire a good DER or DAS to work up the approvals. There could be useful info in Advisory Circulars. Both on PEDS and EFBs, which is I expect it where you are going.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice however, experience suggests that in practice, there is!

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm affiliated with.