Engineering Journal: Science and InnovationELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PUBLICATION
Certificate of Registration Media number Эл #ФС77-53688 of 17 April 2013. ISSN 2308-6033. DOI 10.18698/2308-6033
  • Русский
  • Английский
Article

Method of evaluating indicator of the quality of development and commissioning the automated system for preparing aircraft flight data

Published: 11.05.2020

Authors: Andreev A.G., Kazakov G.V., Koryanov V.V., Kotyashev N.N.

Published in issue: #5(101)/2020

DOI: 10.18698/2308-6033-2020-5-1984

Category: Aviation and Rocket-Space Engineering | Chapter: Aircraft Dynamics, Ballistics, Motion Control

The quality of development and commissioning the automated system for preparing aircraft flight data (ASPD) depends on many factors, among which it is necessary to identify and justify those most significantly affecting quality of the system being commissioned. The practice of designing an ASPD has shown that the quality assessment based on its characteristics is nothing more than a consequence. This situation is due to the presence of deeper factors that will only appear during the operation of the system. To eliminate this situation, the problem is formulated as a task of determining the factors affecting the quality of development and commissioning the system, based on the data obtained by mathematical processing of expert estimates of each factor significance. To solve this problem, it is proposed to use the hierarchy analysis method. Developed on its basis the methodological approach makes it possible:
– to identify the main factors significantly affecting the quality of the ASPD being commissioned, and to propose qualitative scales for assessing the degree of feasibility of each generic criterion;
– to formalize a multi-criteria indicator of the degree of the ASPD quality compliance with the requirements of generic criteria and obtain its dependence on the levels of development and commissioning the system;
– to justify the requirements for ASPD operational suitability, perform its evaluation, as well as determine the necessary measures for implementing the specified requirements on operational and technical characteristics of the ASPD.


References
[1] Belik A.G., Tsyganenko V.N. Kachestvo i nadezhnost programmnykh system [Quality and reliability of software systems]. Omsk, OmSTU Publ., 2018, 80 p.
[2] Antonov A.V. Sistemnyy analiz [System Analysis]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ., 2004, 454 p.
[3] Andreev A.G., Kazakov G.V., Koryanov V.V. Inzhenernyy zhurnal: nauka i innovatsii — Engineering Journal: Science and Innovation, 2016, iss. 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.18698/2308-6033-2016-06-1505
[4] Nikolayev V.I., Bruk V.M. Sistemotekhnika: metody i prilozheniya [System engineering: methods and applications]. Leningrad, Mashinostroyeniye Publ., 1985, 199 p.
[5] GOST R ISO/IEC 15408-1–2012. Informatsionnaya tekhnologiya (IT). Metody i sredstva obespecheniya bezopasnosti. Kriterii otsenki bezopasnosti informatsionnykh tekhnologiy. Chast 1. Vvedeniye i obshchaya model [State Standard R ISO/IEC 15408-1–2012. Information Technology (IT). Security methods and tools. Criteria for assessing information technology security. Part 1. Introduction and general model]. Moscow, Standartinform Publ., 2014.
[6] GOST R ISO/IEC 15408-2–2013. Informatsionnaya tekhnologiya. metody i sredstva obespecheniya bezopasnosti. Kriterii otsenki bezopasnosti informatsionnykh tekhnologiy. Chast 2. Funktsionalnyye komponenty bezopasnosti [State Standard R ISO/IEC 15408-2–2013. Information technology. Security methods and tools. Criteria for assessing information technology security. Part 2. Functional components of security]. Moscow, Standartinform Publ., 2014.
[7] GOST R ISO/IEC 15408-3–2013. Informatsionnaya tekhnologiya. metody i sredstva obespecheniya bezopasnosti. Kriterii otsenki bezopasnosti informatsionnykh tekhnologiy. Chast 3. Komponenty doveriya k bezopasnosti [State Standard R ISO/IEC 15408-3–2013. Information technology. Methods and means of ensuring safety. Criteria for assessing information technology security. Part 3. Components of security assurance]. Moscow, Standartinform Publ., 2014.
[8] Saati T.L. Prinyatie resheniy. Metod analiza iyerarkhiy [Decision Making. Method of hierarchy analysis]. Moscow, Radio i svyaz Publ., 1993, 312 p.
[9] Saati T.L. Prinyatie resheniy pri zavisimostyakh i obratnykh svyazyakh. Analiticheskiye seti [Making decisions with dependencies and feedback. Analytical networks]. Moscow, LENAND Publ., 2018, 360 p.
[10] GOST 19.301–79. Edinaya sistema programmnoy dokumentatsii. Programma i metodika ispytaniy. Trebovaniya k soderzhaniyu i oformleniyu [State Standard 19.301–79. Unified system for program documentation. Program and methods of testing. Requirements for contents and form of presentation]. Moscow, Standartinform Publ., 2010.
[11] GOST 16504-81. Sistema gosudarstvennykh ispytaniy produktsii. Ispytaniya i kontrol kachestva produktsii. Osnovnyye terminy i opredeleniya (s izmene-niyami № 1) [The state system of testing products. Product test and quality inspection. General terms and definitions (as amended by no. 1)]. Moscow, Standartinform Publ., 2011.
[12] Glukhov A.P., Kotyashev N.N., Lukin V.L. Dvoynye Tekhnologii — Dual Technologies, 2008, no. 1, pp. 46–55.