GUIDANCE FOR TOOL AND TEST

EQUIPMENT (TTE) EQUIVALENCY

ARINC REPORT 668

PUBLISHED: January 24, 2003

AN A DOCUMENT
Prepared by
AIRLINES ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE
Published by
AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC.
2551 RIVA ROAD, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
This document is based on material submitted by various
participants during the drafting process. Neither AEEC nor ARINC
has made any determination whether these materials could be
subject to valid claims of patent, copyright or other proprietary
rights by third parties, and no representation or warranty, express or
implied, is made in this regard. Any use of or reliance on this
document shall constitute an acceptance thereof “as is” and be
subject to this disclaimer.
 Copyright©2003 by
AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC.
2551 Riva Road
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-7465 USA

ARINC REPORT 668©

GUIDANCE FOR TOOL AND TEST

EQUIPMENT (TTE) EQUIVALENCY

Published: January 24, 2003

Prepared by the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee

Report 668 Adopted by the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee: December 6, 2002
 FOREWORD

Aeronautical Radio, Inc., the AEEC, and ARINC Standards

Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) was incorporated in 1929 by four fledgling airlines in the United
States as a privately-owned company dedicated to serving the communications needs of the air transport
industry. Today, the major U.S. airlines remain the Company’s principal shareholders. Other
shareholders include a number of non-U.S. airlines and other aircraft operators.

ARINC sponsors aviation industry committees and participates in related industry activities that benefit
aviation at large by providing technical leadership and guidance and frequency management. These
activities directly support airline goals: promote safety, efficiency, regularity, and cost-effectiveness in
aircraft operations.

The Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) is an international body of airline technical
professionals that leads the development of technical standards for airborne electronic equipment-
including avionics and in-flight entertainment equipment-used in commercial, military, and business
aviation. The AEEC establishes consensus-based, voluntary form, fit, function, and interface standards
that are published by ARINC and are known as ARINC Standards. The use of ARINC Standards results
in substantial benefits to airlines by allowing avionics interchangeability and commonality and reducing
avionics cost by promoting competition.

There are three classes of ARINC Standards:

a) ARINC Characteristics—Define the form, fit, function, and interfaces of avionics and other
airline electronic equipment. ARINC Characteristics indicate to prospective manufacturers of
airline electronic equipment the considered and coordinated opinion of the airline technical
community concerning the requisites of new equipment including standardized physical and
electrical characteristics to foster interchangeability and competition.
b) ARINC Specifications—Are principally used to define either the physical packaging or
mounting of avionics equipment, data communication standards, or a high-level computer
language.
c) ARINC Reports—Provide guidelines or general information found by the airlines to be good
practices, often related to avionics maintenance and support.
The release of an ARINC Standard does not obligate any airline or ARINC to purchase equipment so
described, nor does it establish or indicate recognition or the existence of an operational requirement for
such equipment, nor does it constitute endorsement of any manufacturer’s product designed or built to
meet the ARINC Standard.

In order to facilitate the continuous product improvement of this ARINC Standard, two items are included
in the back of this volume:
a) An Errata Report solicits any corrections to the text or diagrams in this ARINC Standard.
b) An ARINC IA Project Initiation/Modification (APIM) form solicits any recommendations for
addition of substantive material to this volume which would be the subject of a new
Supplement.

ii
 ARINC REPORT 668
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Goals 1
1.3 Scope 1
1.4 Related Documents 1

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2

2.1 Introduction 2
2.2 Airline Operator 2
2.3 Airframe/Engine Manufacturer 2
2.4 Component Manufacturer 2
2.5 Repair Facilities 3
3.0 BASIS OF EQUIVALENCY 4
3.1 Introduction 4
3.2 TTE Categories 4

4.0 PROCESSES 5
4.1 Introduction 5
4.2 Equivalency Program Attributes 5
4.3 Process Attributes 5
4.4 TTE Equivalency Determination Process 5
4.4.1 Source Data 5
4.4.1.1 Collect Available Source Documentation 5
4.4.1.2 Extract Task-Specific Data 5
4.4.2 Requirements 5
4.4.2.1 Define/Refine Task and Tool Requirements 5
4.4.2.2 Define Alternate Tool Requirements 6
4.4.3 Selection 6
4.4.4 Application 6
4.4.5 Substantiation Process 6
4.4.5.1 Compare Recommended vs. Alternate 6
4.4.5.2 Verify Alternate Tool 6
4.4.6 Check TTE Substantiation 6
4.4.7 Equivalency Technical Data File 6
4.4.8 Release to User 6
5.0 EXAMPLES 7
5.1 Introduction 7
5.2 Appendix A – Mechanical Alignment Fixture 7
5.3 Appendix B – Avionics Test Equipment 7
5.4 Appendix C – Mechanical Test Fixture 7
ATTACHMENTS

1 Glossary 8
2 Equivalency Process Attributes Check List 9
3 Tooling and Test Equipment Equivalency Determination Process 10
4 TTE Equivalency Determination Check List 11
5 TTE Equivalency Certificate 12

APPENDICES

A Example of Mechanical Alignment Fixture 13

B Example of Avionics Test Equipment 26
C Example of Mechanical Test Fixture 32

ARINC Standard - Errata Report

ARINC IA Project Initiation /Modification (APIM) Guidelines for Submittal

iii
 ARINC REPORT 668 - Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview process may be used to establish the equivalency to any

OEM-recommended tool or device.
Air Transport Association (ATA) documents and
regulatory agencies have long provided for the use of In those instances where the airline or repair station uses
“equivalents” in lieu of an Original Equipment the OEM recommended equipment, no proof of
Manufacturer’s (OEM’s) recommended tool and test equivalency is necessary.
equipment (TTE), and related procedures. They have not,
however, provided significant guidance as to what If during a TTE equivalency process it becomes necessary
constitutes this equivalency. In general, functional to alter a test procedure, consult ARINC Report 625:
equivalency constitutes a task implementation that results Quality Management Process for Test Procedure
in the same or better results using alternative equipment Generation.
as when using equipment recommended by the OEM. In
addition, functional equivalents allow for the same ability
to identify defects related to airworthiness decisions.
Are you
performing a task
In the absence of any significant industry standard or in a
guidance, each airline and repair station has had to derive CMM/AMM
their own procedures to develop and document the
functional equivalencies they have employed. The Select Equipment
YES per Repair Station
resulting variety of processes and documentation has NO
Practices
resulted in uncertain results from regulatory agency
reviews and, in many instances, significant work and Is there a
rework by Airlines and Repair Stations to meet regulatory specific tool
agency requirements. called
out by OEM

FAA Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin, HBAW 00-

YES
20A, provided guidance to FAA inspectors for evaluating
airline and repair station equivalency determination
processes. Proposed FAA Order 8300.10 chapter entitled No Additional
Use OEM Documentation
Special Equipment and Test Apparatus will define Recommended YES Required
expectations for airlines and repair stations evaluating tool?
equivalencies.
NO
For the purposes of this document, TTE is defined as any
tooling, test apparatus, or other devices that provides a
Substantiation,
means of testing, measuring, or aiding in maintaining Evaluation and
aircraft or components during maintenance procedures as Documentation
outlined and required by a controlling document. required per
ARINC 668

1.2 Goals Figure 1: ARINC 668 Applicability Diagram

The goals of ARINC 668 are:
1.4 Related Documents
• To provide uniform guidance for airlines and repair
stations in developing their processes and ARINC Report 625: Quality Management Process for
documentation for determining functional Test Procedure Generation
equivalence of TTE and related procedures used in
maintaining aircraft and their associated components ATA Spec 100: Specification for Manufacturers'
that applies to both generic and application specific Technical Data
equipment.
ATA iSpec 2200: Information Standards for Aviation
• To define the roles and responsibilities for the Maintenance
organizations involved.
FAA Order 8300.10: Airworthiness Inspector’s
1.3 Scope Handbook
This document provides guidelines for the process used to
establish the equivalency of TTE and related procedures
other than that recommended by the OEM. Figure 1 is
provided to assist in establishing when an equivalency
determination is necessary. Primarily, this report is
concerned with equipment specified or recommended for
the purpose of performing specific tasks concerning the
airworthiness of an article (e.g., avionics, hydraulics,
pneumatics, mechanical devices, etc). However, this
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 2
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Introduction
Airline operators, airframe manufacturers, engine
manufacturers, component manufacturers, and repair
facilities all have a vested interest in efficiently
documenting and demonstrating TTE equivalency. This
section describes the expected roles and responsibilities of
each group throughout the equivalency process.
In the case of an altered article, the organization
providing the design authority for the alteration is
considered the OEM.
2.2 Airline Operator
Each airline operator is ultimately responsible for the
continued airworthiness of their aircraft. As such, they are
responsible to ensure that any organization performing
maintenance on that aircraft, engine, or component parts
follows the processes and procedures defined in their
continued airworthiness program as approved by their
local regulatory agency. Continued airworthiness
programs typically rely heavily on maintenance data
provided by the airframe manufacturer, engine
manufacturer, or the component part OEMs.
It is the responsibility of each operator to ensure that their
continued airworthiness program contains appropriate
processes and procedures to adequately document and
demonstrate the necessary equivalency whenever that
operator’s maintenance practices deviate from those
defined in the manufacturer’s maintenance
documentation.
In the case of equipment selected and contracted for by
the operator, it is also the operator’s responsibility to
ensure that such contracts include provisions for
maintenance data sufficient to support that operator’s
continued airworthiness program, including data
appropriate for determining equivalency. For repairable
components, this data should be included as an integral
part of an ATA 100/2200 compliant manual.
COMMENTARY
Equipment selected and contracted for by the
operator is generally referred to as Buyer
Furnished Equipment (BFE) or Seller Purchased
Equipment (SPE).
2.3 Airframe/Engine Manufacturer
The airframe and engine manufacturers have the overall
responsibility to ensure that the airline operators are
provided all necessary information to support the aircraft
and those systems and equipment selected and procured
by the airframe or engine manufacturer.
COMMENTARY
Equipment selected and contracted for by the
airframe manufacturer is generally referred to as
Seller Furnished Equipment (SFE).
It is the airframe or engine manufacturer’s responsibility
to ensure that adequate information is available to fully
define the requirements of the maintenance task specified
in the maintenance documentation of that manufacturer.
This information should be sufficient to allow operators
to select alternative equipment.
These requirements should include:
• Key characteristics of form, fit and function
• The parameter or value being measured
• The nominal value of the measurement
• The tolerances and accuracies required for the task
• Any special considerations that are required
• Currently procurable TTE that meet the required
specifications
• Statement in maintenance documentation to allow
equivalent TTE where possible
Note: This information also applies to apparatus that
induces a stimulus.
In the case where such maintenance documentation does
not fully define the requirements for the original task and
TTE, the airframe or engine manufacturers should ensure
that any other needed information is provided.
It is also the airframe or engine manufacturer’s
responsibility to ensure that each selected OEM of a
component part provides such information for each piece
of maintenance equipment specified in the maintenance
documentation for its component(s).
Where possible, the information necessary to establish
equivalency should be contained in the appropriate
industry standard maintenance documentation. When this
is not practical, it is the airframe or engine manufacturer’s
responsibility to ensure that the necessary information is
available to operators on request.
2.4 Component Manufacturer
It is the component manufacturer’s responsibility to
ensure that adequate information is available to fully
define the requirements of the maintenance task specified
in the maintenance documentation of that manufacturer.
Such maintenance documentation should include the
necessary information as discussed in Section 2.3.
The component manufacturers should assure that task
requirements are not overstated. Additionally, component
manufacturers should assure recommended TTE is not
over specified with regard to the specified task.
The aircraft or component manufacturer should ensure
that if a change occurs in the source documentation that
impacts existing return to service (RTS) testing, then this
change should be reflected with the Component
Maintenance Manual (CMM) or Aircraft Maintenance
Manual (AMM).
2.5 Repair Facilities
In general, repair stations and other maintenance facilities
perform maintenance activities directly for operators.
Such maintenance is governed by the contracting
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 3

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

operator’s work orders and comes under that operator’s

continued airworthiness maintenance program. Should the
maintenance facility utilize alternate TTE, then it is the
maintenance facility’s responsibility to provide adequate
documentation to satisfy the equivalency requirements of
the contracting operator’s continued airworthiness
maintenance program.
In those instances where a repair facility is performing
maintenance not covered by an operator’s continued
airworthiness maintenance program, the repair facility
should follow the manufacturer’s documentation for that
component. In the event that the facility uses alternate
TTE, then it is the repair facility’s responsibility to have
in place the necessary processes and procedures to
adequately document and demonstrate the equivalency of
such alternate TTE.
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 4
3.0 BASIS OF EQUIVALENCY
3.1 Introduction
Often the airline operators and repair stations are required
to determine equivalency when the TTE recommended by
the OEM exceeds the task requirements by a significant
margin. In such cases, the selection of alternate TTE
should be based on meeting the original maintenance task
requirement, rather than showing equivalency to the
OEM-recommended TTE. Therefore, this document was
written to address the equivalency based on a specific
task, a group of tasks, applications, or group of
applications (i.e., for task XYZ, meter B can be
substituted for meter A).
COMMENTARY
During the development of this document, the group
discussed the various processes to determine
equivalency. It was established that two separate
basic equivalency processes exist:
1. Determine that the alternate TTE and related
procedures meet the requirements of the specific
task or group of tasks at hand - substitution
approved for specified tasks only
2. Determine that the alternate TTE and related
procedures are equivalent (identical) to the
original recommendation - global substitution
The group determined that the only way a global
substitution can be authorized is if each and every
application of the original tool was analyzed, and a
determination made that the alternate tool would
meet the requirements of each application. It was felt
that this situation was unachievable.
In those instances where the airline or repair station uses
the OEM recommended equipment, no proof of
equivalency is necessary. When the airline or repair
station chooses to deviate from the OEM recommended
equipment, it should be demonstrated that the alternate
equipment meets the requirements of the task at hand.
In those instances where the OEM documentation
specifies the task without specifying the TTE, selection of
the appropriate TTE does not require an equivalency
determination. As noted in Figure 1, this is a tool
selection process.
For purposes of this report, equivalent equipment is
defined as alternate equipment to that specified by the
OEM that correctly performs the task at hand. Equivalent
equipment should be:
• Verified to be functionally equivalent to the OEM
specified equipment (produces the required results)
for the task at hand
• Capable of testing/checking specified parameters,
physical properties and critical processes (to required
accuracy, tolerance or standards) for the task at hand
• Applied in a manner to provide the required accuracy
or result
• Supported by sufficient technical documentation
• Documented and controlled by an approved
maintenance program
3.2 TTE Categories
The following categories have been defined for the
purposes of equivalency determination:
Category 1 – Generic TTE, not specified by source
documentation
This category includes commercial off the shelf tools and
other equipment that are not specified by part number
(e.g., screwdrivers, wrenches, and hammers). This may
include common usage tools or items used as an aid to
facilitate maintenance that do not affect the airworthiness
of an article. No specific equivalency documentation is
required.
Category 2 – Generic TTE, task specific
This category includes commercial off the shelf (COTS)
tools and other equipment specified by part number,
drawing or physical parameters, where the alternate
equipment can be shown to produce the same results in
the specific task (e.g., multimeters, micrometers, torque
wrenches, signal generators, crimping tools). Limited
equivalency documentation is required.
Category 3 – Special TTE, sufficient technical
information available
This category includes TTE that is designed solely for
performing specific tasks (e.g., terrain collision avoidance
system (TCAS) custom signal generator, automatic test
equipment (ATE), acceptance test fixture, removal and
installation equipment, rigging fixtures, and measurement
fixtures). The TTE design is per the OEM’s technical
information. Equivalence is based on meeting the OEM’s
task requirements and correlating the alternate TTE result
with the OEM required result.
Category 4 – TTE, sufficient technical information not
available
This category includes both generic and special
equipment required for performing specific tasks where
the data is insufficient to define the task requirements or
TTE capabilities. The alternate TTE design is based on
requirements derived from airline or repair station
technical information. Equivalence is based on meeting
the derived requirements and correlating the alternate
TTE result with the OEM required result.

4.0 PROCESSES
4.1 Introduction
This section defines a recommended process to determine
if alternate TTE is suitable to be used in place of the
OEM specified equipment for the task at hand. The
process described in this section should be applied to
Category 2, 3 and 4 TTE. The process details are
documented below.
The inclusion of Category 1 TTE in the airline or repair
station’s process is left to the discretion of the user.
COMMENTARY
For simple tasks, a relatively small number of points
of equivalency need to be established to document
that the alternate TTE are suitable. Complex tasks
may require thousands of points of equivalency to be
established. This may require documentation that
each test step is implemented, that the TTE chosen
has the accuracy required, and is applied in a manner
that achieves the desired result.
A complex piece of equipment may consist of
elements of any Category 1 through 4. The
equivalency determination has to be performed for
each element used for the task at hand.
4.2 Equivalency Program Attributes
The following are the recommended program-level
attributes:
• Prioritization of effort
• Implementation schedule
• Define organization(s) responsible for determining
equivalence
- Roles and responsibilities defined for each
organizational element
- Define qualifications for personnel authorized to
determine equivalency
• Process fully documented within the MRO
organization
• Process linked to Quality Management System
(QMS)
- QMS should refer to the TTE equivalency
process
- QMS should define how the external suppliers
comply with the equivalency process
Attachment 2 provides a checklist to assist in evaluating
equivalency program and process attributes.
4.3 Process Attributes
The repair facility process documentation should define
the following:
• Policy, purpose, and scope of the equivalency
process
• How process is maintained and updated
• Process problem reporting and corrective action
• Requirements Development
- How incomplete requirements are supplemented
- How over-specified requirements are corrected
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 5
- Calibration/maintenance requirements
- Define/derive requirements for the alternate TTE
- Validation requirements for the alternate TTE
• The procedure for updating the source document for
allowing use of the alternate TTE
• Procedure for adapting alternate TTE operating
procedure if required
• Equivalency Technical Data File
• TTE equivalency certificate
• How alternate TTE will be identified
• Process to ensure alternate TTE continues to meet
evolving requirements
4.4 TTE Equivalency Determination Process
Attachment 3 provides a diagram of the recommended
process and data flow for equivalency determination.
Attachment 4 provides a checklist to assist in performing
TTE equivalency determinations.
4.4.1 Source Data
4.4.1.1 Collect available source documentation
• Maintenance task – High level description of
maintenance task at hand (e.g., Airworthiness
Directives, Maintenance Planning Document)
• Task source documents – Specific instructions on
how to implement the maintenance task (e.g., CMM,
AMM, Engine Manual (EM), task card, service
bulletin)
• Recommended TTE specifications – Characteristics
of original TTE (e.g., specifications, schematics,
drawings, supplier catalogs)
4.4.1.2 Extract Task-Specific Data
Extract task data from maintenance task and task source
documentation for which equivalence is being
established. Extract task specific TTE characteristics from
callout and recommended TTE specification
documentation.
4.4.2 Requirements
4.4.2.1 Define/Refine Task and Tool Requirements
Define or refine task, and TTE requirements necessary to
accomplish the maintenance task. Identify and resolve
any incomplete or over-specified requirements.
The output of this process step is the set of Derived Task
and Tool Requirements.
COMMENTARY
For Category 4 TTE, where inadequate information
exists to establish the basis of equivalence, a variety
of techniques may be employed to provide sufficient
data to allow the declaration of equivalence.
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 6

4.0 PROCESSES

4.4.2.1 Define/Refine Task and Tool Requirements
(cont’d)
Data used to substantiate the equivalence declaration
may include, but are not limited to empirical data
such as test results files, unit histories, Line
Replaceable Unit (LRU) reliability information,
airplane system maintenance and performance data,
and spot checks/inspections used to document the
successful operation of the system. Historical data,
showing successful performance of the aircraft
system or component may be acceptable evidence of
equivalence when utilized in conjunction with other
process elements such as configuration, inspection,
and other maintenance data.
4.4.5.2 Verify Alternate Tool
Verify that the alternate TTE performs the required task
using the validation requirements defined in Section
4.4.2.
The output of this process step is the set of Verification
Results.
4.4.6 Check TTE Substantiation
Determine if the TTE substantiation successfully meets
the requirements. If it does, proceed with Section 4.4.7,
Equivalency Technical Data File. If it does not, revise as
required and repeat the process.

It is strongly suggested that for each Category 4 TTE
condition, a specific plan be developed defining the
available data, what processes will be used to
develop the supplementary data, and how that data
will be utilized to substantiate the declaration of
equivalency.
4.4.2.2 Define Alternate Tool Requirements
Define the alternate TTE requirements necessary to
perform the maintenance task.
The output of this process step is the set of Alternate Tool
Requirements.
COMMENTARY
Alternate tool requirements may include user
specific needs (e.g., 50 Hz power, health, safety,
and environmental issues).
4.4.3 Selection
Obtain the alternate TTE required to perform the
maintenance task. The TTE may be:
• Chosen from the operator’s existing set of TTE
• Commercial off the shelf (COTS)
• Procured per a specification determined from the
alternate TTE requirements
• Built by the operator
4.4.4 Application
4.4.7 Equivalency Technical Data File
Document the alternate TTE equivalency. Depending on
the category and complexity of the TTE, the data may
include but is not limited to the following:
• Derived Task and Tool Requirements (Section 4.4.2)
- Documented TTE critical characteristics
• Alternate Tool Requirements (Section 4.4.2)
• Alternate Tool Specifications and Procedures
(Section 4.4.4)
- Application Procedures (e.g., revised shop
procedures)
- Maintenance Processes
- Metrology Requirements
• Completed TTE equivalency process checklist
• Result of substantiation process (Section 4.4.5)
- TTE Comparison Analysis Report (Section
4.4.5.1)
- Verification and validation data
• TTE equivalency certificate
Attachment 5 provides a TTE Equivalency Certificate.
4.4.8 Release to User
Provide updated documentation and alternate TTE to the
user. This documentation may include:
• Revised maintenance document(s)
• Reference to TTE equivalency data
• TTE maintenance instructions

Define or modify the task procedure to use the selected

alternate TTE. Document any necessary maintenance and
metrology requirements for the selected alternate TTE. If
it becomes necessary to alter a complex test procedure,
ARINC 625 should be consulted.

The output of this process step is the set of Alternate Tool

Specifications and Procedures.

4.4.5 Substantiation Process

4.4.5.1 Compare Recommended vs. Alternate

Compare the recommended TTE and task requirements
against the alternate TTE application and capability.
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 7

5.0 EXAMPLES

5.1 Introduction Appendix C contains a sub-set of the documents that

would be included in an equivalency technical data file
Examples are provided to demonstrate how to use the for a simple device.
recommended process and how it may be altered to
accommodate local policies and specific TTE.
Attachment 4 is general guidance and may be modified
as needed.

5.2 Appendix A – Mechanical Alignment Fixture

This example describes a case of an equivalency

determination where the original OEM recommended
equipment is an OEM-designed assembly fixture. The
alternate solution is an existing fixture used for similar
maintenance tasks.

The alternate fixture used in this example is based on

CMM data and represents TTE Category 3. Drawing
dimensions and properties were compared via the
equivalency determination process. The task was
successfully performed using the applicable aircraft
parts. No change to the task was necessary.

Appendix A contains a complete set of the documents

that would be included in an equivalency technical data
file for a simple device.

5.3 Appendix B – Avionics Test Equipment

This example describes a case of an equivalency

determination where the original OEM test solution is
an OEM specific ATE. The alternate test solution
developed is a manual tester based on CMM
information, OEM ATE information and an ATLAS
test specification.

The test setup used in this example is based on CMM

data and represents in total a Category 3 application. It
consists of a test box (Category 3) that has been
designed and fabricated in-house and includes standard
shop test equipment (Category 2) also used in various
other applications.

Appendix B contains a limited portion of the

documents that would be included in a complete
equivalency technical data file. For purposes of this
example, the reference documents have not been
included.

5.4 Appendix C – Mechanical Test Fixture

This example describes a case of an equivalency

determination where the original OEM recommended
equipment is an OEM-designed test fixture. The
alternate solution is functionally equivalent to the
OEM-recommended fixture.

The alternate fixture used in this example is a local-

design tool based on CMM data and OEM drawings
representing TTE Category 3. Analysis showed the
accuracy of the alternate TTE to be equal to or better
than the OEM-recommended fixture. The maintenance
task was revised and successfully performed using the
applicable aircraft parts.
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 8

ATTACHMENT 1
GLOSSARY

AMM Aircraft Maintenance Manual

ATA Air Transport Association

ATE Automatic Test Equipment

ATLAS Abbreviated Test Language for Avionics Systems

BFE Buyer Furnished Equipment

CMM Component Maintenance Manual - A collection of data defining the physical mechanical,
electrical and electronic characteristics of a unit to be tested. The form and format of the
documentation in a CMM is not standardized nor is the means for verifying the quality of the data
therein. CMMs may contain test specification or procedures written in ATLAS or other test
executives.

COTS Commercial Off The Shelf

EM Engine Manual

LRU Line Replaceable Unit - A unit which is designated by the plan for maintenance to be removed
from a larger entity (equipment/system) in the latter operational environment.

MRO Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer – In this document, OEMs are referred to as those entities that
own the source documentation.

QMS Quality Management System

RTS Return To Service - A quality assessment which states that a unit is ready to be installed in the
assembly or system for which it was designed and will operate within acceptable specified
parameters.

SFE Seller Furnished Equipment

SPE Seller Purchased Equipment

TTE Tool and Test Equipment

Validation The process of evaluating the equivalency of the TTE to ensure compliance with the functional,
performance and interface requirements of the task. This includes evaluating products to ensure
compliance with specified requirements, and demonstration by actual performance that the TTE
solution fulfills the requirements of the task.

Verification The process of determining whether or not the product of each phase of the TTE equivalency
process fulfills the requirements established by the previous phase. Verification also requires
evaluating the products of each phase to ensure correctness and consistency with respect to the
products and standards provided as input to that phase.
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 9

ATTACHMENT 2
EQUIVALENCY PROCESS ATTRIBUTES CHECK LIST

Organization:

List of the documents that control the local TTE equivalency process:
1.
2.
3.

Do the process documents define: Yes No

1. Policy, purpose, and scope of the equivalency process?
2. Prioritization of efforts?
3. The implementation schedule?
4. Roles and responsibilities of the organizations / personnel involved?
5. Qualifications for the personnel involved?
6. The links to the local quality management system?
7. The equivalency process for internally manufactured alternate TTE?
8. The equivalency process for procured alternate TTE?
9. How the process is maintained and updated?
10. Problem reporting and corrective action procedures for TTE Equivalency?
11. How incomplete requirements are supplemented?
12. How over-specified requirements are corrected?
13. How calibration requirements for alternate TTE are developed?
14. How maintenance requirements for alternate TTE are developed?
15. How derived requirements are documented?
16. How source documents are updated for alternate TTE?
17. How alternate TTE operating procedures are created or adapted?
18. How equivalency documentation is filed?
19. A TTE equivalency certificate?
20. A method to identify the alternate TTE?
21. How equivalency is updated for alternate TTE?

Note: ARINC Report 668, Sections 4.2 and 4.3 provide additional information.

Provide explanation for “No” responses here:

Evaluation completed by: Date:

ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 10

ATTACHMENT 3
TOOLING AND TEST EQUIPMENT EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION PROCESS

4.4.1 Source D ata

4.4.1.1
M ain ten anc e T as k

4.4.1.1
4.4.1.1
E xtrac t T ask-sp ecific A ctiv itie s
T ask S ou rc e D oc um en t
D ata

4.4.1.1
R ec om m en d ed T T E
S p ec ific ation Info rm atio n

4.4.2 R equirem ents

4.4.2.1 4.4.2.2 A lternate TTE
D efin e/R ef in e T as k D efin e altern ate T T E R equirem ents
an d T T E R eq u irem en ts R eq u irem en ts

4.4.3 Selection D erived Task

O btain A ltern ate T T E and TTE
(B u y, B uild, C h oos e) R equirem ents

4.4.4 A pplication
D efin e altern ate T T E A lternate TTE
A p plic ation P roc edures, Specifications
M ain ten anc e P roc es s es
and Procedures
an d M etrolog y R eq uirem en ts

4.4.5 Substantiation Process

4.4.5.1 C om parison
C om p are T T E an d T ask
A nalysis R eport
R eq u irem en ts vs. A lternate T T E
S p ec ific ations and P roc ed ures

4.4.5.2
V erif y A ltern ate T T E p erf orm s Verification
M ain ten anc e T as k R esults

NO 4.4.6
S u bs tan tiation
succ ess ful?
4.4.7
YE S Equivalency
Technical D ata
File
4.4.8
R elea s e to U s er
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 11

ATTACHMENT 4
TTE EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION CHECKLIST

ATA Chapter / Work Card / Manual Affected ________________________________________________

Fleet Type / Engine / System Affected ____________________________________________________

OEM Recommended Selected Alternative TTE

Description
Manufacturer name
Manufacturer part number

ARINC 668 Checklist Item Yes N/A Documentation

Reference References
Source Data
4.4.1.1 Available maintenance task data (high level) collected
4.4.1.1 Task source data collected
4.4.1.1 Recommended TTE specification source data collected
4.4.1.2 Task-specific data extracted
Requirements
4.4.2.1 Task and TTE requirements defined/refined
4.4.2.1 Task and TTE requirements documented
4.4.2.2 Alternate TTE requirements defined
4.4.2.2 Alternate TTE requirements documented
Selection
4.4.3 Alternate tool source (buy, build) selected
Application
4.4.4 Alternate TTE application procedures/maintenance processes
defined
4.4.4 Alternate tool specifications and procedures documented
Substantiation
4.4.5.1 TTE and task requirements to alternate TTE application and
capability compared
4.4.5.2 Verification of the alternate TTE to the maintenance task
performed
4.4.5.2 Verification results documented
4.4.6 Successful substantiation verified
Documentation
4.4.7 Alternate TTE equivalency documented
4.4.7 TTE Equivalency Certificate
Release to User
4.4.8 Revised user documentation and TTE released for service.

Comments:

Prepared by: __________________________________ Date: ____________________

 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 12

ATTACHMENT 5
TTE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: _____________

DATE: ___________________
VERSION: _______________

ATA Chapter / Work Card / Manual Affected _________________________________

Fleet Type / Engine / System Affected _____________________________________

OEM Recommended Selected Alternative TTE

Description
Manufacturer name
Manufacturer part number

Revision Sensitive Source Documents: The following documents are revision sensitive documents that may
affect the continued equivalency of the TTE if they are revised. If any of the revision sensitive source
documents are updated or revised the technical Data file [should/must] be review to verify continued
equivalency conformance.

ATA Description Date/Revision Comment

STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENCE: The TTE equipment described above has been determined to
be equivalent to the manufactures recommended equipment for the task specified in the CMM and/or
modified CMM.

Engineered by:

Verified by:

Approved by:

For questions about this TTE or the Equivalency Technical Data File that supports it, contact :

Name:
Organization:
Organization Address:
Phone No.:
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 13

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE

Tool Description
Fixture, Alignment
OEM Recommended Tool Part Number
AGE 13566
Task Description
Assemble Housing components into heated housing at 325 deg. F
Fleet Type/Engine/System Affected
Embraer ERJ-170 Electric Power Generating System
ATA Chapter/Work Card/Manual Affected
CMM 24-17-52
Equivalent Tool/ Task Rational (Cost, Commonality, Availability, Timing, Safety, Efficiency etc.)
Fixture FXT09495 currently in place and used on equivalent housing for Bombardier CRJ-700

Reference Element No Yes N/A

Document
Source Data -- -- --
Maintenance task data (high level) collected X
Task source data collected X
Recommended tool specification source data collected X
Task-specific data extracted X
Task/Tool has operator hazards identified X
Requirements -- -- --
Documented tool and task requirements and usage -- -- --
Tool Use Identified -- -- --
Dimensional Testing or Analysis X
Structural Testing (Strength, Material integrity) X
Component Transport or Holding X
Procedural (Assembly, Disassembly, Repair) X
Task -- -- --
Defined alternate tool task impact X
Documented alternate tool requirements X
Selection -- -- --
Selected alternate tool source (buy, build) X
Application -- -- --
Defined alternate tool application procedures/maintenance X
processes.
Documented alternate tool specifications and procedures X
Substantiation -- -- --
Compared tool and task requirements to alternate tool X
application and capability
Dimensional Analysis and Geometric Tolerancing X
Human Factors (Size, Weight, Safety) X
Properties
Chemical (Compatibility, Reactivity) X
Optical (Clarity, Color, Distortion, Magnification) X
Mechanical /Metallurgical (Hardness, Finish, Flexibility, X
Strength Non-Sparking)
Electrical (Insulating, Conductivity, Static generating / X
dissipating)
Thermal (Insulating, Conductivity) X
Magnetic (Non-Magnetic, polarization) X
Acoustic X
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 14

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE

Nuclear (Source, Standard, Type) X

Validation -- -- --
Performed validation of the alternate tool to the maintenance X
task
Sample Size Adequate (See Comments) X
Correlation obtained X
Documented validation results X
Verified successful substantiation X
Documentation -- -- --
Documented alternate tool and task equivalency X
Alternate Tool marked and configuration managed X
Release -- -- --
Released equivalency documentation and tool for service X
Released modified Task X

Comments:
All Critical Dimensions of alternate tool FXT09496 Revision A were compared to recommended tool and
determined to be of the same or greater accuracy and geometric tolerancing. Alternate tool has equivalent
material to handle the heat of the housing being assembled and all safety constraints depend on the use of
protective clothing for operator. Stability of the alternate tool in use is the same as that of the recommended
tool.
There are no modifications to the task as described in the CMM 24-17-51 Rev 1 06/15/02 required.
A validation of the alternate tool was performed on a single sample of the Housing S/N 12345, on April 1,
2002 and all performance criteria were met. The alternate tool was properly marked and entered into the
configuration management system as an alternate for AGE 13566 Rev Basic.

Prepared by
I.B. An engineer
Date
May 1, 2002
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 15

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE

Task Description

Page 15 of 11
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 16

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 17

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE

Task Description

Page 17 of 11
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 18

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 19
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
Alternate Tool
Page 19 of 11
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 20
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 21
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
Recommended Tool
Page 21 of 11
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 22
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 23
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
Recommended Tool
Page 23 of 11
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 24
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 25
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL ALIGNMENT FIXTURE
Recommended Tool
Page 25 of 11
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 26

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT

ATA Chapter / Work Card / Manual Affected CMM 34-22-66

Fleet Type / Engine / System Affected B737-300/-500

OEM Recommended Selected Alternative TTE

Description EFIC-701 ICU on ITS-700 Test EFIC-701D Dedicated Tester
Station and various Cat 2 Shop Test
Equipment
Manufacturer name Rockwell Collins LHT
Manufacturer part number ITS-700 53 279 9545

ARINC 668 Checklist Item Yes N/A Documentation

Reference References
Source Data
4.4.1.1 Available maintenance task data (high level) collected X CMM 34-22-66 dated
May 15/86 3rd revision,
Nov 28/96
4.4.1.1 Task source data collected X see above
4.4.1.1 Recommended TTE specification source data collected X see above
4.4.1.2 Task-specific data extracted X see above
Requirements
4.4.2.1 Task and TTE requirements defined/refined X Test Substantiation
Document No. 1234
4.4.2.1 Task and TTE requirements documented X see above
4.4.2.2 Alternate TTE requirements defined X see above
4.4.2.2 Alternate TTE requirements documented X see above
Selection
4.4.3 Alternate tool source (buy, build) selected X see above,
Test Box Drawing
No. 53 342 9545
Application
4.4.4 Alternate TTE application procedures/maintenance processes X Cal. Requirements Doc.
defined No. BMH 53 342 9545
and Test Substantation
Document No. 12343
4.4.4 Alternate tool specifications and procedures documented X see above
Substantiation
4.4.5.1 TTE and task requirements to alternate TTE application and X see above
capability compared
4.4.5.2 Verification of the alternate TTE to the maintenance task X see above
performed
4.4.5.2 Verification results documented X see above
4.4.6 Successful substantiation verified X see above
Documentation
4.4.7 Alternate TTE equivalency documented X see above
4.4.7 TTE Equivalency Certificate X see above
Release to User
4.4.8 Revised user documentation and TTE released for service. X Test Instruction (TI)
(supplement to CMM)
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 27

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT

Comments: Recommended Test Equipment has been replaced by Test Box (Tool No. 53 342 9545,
fabricated inhouse) and standard shop equipment available: Standard 0-130 VAC Supply (2 required),
Datatrac 400 ARINC429 XMTR/RCVR, DC Pwr Supplies for 0-28VDC and Fluke 87 Digital Multimeter.

Prepared by: __________________________________ Date: ____________________

Verified by: __________________________________ Date: ____________________

ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 28

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT

TTE Substantiation Document No. 1234

1 General

1.1 LRU Data

LRU: EFIC-701D Electronic Flight Instrument Control

P/N: 622-8001-001, -003, -350, -351, -352
Vendor: Rockwell Collins Air Transport Division
FSCM: 4V792
Used on A/C: B737-300/-500
CMM: 34-22-66 dated May 15/86, 3rd Revision, Nov 28/96

1.2 LRU Functional Description

A. The EFIC-701D is a solid-state control used to provide analog and digital mode/control signals to the symbol
generator and display units of an Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS), to a flight management computer
system, and to a weather radar system in the aircraft.
B. The EFIC-701D receives discrete analog control inputs, provides discrete outputs for mode indication and an
ARINC 429 output (odd parity) which contains following control word information:
• Weather radar, ARINC label 271
• EFIS discrete 1, ARINC label 272
• EFIS discrete 2, ARINC label 273
• Decision height select, ARINC label 170
• TCAS select, ARINC label 276
• Binary decision height, ARINC label 370
C. The power supply input for the EFIC-701-D is 115 VAC for the electronics and 5VAC for the lamps.
D. Variable DC input voltage to a DIM input.

1.3 TTE Source Data

The required TTE is listed in Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 34-22-66 in section “Testing and Fault
Isolation” starting on page 101. The CMM test requires an ITS-700 ATE with an EFIC-701D TPS (ICU P/N 647-
0661-001, Test Cable P/N 647-0996-007 and test software P/N 647-9800-018/019).

2 Analysis/Assessment of Test Requirements and TTE Selection

 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 29

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT

2.1 Basic TTE Requirements

Based on the information in the CMM and an ATLAS Test Specification (P/N 647-9680-106, separate document)
following basic input/output test requirements have been extracted:

LRU Pin Signal Name Requirements

1 5 VAC Lighting Hi Voltage 4.75 to 5.5 VAC, current 0.5 to 2.11 A
2 5 VAC Lighting Lo
3 115 VAC Power Hi Voltage 103, 115 and 127 VAC, current 10 to 80 mA
4 115 VAC Power Lo
5 Chassis Ground Connected to pin 16
6 BRT/DIM DC Dim voltage 12 to 28 VDC, current 0.01 to 0.32 A
8 Lamp Test Input (switched signal to GND)
9 LOC Tuned +28 VDC switched input, no current requirement
10 MLS Tuned Input (switched signal to GND)
14 WXR On Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
15 Spare ----
16 Common reference point for all measurements, connected to pin 5 and 34
17 Full ILS Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
18 Full VOR Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
19 PLAN Mode Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
20 VOR Mode Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
21 ILS Mode Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
22 MAP Mode Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
23 CTR MAP Mode Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
24 NAV Mode Discrete output (Low = -0.25 to + 0.25 V; High = > 4.0 to 6.0 VDC)
25 HSI Stroke Wiper Full ccw and cw potentiometer outputs have to be measured, this is achieved by
applying 5 +-0.25 VDC between High and Low
26 HSI Stroke Low The wiper voltage is: Full CCW = -0.05 to +0.05 VDC ;
27 HSI Stroke High Full CW = 4.95 to 5.50 VDC
28 HSI Raster Wiper
29 HSI Raster Low Same as for HSI Stroke
30 HSI Raster High
31 ADI Wiper
32 ADI Low Same as for HSI Stroke
33 ADI High
34 DC Ground Connected to pin 16
35 ARINC 429 ”B” ARINC 429 reader, bit display of labels 170, 271, 272, 273,
36 ARINC 429 ”A” 276, 370
37 NAV ORIENT Input (switched signal to GND)
38 VOR/ILS ORIENT Input (switched signal to GND)
39 MAP ORIENT Input (switched signal to GND)
40 RA ALERT RESET Input (switched signal to GND)
7, 11-13, Spare
41

Note: The test method to verify discrete output function is equivalent to the test implementation on ITS-700.
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 30

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT

2.2 TTE Selection

A. The analysis of the EFIC701-D schematic and the ATE test procedure delivers sufficient information for an
equivalent test solution using a locally fabricated adapter box, standard power supplies, digital multimeter for
voltage and current measurements and an ARINC429 reader. For details see drawing number 53 275 9530 sheets
1 and 2.
B. The adapter box contains a 5 VDC and a 15 VDC power supply realized by LM317 voltage regulator ICs:
• 5 VDC is used for potentiometer measurements and supply LEDs which are activated by UUT discrete
outputs.
• 15 VDC is used for a power interrupt circuit that simulates power interrupts of 100, 200 and 500ms +- 5 ms.
A standard timer IC (7555) is used to activate a relay circuit to interrupt power.
C. The ARINC429 signals are displayed with a Datatrac 400 ARINC429-Transmitter/Receiver, tool number 52 663
9832.
D. Variable 0 – 115/0 – 26 VAC Power Supply (Variac) for 115 VAC and 5 VAC, tool number 52 885 3829 (2
required).
E. DC Power Supply, Oltronix Lab_Pac B703 (tool number 52 887 7755), used for DC inputs.
F. A Fluke 87 digital multimeter, tool number 52 332 5634 was selected to perform voltage and current
measurements.

2.3 Development of Equivalent Test Procedure

A manual test procedure was developed based on the information of the ATLAS test specification and the ITS-700
test procedure. The test sequence is equivalent to this procedure and the individual test steps of the automatic tests are
referenced in the manual procedure.
(see Test Instruction Document as a supplement to the CMM).
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 31

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF AVIONICS TEST EQUIPMENT

3 TTE Summary

Following table summarizes the TTE required by CMM versus the selected TTE and Category.

ITEM IDENTIFICATION SOURCE TTE SELECTED Cat

ATE ITS-700 Rockwell Collins Locally fabricated Test Box 3
(Ref. 53 275 9530)
ICU EFIC-701D Rockwell Collins See above 3
Test Software Test Program Rockwell Collins Source Information for 3
P/N 826-5259-203 Manual Test Procedure
ATLAS Test P/N 647-9680-106 Rockwell Collins Source Information for 3
Specification Manual Test Procedure
Digital 3455A HP Fluke 87 Digital Multimeter 2
Multimeter (Ref. 52 332 5634)
ARINC Receiver not defined Part of ATE Datatrac 400 2
(Ref. 52 663 9832)
AC Power not defined Part of ATE Standard 0-130 VAC Supply 2
Supply
DC Power not defined Part of ATE Oltronix Lab_Pac B703 2
Supply (Ref. 52 887 7755)

4 Substantiation Process

The complete test setup was checked for correct and complete functionality following the CMM section “Testing and
Fault Isolation” on pages 101 thru 129. Test demonstration was performed with one serviceable LRU of all versions
(P/N 622-8001-001, -003, -350, -351, -352). No procedural problems were noted and all individual test steps
performed successfully.

5 Release to Service

The following TTE items have been released to service and are part of this substantiation:

• EFIC-701D Electronic Flight Instrument Control Adapter Box tool No. 53 342 9545.
• Calibration requirements Doc. No. BMH 53 342 9545.
• Test Instruction Document as a Supplement to the CMM that references all other equipments required for test
and a test procedure equivalent to CMM section “Testing and Fault Isolation.” The LRUs P/N 622-8001-001,
-003, -350, -351, -352 can be tested.

6 TTE Equivalency Approval

Engineer 1: Name Date Signature (performed)

Engineer 2 Name Date Signature (verified)

ARINC REPORT 668- Page 32

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

Air New Zealand

TTE EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION CHECKLIST

Request Details TO BE COMPLETED BY 'ORIGINATOR'
Equivalency Request is for: New: Replacement equipment Modification to existing equipment
ATA Chapter / Work Card / Manual / Drawing Reference: 27-81-47 / N.A / T702 / C27027, 8000106
OEM Recommended Proposed Alternative TTE
Description Boeing C27027 drawing Modify C27027 to replace DTI
Manufacturer name N/A ANZES Engineering
Manufacturer part number C27027 C27027-ANZ
Range N/A N/A
TO BE COMPLETED BY AGSE
Cross
Check Work orders / GSE manuals for similar requests Yes N/A
Check
Check carried out
ARINC 668 Documentation
Checklist Item Yes N/A
Reference References
4.4.1 Source Data
4.4.1.1 Available Source data collected Boeing DRW C27027
4.4.1.2 Task-specific data extracted CMM 27-81-47
4.4.2 Requirements
Task and TTE requirements
4.4.2.1
Identify and resolve incomplete or over-specified requirements
4.4.2.2 Alternate TTE requirements defined ANZES 8000106
4.4.3 Selection
4.4.3 Alternate tool source (buy, build) selected ANZES 8000106
4.4.4 Application
Alternate TTE application procedures/maintenance processes GREEN PAGE 27-
4.4.4
defined 80-47
4.4.4 Alternate tool specifications and procedures documented T702
4.4.5 Substantiation
TTE and task requirements to alternate TTE application and
4.4.5.1 TA 190028294-0001
capability compared
DRW 8000106
Verification of the alternate TTE to the maintenance task
4.4.5.2 Released for
performed
manufacture
4.4.5.2 Calibration Required GSE T702
Trial TTE before
4.4.5.2 Verification results documented
approval
4.4.6 ACCEPTABLE SUBSTANTIATION
4.4.7 Documentation
4.4.7 Alternate TTE equivalency documented TA 190028294-0001
4.4.7 Application procedures revised PC 6003524
GSEDR 190028294-
4.4.7 TTE Certificate of compliance
0001
4.4.8 Release to User
GSEDR 190028294-
4.4.8 Documentation and TTE released for service.
0001
4.4.8 Alternate TTE inducted in to ANZES system EQ # 40021066
Comments:
Work History documented in S.A.P system Refer attached extract from Work Notification
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 33

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

Extract from Air New Zealand internal SAP system.

GODFRD 09.03.2001 14:35:33

Please produce ANNZES tool drawing to modify Boeing tool C27027-1 IAW instructions from Hymatics Tech
Cell. Proposed mod has been reviewed by AGSE group (GF) and deemed to be an acceptable process. Drawing
mod is to delete requirement for detail items dash 10 & 11 and replace with new item dash 14, which is a sliding
block. Modify dash 7 base by machining slot 11 x 0.5 inches for -14 sliding block. Proposed modification
eliminates need for expensive 12" dial indicator and uses existing verniers for measurement of actuator rod travel.
Drawing is required urgently to allow time to have unit manufactured and checked prior to next round of 737-300
C-checks. Contact D Godfrey ext. 87581

RHINDJ 20.03.2001 09:32:12

Drawing 8000106 Produced for modified version of C27027.
Released for Manufacture by GF to Dave Godfrey.
After conformance and calibration, Trial use found to be satisfactory.

RHINDJ 17.05.2001 09:09:49

GSEDR completed for equivalency and cal data for 8000106 and green page
for CMM.

PETERR 21.05.2001 16:40:18

Equivalency Approved Job Closed R. Peter 21-May-2001
 APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

GSE DR No. 190028294-0001

GSE DESIGN RECORD - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Repair Station No. ANZY188C/ANZZ188C/ANGY164F

GSE DESIGN RECORD

Equipment: Test Fixture - L.E. Slat Actuator Equipment Number: 40021066

Component Affected: Manual:

Test Fixture - L.E. Slat Actuator T702/737CMM 27-81-47[ANZES REF 27-663]

Part Number: 8000106 Serial Number: Various Customer: ANZES Aviation / Ansett Aviation

Description of Change: Equivalency of ANZES 8000106 to Boeing C27027 and cal data for ANZES 8000106

Data Accepted by this GSE DR:

Document Number Type Part Ver Description

6003524 PC 000 00 APPROVAL OF C27027-ANZ/8000106
8000106 GDR 000 - TEST FIXTURE - L.E. SLAT ACTUATOR
Technical Assessment:

Refer to TA 190028294-0001 with 2 attachment(s).

Prepared By: J Rhind44677

Checked By: G Frater 44196

Instructions for Publications:

Refer PC6003524_TMA

Design Change Acceptance subject to the following Conditions & Limitations: Validity Period: Date/Cycles/Hours

N/A
Terminating Action: Nil

Status: Permanent Classification: Minor

Customer Acceptance Required: No Reference No. 90022081

Signed: Date:

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the Ground Support Equipment design/design change/procedure defined above complies with the applicable
standards, regulations and requirements as listed in the Technical Assessment, has no unsafe features, and is fit for use.

Signed for, and on behalf of, The Quality Assurance Manager :

Date:
 RINC R PORT 668 Page 35

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
No. 190028294-0001

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Equivalency of ANZES 8000106 to Boeing C27027

ATTACHMENTS
A. Specifications for Starrett extra long range dial indicator Model # 656-12041J. [1 Page]
B. Calibration data for Starrett dial indicators supplied by Starrett. [2 Pages].

REFERENCES:
A. Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual 27-81-47, L.E. Slat Actuator Assembly Rev 27
B. Boeing C27027-1, Test Fixture - L.E. Slat Actuator Rev – ADCN 1.
C. ANZES Ground Support Drawing 8000106, Test Fixture - L.E. Slat Actuator Rev -.
D. ANZES Publication Change 6003524 PC 000 00
E. AOP 11.6608 Calibration Periodicity Change
F. ISO10012-1:1992 Quality Assurance Requirements For Measuring Equipment.
G. FAA FAR’s 145.47(b) and (d) and 43.13 (a)
H. CAA CAR’s 145.55(2) and 43.53 (a)(6)
I. CASA CAR’s Reg 30 (2)(b)(ii) and (2D)(a)(ii)

ASSESSMENT:

1. Reason

This equivalence assessment has been written to document and approve the use of ANZES Test Fixture, 8000106 (Ref
C) as equivalent to Boeing Test Fixture C27027-1 (Ref B) as called up in Boeing 737 Component Maintenance
Manual Ch 27-81-47 (Ref A). Calibration data and a green page amendment giving instructions for the use of the
ANZES tool will also be approved by this assessment.

2. Description

Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) Ch 27-81-47 contains the testing requirements for the Leading
Edge Slat Hydraulic Actuator Assembly. The Testing and Troubleshooting section, Chapter 3.A., requires the
Actuator to be mounted in a C27027-1 test fixture in order to carry out functional checks. The test fixture acts as both
a convenient mount for the actuator during extension/retraction tests and also provides a means of measuring the
distance between the bearings in the rod end and the housing assembly at various positions. The measurements
obtained are compared to specifications listed in the CMM.

3. What is Affected?

• ANZES Ground Support Drawing 8000106 (Ref C) will be approved.

• ANZES tool 8000106 will be identified as C27027-ANZ per Ref C.
• A green page amendment will be added to Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual ((Ref A) informing
the engineer of the correct usage of the ANZES equivalent tooling.
• Calibration data for ANZES 8000106 will be published in T702 per PC6003524 (Ref D).
PREPARED BY:

CHECKED BY: DATE:

 RINC REPORT 668 Page 36

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

4. Justification

ANZES Test Fixture 8000106 as equivalent to Boeing Test Fixture C27027-1

The basic design of ANZES 800106 is very similar to Boeing C27027-1, using the same materials and attachment
fittings. The fitment of the actuator into both tools is identical. On both tools Boeing C27027-4 rod end cap is
attached to the end of the actuator to simplify taking the measurement to the rod end bearing centreline. The major
difference between the two tools is in the method by which the bearing centreline distance is obtained. On both tools
the bearing centreline distance is not measured directly but is rather derived from the difference between a known
length and a measured value.

Boeing C27027 uses a long stroke dial indicator (Starrett model 656-12041J) accurate to ±0.004” (refer Att’s A & B).
This indicator is zeroed against a “zero gauge” which is 14”±0.010” long (refer C27027-6, Ref B). In order to
ascertain the actuator bearing centreline distance the deviation of the rod end cap (fitted to the rod end of the actuator)
from this zero position is measured by the dial indicator and the following calculation performed:

BCD = Bearing Centreline Distance

ZGL = Zero Gauge Length
DIR = Dial Indicator Reading
REC = Rod end cap measuring face to bearing centreline distance

BCD = ZGL – REC + DIR

= 14” – 1” + DIR
= 13” + DIR

For the above calculation the possible error = ZGL error + DIR error + REC error
= ±0.010”(see Ref B) + ±0.004”(see Ref’s A & B) + ±0.010” (see Ref B)
= ±0.024”

ANZES 8000106 uses a vernier caliper to measure the distance from a fixed block to the rod end cap. This distance is
then subtracted from the known distance between the fixed block and the housing bearing mount centreline to obtain
the actuator bearing centreline distance as follows:

FBL = distance from the fixed block to the housing bearing mount centreline.
VCR = vernier caliper reading.

BCD = FBL – REC + VCR

= 26.5” – 1” - VCR
= 25.5” - VCR

For the above calculation the possible error = FBL error + REC error + VCR error
= ±0.005”(see Ref C) + ±0.010” (see Ref B)+ ±0.005” (see Ref D)
= ±0.020”

The shape and position of the fixed block is such that the rod end cap and fixed block radiuses are matched and
concentric to minimise cosine error when using vernier calipers.

Thus, it can be seen the use of ANZES 8000106 allows the measurement of the bearing centreline distance to be made
at least as, if not more, accurately than Boeing C27027.

Green Page Amendment To Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual

The green page amendment detailed in PC6003524 (Ref D) provides the engineer with usage instructions for the
ANZES equivalent tooling. The existing manual does not give instructions on how to obtain the bearing centreline
distance and simply states the acceptable limits for the measurement.
 RINC REPORT 668 Page 37

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
No. 190028294-0001

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Equivalency of ANZES 8000106 to Boeing C27027

Instructions for the use of the C27027-ANZ Fixture have been provided to ensure correct use of the ANZES tool and
to reduce the risk of an incorrect measurement being obtained. This is an enhancement to the OEM information and
does not affect the process or information contained in the Component Maintenance Manual.

Calibration Information Test Fixture 8000106 (C27027-ANZ).

A. Accuracy Specification

As the bearing centreline distance for the slat actuator is derived from the geometry of the test fixture and the
known distance from the actuator mount to the fixed distance block it is necessary to verify these dimensions.
The dimensions to be checked (refer PC 6003524, Ref D) are those which have a direct influence on the
measurement of the bearing centreline distance or the accuracy of mounting the actuator in the test fixture (ie
mounting hole diameters).

As the mounting features of 8000106 are identical to those of Boeing C27027 the accuracy specifications for
these features are as specified by Boeing in Ref B. The specification for the distance between the actuator
mounting hole and the fixed distance block of ±0.005 is better than the accuracy specified by Boeing for the
“zero gauge”. The “zero gauge” used on the Boeing tool serves the same function as the known distance
between the actuator mounting hole and the fixed distance block on the ANZES test fixture.

J. Calibration Period

• 4 Years (maximum)
• 1 Year (initial – extendable in accordance with AOP 11.6608)

The 4 year maximum calibration period is based on the following factors:

• The tooling is of simple construction with no moving parts and is fabricated from steel which is
dimensionally stable for the accuracy required.
• The subject tooling is not susceptible to inadvertent damage and is not used in a manner that is likely to
cause wear of the functional features in normal use.
• The tooling is used with care and not subject to general workshop wear and tear.
• ANZES experience with similar simple geometry tooling.

To ensure sufficient calibration history is obtained and to increase confidence in the performance of new
tooling before the maximum period is applied, an initial calibration period of 1 year (which may be extended
to the maximum of 4 years in accordance with AOP 11.6608 (Ref E)) will be applied to the tooling.

K. Calibration Procedure and Equipment.

At the time of writing this assessment ANNZES does not have the capability to calibrate the subject tooling.

PREPARED BY:

CHECKED BY: DATE:

 RINC REPORT 668 Page 38

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

The tool is to be sent to an approved calibration vendor who will ensure all dimensions checked are done so in
accordance with standard industry practice and are traceable to international standards.

The engineer is instructed to use equipment that ensures a transfer uncertainty ratio(TUR) of at least 4:1 is
maintained. This exceeds the recommendations contained in ISO10012-1:1992 (Ref. F).

5. Compliance Statement

This tooling equivalency has been based on ANZES 8000106 being functionally interchangeable with Boeing
C27027, compatible with the procedures called up, and safe for the equipment and use it is designed for. This
equivalency has been carried out to show compliance with the requirements of Ref’s G, H and I through the use of
tooling equivalent to that recommended by the manufacturer, and by ensuring the test equipment is calibrated at a
regular interval to traceable international standards.
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 39

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

Technical Manual Amendment No. 6003524

MANUAL NO: T702 / 27-663 CHAPTER: N/A PAGE: N/A NOTIF. NO.: 190028294-0001

TEMPORARY REVISION NORMAL AMENDMENT CYCLE (TICK AS APPROPRIATE)

PREPARED BY: J Rhind CHECKED BY: G Frater

SUBJECT: Equivalency of ANZES 8000106 to Boeing C27027

EFFECTIVITY: All

DESCRIPTION: Green Page amendment to 737 CMM and publish cal data for ANZES8000106 in T702

ATTACHMENTS:

A: PC 6003524_AMD_1 [1 Page]
(file G:\Eng\SAPDMS\Techserv\Publication Changes\_6003000-6003999\6003524\ PC 6003524_AMD_1.doc)
B: PC 6003524_AMD_2 [7 Pages]
(file G:\Eng\SAPDMS\Techserv\Publication Changes\_6003000-6003999\6003524\ PC 6003524_AMD_2.doc)
Tech Publications

Please:

1. Create a new Tab section in T702 titled “ANZ 8000106 Test Fixture” and insert Att A into this Tab. Update the
highlights page and LEP contained in Att A.
2. Update T702 TAB LEP.
3. Insert Att B as a green page amendment to face Page 108 Section 27-81-47, 737 Component Maintenance Manual
(Pubs Ref 27-663).

Associated Workcards:
Amendment Actioned By: Employment No.: Date:
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 40

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

MANUAL: Fuel Flow Test Rig - J1-036 PUB REF: T807

ADD: to paragraph G.(1):

When using ANNZES equivalent tooling C27027-ANZ, use the following

method to obtain the bearing centreline distance.
1. Using Vernier Calipers (accuracy ±0.005” or better) measure
distance between end stop of C27027-ANZ and actuator rod end cap,
C27027-4. (Distance “ X” Figure 105).

Leading Edge Slat

Distance "X" Rod End Cap Actuator Assy
C27027-4

Test Fixture
C27027-ANZ
ANZ Pt#8000106

Figure 105
Use Of C27027-ANZ

2. Subtract measurement obtained in step 1 from 25.5” to obtain

bearing centreline distance.

NOTE: It is not necessary to incorporate an allowance for the rod

end cap as this has already been allowed for in the distance
marked on C27027-ANZ Test Fixture.

Page 40
Aug 10/98
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 41

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Boeing 737 Leading Edge Slat Actuator

Test Fixture
Pt # 8000106
C27027-ANZ

EQUIPMENT OPERATING MANUAL

T702

T702
TP-1
Mmm dd/yy
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 42

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

SECTION PAGE DATE

Title Page TP-1 Mmm dd/yy

List of Effective LEP-1 Mmm dd/yy

Pages

Highlights H-1 Mmm dd/yy

Record of RR-1 Mmm dd/yy

Revisions

Table of Contents TC-1 Mmm dd/yy

TC-2 Mmm dd/yy

Maintenance 501 Mmm dd/yy

502 Mmm dd/yy
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 43

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

BOEING 737 LEADING EDGE SLAT ACTUATOR TEST FIXTURE Pt# 8000106

HIGHLIGHTS

REVISION DATE CHANGES

Original Mmm dd/yy This is a New Manual. Refer to GSE DR 190028294-

0001.

T702
H-43
Mmm dd/yy
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 44
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

Rev No. Issue Date Date Inserted By (Full Signature)

 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 45

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

BOEING 737 LEADING EDGE SLAT ACTUATOR TEST FIXTURE Pt# 8000106
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1. Calibration ...............................................................................................46
A. Safety ...............................................................................................46
B. Specifications ...................................................................................46
C. Calibration Period .............................................................................46
D. Calibration Equipment ......................................................................46
E. Performance Tests ...........................................................................46
F. Adjustment Procedures ....................................................................47

T702
TC-45
Mmm dd/yy
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 46
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

1. Calibration

These procedures have been written presuming that a competent person is

performing the calibration. All necessary precautions relating to the safety,
cleanliness and operation of the equipment are to be followed at all times.

A. Safety

Ensure that all safety procedures are understood before commencing any
work on the equipment.

B. Specifications

Measurement Specification
Distance between actuator mount
26.495”-26.505”
centreline and fixed distance block.
Actuator mount hole diameter Ø0.625”-Ø0.630”
Distance between measuring face and
0.990”-1.010”
mounting hole centreline of Rod End Cap
Rod end cap mounting hole Ø0.625”-Ø0.630”

Table 501
Calibration Specifications

C. Calibration Period

• 4 Years (Max)
• 1 Year (Initial - extendable in accordance with AOP 11.6608)

D. Calibration Equipment

The equipment required to perform this calibration must be selected to

ensure a 4:1 test uncertainty ratio is maintained or suitable error analysis is
performed for transfer ratios below 4:1.

E. Performance Tests

NOTE: If performance tests shows that equipment is not within

specification refer to (F), Adjustment Procedures.

At the time of writing this procedure ANZES does not have the capability to
calibrate these tools. The tools are to be sent to an approved calibration
vendor for calibration.
 ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 47

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MEHANICAL TEST FIXTURE

BOEING 737 LEADING EDGE SLAT ACTUATOR TEST FIXTURE Pt# 8000106

MAINTENANCE

(1) The dimensions to be checked are as shown in Table 501. All

dimensions checked must conform to the specifications contained in
Table 501.

F. Adjustment Procedures

Tools may be reworked to ensure compliance with the appropriate drawing.

T702
47
Mmm dd/yy
ARINC REPORT 668 – Page 48
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TEST FIXTURE
 ARINC Standard – Errata Report

1. Document Title
ARINC Report 668: Guidance for Tool and Test Equipment (TTE) Equivalency
Published: January 24, 2003

2. Reference
Page Number: Section Number: Date of Submission:

3. Error
(Reproduce the material in error, as it appears in the standard.)

4. Recommended Correction
(Reproduce the correction as it would appear in the corrected version of the material.)

5. Reason for Correction

(State why the correction is necessary.)

6. Submitter (Optional)
(Name, organization, contact information, e.g., phone, email address.)

Note: Items 2-5 may be repeated for additional errata. All recommendations will be evaluated by
the staff. Any substantive changes will require submission to the relevant subcommittee for
incorporation into a subsequent Supplement.

Please return comments to fax +1 410-266-2047 or standards@arinc.com

01_ARINC Errata
2/11/2003
 ARINC Project Initiation/Modification
02/11/03

ARINC IA Project Initiation/Modification (APIM)

Guidelines for Submittal
(Tuesday, February 11, 2003)

1. ARINC Industry Activities Projects and Work Program

A project is established in order to accomplish a technical task approved by one or
more of the committees (AEEC, AMC, FSEMC) Projects generally but not
exclusively result in a new ARINC standard or modify an existing ARINC
standard. All projects are typically approved on a calendar year basis. Any
project extending beyond a single year will be reviewed annually before being re-
authorized. The work program of Industry Activities (IA) consists of all projects
authorized by AEEC, AMC, or FSEMC (The Committees) for the current
calendar year.
The Committees establish a project after consideration of an ARINC Project
Initiation/Modification (APIM) request. This document includes a template which
has provisions for all of the information required by The Committees to determine
the relative priority of the project in relation to the entire work program.
All recommendations to the committees to establish or reauthorize a project,
whether originated by an airline or from the industry, should be prepared using
the APIM template. Any field that cannot be filled in by the originator may be
left blank for subsequent action.

2. Normal APIM Evaluation Process

Initiation of an APIM
All proposed projects must be formally initiated by filling in the APIM template.
An APIM may be initiated by anyone in the airline community, e.g., airline,
vendor, committee staff.
Staff Support
All proposed APIMs will be processed by committee staff. Each proposal will be
numbered, logged, and evaluated for completeness. Proposals may be edited to
present a style consistent with the committee evaluation process. For example,
narrative sentences may be changed to bullet items, etc. When an APIM is
complete, it will be forwarded to the appropriate Committee for evaluation.
The committee staff will track all ongoing projects and prepare annual reports on
progress.
Committee Evaluation and Acceptance or Rejection
The annual work program for each Committee is normally established at its
annual meeting. Additional work tasks may be evaluated at other meetings held
during the year. Each committee (i.e., AMC, AEEC, FSEMC) has its own
schedule of annual and interim meetings.

02_APIM-VerH Page 1
 ARINC Project Initiation/Modification
02/11/03

The committee staff will endeavor to process APIMs and present them to the
appropriate Committee at its next available meeting. The Committee will then
evaluate the proposal. Evaluation criteria will include:
• Airline support – number and strength of airline support for the project,
including whether or not an airline chairman has been identified
• Issues – what technical, programmatic, or competitive issues are
addressed by the project, what problem will be solved
• Schedule – what regulatory, aircraft development or modification,
airline equipment upgrade, or other projected events drive the urgency
for this project
Accepted proposals will be assigned to a subcommittee for action with one of two
priorities:
• High Priority – technical solution needed as rapidly as possible
• Routine Priority – technical solution to proceed at a normal pace
Proposals may have designated coordination with other groups. This means that
the final work must be coordinated with the designated group(s) prior to submittal
for adoption consideration.
Proposals that are not accepted may be classified as follows:
• Deferred for later consideration - the project is not deemed of sufficient
urgency to be placed on the current calendar of activities but will be
reconsidered at a later date
• Deferred to a subcommittee for refinement – the subcommittee will be
requested to, for example, gain stronger airline support or resolve
architectural issues
• Rejected – the proposal is not seen as being appropriate, e.g., out of
scope of the committee

3. APIM Template
The following is an annotated outline for the APIM. Proposal initiators are
requested to fill in all fields as completely as possible, replacing the italicized
explanations in each section with information as available. Fields that cannot be
completed may be left blank. When using the Word file version of the following
template, update the header and footer to identify the project.

02_APIM-VerH Page 2
 ARINC Project Initiation/Modification
02/11/03

ARINC IA Project Initiation/Modification (APIM)

Name of proposed project APIM #: _____

Name for proposed project.
Suggested Subcommittee assignment
Identify an existing group that has the expertise to successfully complete the
project. If no such group is known to exist, a recommendation to form a new
group may be made.
Project Scope
Describe the scope of the project clearly and concisely. The scope should
describe “what” will be done, i.e., the technical boundaries of the project.
Example: “This project will standardize a protocol for the control of printers.
The protocol will be independent of the underlying data stream or page
description language but will be usable by all classes of printers.”
Project Benefit
Describe the purpose and benefit of the project. This section should describe
“why” the project should be done. Describe how the new standard will improve
competition among vendors, giving airlines freedom of choice. This section
provides justification for the allocation of both IA and airline resources.
Example: “Currently each class of printers implements its own proprietary
protocol for the transfer of a print job. In order to provide access to the cockpit
printer from several different avionics sources, a single protocol is needed. The
protocol will permit automatic determination of printer type and configuration to
provide for growth and product differentiation.”
Airlines supporting effort
Name, airline, and contact information for proposed chairman, lead airline, list
of airlines expressing interest in working on the project (supporting airlines), and
list of airlines expressing interest but unable to support (sponsoring airlines). It
is important for airline support to be gained prior to submittal. Other
organizations, such as airframe manufacturers, avionics vendors, etc. supporting
the effort should also be listed.
Issues to be worked
Describe the major issues to be addressed by the proposed ARINC standard.
Recommended Coordination with other groups
Draft documents may have impact on the work of groups other than the
originating group. The APIM writer or, subsequently, The Committee may
identify other groups which must be given the opportunity to review and comment
upon mature draft documents.

02_APIM-VerH Page 3
 ARINC Project Initiation/Modification
02/11/03

Projects/programs supported by work

If the timetable for this work is driven by a new airplane type, major avionics
overhaul, regulatory mandate, etc., that information should be placed in this
section. This information is a key factor in assessing the priority of this proposed
task against all other tasks competing for subcommittee meeting time and other
resources.
Timetable for projects/programs
Identify when the new ARINC standard is needed (month/year).
Documents to be produced and date of expected result
The name and number (if already assigned) of the proposed ARINC standard to
be either newly produced or modified.
Comments
Anything else deemed useful to the committees for prioritization of this work.
Meetings
The following table identifies the number of meetings and proposed meeting days
needed to produce the documents described above.
Activity Mtgs Mtg-Days
Document a # of mtgs # of mtg days
Document b # of mtgs # of mtg days

For IA staff use

IA staff assigned: ___________________________________________
Forward to committee(s) (AEEC, AMC, FSEMC): __________________
Potential impact: ____
(A. Safety B. Regulatory C. New aircraft/system D. Other)
Committee resolution: ____
(1. Authorized 2. Deferred 3. More detail needed 4. Rejected)
Assigned Priority: ____
A. – High (execute first) B. – Normal (may be deferred for A.)

02_APIM-VerH Page 4