B7.5 - Bridging the OEM - Non-OEM FTI Process Gap: A Risk-Driven Decision-Gate Framework for FTI Planning
- Event
- ETTC 2026 - European Test and Telemetry Conference
2026-06-09 - 2026-06-11
Nuremberg - Chapter
- Data Management Applications II
- Author(s)
- T. A. ros de Medei Brito, T. da Silva Barbosa, M. V. Preisighe Viana - Instituto de Pesquisas e Ensaios em Voo (IPEV), São José dos Campos (Brazil)
- Pages
- 305 - 315
- DOI
- 10.5162/ettc2026/B7.5
- Price
- free
Abstract
This paper discusses the implementation of Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI) under different organizational paradigms, focusing on the stakeholder responsible for delivering the FTI system. When FTI activities are performed by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), programs typically benefit from long life cycles, broad access to onboard data buses and sensor documentation, and established design and certification privileges such as Design Organization Approval (DOA) or Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) within Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) frameworks. These conditions generally allow a more streamlined coordination process when obtaining Special Flight Permits, despite the broader certification scope typically involved. In this work, OEM-based FTI processes are used as a reference condition for identifying process gaps and improvement opportunities in non-OEM environments. In contrast, independent flight test service providers typically execute numerous smaller, application-specific projects and often have limited access to Interface Control Documents (ICDs) and aircraft system information. Based on this comparison, the paper proposes a risk-driven decision-gate framework to support early-stage planning and risk identification in non-OEM FTI projects. Two case studies are presented to illustrate these differences: the first one describes an environment in which standardized aircraft bus implementation was confirmed, where design followed ARINC 429 recommendations and enabled direct parameter acquisition for most required parameters, with minimal architectural constraints; the second one details a scenario in which the absence of ICD access required significant FTI architecture adjustments, additional signal conditioning, and indirect data acquisition strategies. The framework consolidates recurrent risk drivers associated with data availability, architecture definition, aircraft access, signal characterization, calibration, logistical support, and certification planning. The proposed framework builds on lessons learned from previous IPEV flight-test research involving aerodynamic modeling, simulation fidelity, optical tracking, and probabilistic safety assessment. The resulting recommendations aim to improve planning efficiency and reduce certification and integration risks in non-OEM flight test environments.