Subject: GUIDELINES FOR THE
CERTIFICATION, AIRWORTHINESS,
AND OPERATIONAL APPROVAL OF
ELECTRONIC FLIGHT BAG
COMPUTING DEVICES Date: 3/17/03 Initiated By: AFS-400 AC No: 120-76A Change:
1. PURPOSE. This joint Flight Standards Service (AFS) and Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) advisory circular (AC) provides an acceptable method of compliance for the certification, airworthiness, and the operational approval of both portable and installed Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) aircraft computing devices. This AC does not constitute a regulation but sets forth an acceptable means, but not the only means, for operators conducting flight operations under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, 121, 125, 129, or 135, to obtain both certification and approval for the operational use of EFBs. This guidance material also applies to operators of large and turbine-powered multi-engine aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 91, subpart F where the operating regulations require specific functionality and/or equipage. Other part 91 operations do not require any specific authorization for EFB operations provided the EFB does not replace any system or equipment required by the regulations.
2. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 120-76, Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Approval of Electronic Flight Bag Computing Devices, dated July 9, 2002.
3. APPLICABILITY. One of the major motivators for using an EFB is to reduce or eliminate the need for paper and other reference materials in the cockpit. This AC describes the EFB functions, features, and selected hosted applications, and applies to the certification and operational approval of both portable and installed EFBs.
4. TITLE 14 CFR REFERENCES AND RELATED READING MATERIALS. See Appendix C, Title 14 CFR References and Related Reading Materials, for an extensive list of references.
5. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are specific to this AC and may differ with those definitions contained in other published references.
a. Aircraft Administrative Communications (AAC). AAC data link receive/transmit information that includes, but is not limited to, the support of applications identified in Appendices A and B.
b. Applicant. Anyone seeking product approval of an EFB. In this context, “product” refers to hardware and software, whether sold separately or embedded in an EFB system.
c. Data Connectivity for EFB Systems. Supports functions for which failures or design errors could not degrade aircraft systems or flightcrew performance.
Page 2 Par 5
d. Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). An electronic display system intended primarily for cockpit/flightdeck or cabin use. EFB devices can display a variety of aviation data or perform basic calculations (e.g., performance data, fuel calculations, etc.). In the past, some of these functions were traditionally accomplished using paper references or were based on data provided to the flightcrew by an airline’s “flight dispatch” function. The scope of the EFB system functionality may also include various other hosted databases and applications. Physical EFB displays may use various technologies, formats, and forms of communication. These devices are sometimes referred to as auxiliary performance computers (APC) or laptop auxiliary performance computers (LAPC).
e. EFB System. An EFB system includes the hardware and software needed to support an intended function.
f. Hosted Application. Software installed on an EFB system that allows specific operational functionality.
g. Interactive Information. Information presented on the EFB that, via software applications, can be selected and rendered in a number of dynamic ways. This includes variables in the information presented based on data-oriented software algorithms, concepts of decluttering, and “on-the-fly” composition as opposed to pre-composed information.
h. Mounting Device. May include arm-mounted, kneeboard, cradle, or docking-stations, etc. May have ship’s power and data connectivity. May require quick-disconnect for egress.
i. Portable Electronic Device (PED). Title 14 CFR § 91.21 refers to PEDs. As defined in this AC, Class 1 and 2 EFBs are considered PEDs.
j. Pre-Composed Information. Information previously composed into a static composed state (non-interactive). The composed displays have consistent, defined and verifiable content, and formats that are fixed in composition.
6. BACKGROUND.
a. Operators have long recognized the benefits of using portable electronic computing devices, including commercially available portable computers, to perform a variety of functions traditionally accomplished using paper references. EFB systems may be approved for use in conjunction with or to replace some of the hard copy material that pilots typically carry in their flight bags.
b. EFBs can electronically store and retrieve documents required for flight operations, such as the General Operations Manual (GOM), Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL), Operations Specifications (OpSpecs), and control documents. (Note that maintenance discrepancy logs need to be downloaded into a permanent record at least weekly.) EFB systems are being developed to support functions during all phases of flight operations.
7. SCOPE. The primary guidance material described in this AC is to assist operators and flightcrews in transitioning from the paper products in a traditional flight bag to an electronic format. This AC is intended for use in combination with other material contained in current Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS) ACs or other Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved guidance material. It is also intended to provide specific guidance material for certain EFB applications and approvals and establishes certification, airworthiness/installation, and operational approval guidance for EFB systems used by flightdeck crewmembers and other crewmembers in the cabin. It is not intended to supersede existing airworthiness certification, or operational guidance material.
Par 7 Page 3
a. Hardware Classes of EFB Systems. This AC defines three hardware classes of EFB systems:
Class 1, 2, and 3.
(1) Class 1. From an operational use perspective, Class 1 EFB systems are:
• Generally commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)-based computer systems used for aircraft operations
• Portable
• Not attached to an aircraft mounting device
• Not required to go through an administrative control process for use in the aircraft (if using only Type A applications)
• Considered PEDs
(2) Class 2. From an operational use perspective, Class 2 EFB systems are:
• Generally COTS-based computer systems used for aircraft operations
• Portable
• Connected to an aircraft mounting device during normal operations
• Required to go through an administrative control process to add, remove, or use in the aircraft
• Considered PEDs
NOTE: Class 2 EFB system power, data connectivity, and mounting devices require aircraft evaluation group (AEG) evaluation and certification approval from AIR.
(3) Class 3. From an operational use perspective, Class 3 EFB systems are installed equipment that require AIR approval, except for user modifiable software that may be used to host Type A and B applications. Class 3 EFB system certification requirements enable additional applications and functions.
b. Software Applications for EFB Systems. This AC defines three types of software applications:
Type A, B, and C. For applications or functions not listed in Appendix A or Appendix B, the applicant should coordinate evaluation and approval with the applicable AEG, through the Principal Inspector (PI).
(1) Type A software applications:
• May be hosted on any of the hardware classes
• Require Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)/PI approval
• Do not require an AIR design approval
• Examples of Type A software applications are provided in Appendix A
Page 4 Par 7
(2) Type B software applications:
• May be hosted on any of the hardware classes
• Require FSDO/PI approval
• Require AEG evaluation
• Do not require an AIR design approval
• Examples of Type B software applications are provided in Appendix B
c. Own-Ship Position. This AC, by itself, may not be used to install own-ship position on moving maps on Class 1 and 2 EFB systems. However, as new guidance is developed, it may be used in combination with this AC to add additional applications.
8. EFB CLASSIFICATIONS FOR AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONAL APPROVAL. The EFB criteria listed in Table 1, EFB Classification Matrix for Part 121, 125, and 135 Operations, combined with the text contained in the body of this AC, should be used to determine the EFB system classification and derived certification and operational approval basis. All applications and information contained in the EFB intended for operational use must be current and up-to-date. See Appendices A and B for a list of EFB system application examples. In addition to the applications listed in Appendices A and B, the AEG will have a record of Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Reports on file that contain hardware and software applications/functions that have been evaluated and the level of approval granted in those evaluations. The following guidance is for determining EFB system classification and roles and responsibilities.
a. Class 1 EFB Hardware. Class 1 EFB hardware may:
• Be used on the ground and during flight
• Connect to ship’s power through a certified power source
• Recharge batteries onboard the aircraft
• Require quick-disconnect from power and/or data sources for egress
• Have read-only data connectivity to other aircraft systems
• Have receive/transmit data connectivity for AAC only
(1) The operator should provide evidence to the PI demonstrating that the Class 1 EFB is properly stowed or mounted for takeoff and landing.
(2) Certificate holders should document EFB non-interference compliance in accordance with the guidance in the current version of AC 91.21-1, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft.
b. Class 2 EFB Hardware. Class 2 EFB hardware is attached to the aircraft by a mounting device.
In addition to being attached to aircraft mounting devices, Class 2 EFB systems may connect to aircraft power and data ports during normal operation and use. For Class 2 EFB systems with aircraft specific
Par 8 Page 5 software applications, operators will need to establish procedures to remove and reinstall this equipment.
The following are specific examples of certification, operational, and operator requirements that Class 2 EFB systems need to meet before receiving approval to use this equipment:
(1) Class 2 EFB systems represent a class of COTS electronics equipment (e.g., “pen tablet computers”) that has been adapted for use in aircraft. The PI should document EFB Class 2 suitability for use onboard aircraft.
(2) The AEG will document EFB non-interference compliance in accordance with the guidance in the current version of AC 91.21-1.
(3) AIR evaluation and design approval will be limited to airworthiness approval of the applicable mounting device (e.g., arm-mounted, kneeboard, cradle), crashworthiness, data connectivity, and EFB power connection(s).
• EFB data connections require AIR approval to ensure non-interference and isolation from aircraft systems during transmission and reception. The EFB data connection may receive information from any aircraft system as well as receive or transmit information for AAC purposes. Connectivity may be wired or wireless.
• Class 2 EFBs may not require AIR design approval.
(4) Class 2 EFBs do not require compliance with RTCA/DO-160D, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.
(5) Class 2 EFB mounting devices, power, and data connectivity provisions that are installed by Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) may require an Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) update.
(6) Class 2 EFB hardware may be removed from the aircraft through an administrative control process (e.g., logbook entry).
(7) Operators must determine non-interference with existing aircraft systems for all flight phases and ensure that the system performs the intended function.
(8) AFS and AIR should conduct a human factors evaluation of the EFB mounting device and flightdeck location.
(9) Operators must determine the usage of hardware architectural features, persons, procedures, and/or equipment to eliminate, reduce, or control risks associated with an identified failure in an EFB.
c. Class 3 EFB Hardware. Class 3 EFB hardware is installed equipment and requires AIR design approval.
d. Type A EFB Software Applications. Appendix A lists examples of EFB hosted software applications that, for Air Carrier operations, require PI approval, as applicable. Type A applications include pre-composed, fixed presentations of data currently presented in paper format. The operator should provide evidence to the PI demonstrating that the operational and certification requirements are met when requesting approval to use the applications defined in Appendix A.
Page 6 Par 8
(1) Type A application software does not require compliance with RTCA/DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification.
(2) AFS will grant initial operational approval, as appropriate, to include flightcrew training, checking, and currency requirements.
(3) The Principal Operations Inspector (POI) will grant authority for a 6-month operational evaluation in OpSpec A025, Approved Computer-Based Recordkeeping System. This evaluation period requires the operator to carry both the EFB system and paper copies before final approval to allow the reduction or elimination of paper copies on the flightdeck.
(4) Operators must submit a final report to the POI after the 6-month evaluation period of the EFB system. The POI will grant final approval per OpSpec A025.
(5) Operators must determine the usage of hardware and/or software architectural features, people, procedures, and/or equipment to eliminate, reduce, or control risks associated with an identified failure in a system.
(6) The operator should provide evidence to the POI demonstrating that the EFB operating system and hosted application software meet the criteria for the appropriate intended function and do not provide false or hazardously misleading information. This evidence includes a demonstration that software revisions will not corrupt the data integrity of the original software version when it was first installed and “baselined” and meets its intended function.
e. Type B EFB Software Applications. Appendix B lists examples of EFB hosted software applications that require AEG evaluation and inclusion in an FSB Report in addition to PI approval.
Type B applications include dynamic, interactive applications that can manipulate data and presentation.
(1) The operator should provide evidence to the PI demonstrating that the operational and certification requirements are met when requesting approval, specifically:
(a) Type B application software does not require compliance with RTCA/DO-178B.
(b) AFS initial operational approval will be granted, as appropriate, for hosted performance applications based on AEG recommendations to include flightcrew training, checking, and currency requirements per the draft FSB Report.
(c) The POI will grant authority for a 6-month operational evaluation in OpSpec A025. For a reduction in the 6-month operational evaluation period, applicants should ensure that the FSB evaluation has been completed prior to contacting the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, for approval. This evaluation period requires both the EFB system and paper copies to be carried before final approval, allowing the EFB to reduce or eliminate paper copies on the flight deck, that is, until the requirements specified in paragraph 9.c. have been completed.
(d) Operators must submit a final report to the POI and the AEG after the 6-month evaluation period of the EFB system. Final approval will be granted through the FSB Report. The POI grants approval per OpSpec A025.
(e) Type B applications may be used to display pre-composed information such as navigation or approach charts. Required flight information should be presented for each applicable phase of flight.
Par 8 Page 7
(f) Operators must determine the usage of hardware and/or software architectural features, persons, procedures, and or equipment to eliminate, reduce, or control risks associated with an identified failure in a system.
(g) Additional Type B applications may require TSO approval.
(h) The operator should provide evidence to the POI (in conjunction with AEG) demonstrating that the EFB operating system and hosted application software meet the criteria for the appropriate intended function and do not provide false or hazardously misleading information. This evidence includes a demonstration that software revisions will not corrupt the data integrity of the original software version when it was first installed and “baselined” and meets its intended function.
(i) Pending AEG/human factors evaluation, panning, scrolling, zooming, rotating, or other active manipulation is permissible for Type B applications. Electronic navigation charts should provide a level of information integrity equivalent to paper charts.
(2) Interactive Performance Applications. AFS will grant initial operational approval, as appropriate, for hosted interactive performance applications based on AEG recommendations to include flightcrew training, checking, and currency requirements per the initial FSB Report. Additionally, hosted interactive performance/weight and balance applications should meet the following criteria:
(a) Operational procedures should be developed in accordance with § 121.133. These procedures should define the roles that the flightcrew and dispatch/flight-following have in creating, reviewing, and using performance calculations supported by EFBs.
(b) An EFB that provides interactive performance calculations must have its baseline software programs and functions evaluated by the AEG prior to FAA approval.
(c) FAA bases its approval for the use of the EFB on the operator’s training and procedures, the AEG recommendation, and the FSB Report.
(d) FAA authorization for the use of EFBs for this intended function is indicated in OpSpec A025.
(e) If the EFB is used for weight and balance calculations, OpSpec E096, Weight and Balance Control Procedures, should list the EFB in the approved method for weight and balance calculations.
f. Type C EFB Applications. Type C applications require AIR design approval, except for user modifiable software, which may be utilized to host Type A and B applications. (User modifiable software may not have any effect on the Type C applications. Refer to RTCA/DO-178 B for a description of user modifiable software.) Examples of Type C applications include primary flight displays. A means for obtaining AIR design approval is a Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA). Additionally, Type A and B applications do not require an AIR design approval, but a Type B application requires a PI/AEG approval.
(1) Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA). A TSOA is a dual FAA certification design and production approval with a streamlined approval process. Applicants may apply for a TSOA for certain EFB Type C applications. An index of TSO standards is published in the current version of AC 20-110, Index of Aviation Technical Standard Orders. The regulatory basis for a TSOA is defined in
Page 8 Par 8 14 CFR part 21, subpart O. EFB Type C applications that receive a TSOA may be approved for use as EFB Class 1 and 2 systems provided they meet the following conditions:
(a) Hosted applications must be classified as a minor failure effect or no safety effect. No major safety effect or higher classifications are acceptable.
(b) Type A and/or B EFB applications may reside in a TSOA system provided they do not interfere with the EFB Type C application(s).
g. Table 1, EFB Classification Matrix for Part 121, 125, and 135 Operations. This table provides criteria to aid in determining:
• EFB Applications
• Hardware Class
• AIR Involvement
• AEG Involvement
• Operator Requirements
• PI Involvement
Par 8 Page 9
TABLE 1. EFB CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR PART 121, 125, AND 135 OPERATIONS
NOTE: For 14 CFR part 91, other than subpart F, this AC does not apply.
EFB Applications Hardware Class AIR Involvement AEG Involvement Operator Requirements PI Involvement Type A
Refer to Appendix A Class 1, 2, 3
• Mounting may not be required for class 1 or 2
• May Require stowage
• Availability for all flight phases as required
• May require quickdisconnect from power/data sources for egress Yes, for:
• Mounting device
• Power
• Data connectivity Yes • Develop program for usage
• Non-interference per § 91.21
Approval, for:
• Training
• Checking
• Currency
• Data updates according to the maintenance manual or inspection program Type B
Refer to Appendix B Class 1, 2, 3
• Mounting may be required for Class 1 and 2
• Available for all phases of flight
• May require quickdisconnect from power/data sources for egress Yes, for:
• Mounting device
• Power
• Data connectivity Yes • Develop program for usage
• Non-interference per § 91.21 Approval, for:
• FSB Report
• Training
• Checking
• Currency
• Data updates according to the maintenance manual or inspection program
• Issue OpSpecs A025 Type C
Supports Additional Applications
Class 2, 3 Yes, for:
• Mounting device
• Power
• Data connectivity
• EFB
TSO/STC Yes Per current airworthiness and operational approval process Approval, for:
• FSB Report
• Training
• Checking
• Currency
• Data updates according to the maintenance manual or inspection program
• Issue OpSpecs A025
Page 10 Par 9
9. RISK MITIGATION FOR EFB SYSTEMS.
a. During the transition period to a paperless cockpit, an operator will need to establish a reliable backup means of providing the information required by the regulations to the flightcrew. During this period, an EFB system must demonstrate that it produces records that are as available and reliable as those provided by the current paper information system. If an operator wants to transition to a paperless cockpit, an acceptable process should be developed with the operator’s PI. Mitigation may be accomplished by a combination of the following:
(1) System design;
(2) Separate and backup power sources;
(3) Redundant EFB applications hosted on different EFB platforms;
(4) Paper products carried by selected crewmembers;
(5) Complete set of sealed paper backups in cockpit; and/or
(6) Procedural means.
b. If one or more onboard EFBs fail, resulting in loss of function or the presentation of false or hazardously misleading information, a contingency plan or process will need to be in place to provide the required information. For example, as a backup to eliminating printed approach charts, an acceptable transition to a paperless cockpit could include the following:
(1) Carrying paper products for a given time period to validate EFB reliability by quantitative means;
(2) Using a printing device to print all applicable data required for the flight; or
(3) Using an aircraft fax machine to uplink equivalent paper documents to the cockpit.
c. Complete removal of the paper-based information associated with a particular EFB application, will require PI approval for Type A, or a final FSB evaluation report for Type B, and OpSpec A025 approval. These requirements also apply to an operator who intends to begin operation of any aircraft type without paper-based information.
d. Final approval for use of electronic documents, in lieu of required paper documents, requires:
(1) Risk mitigation report submitted to PI/AEG;
(2) Reliable EFB system information available for each flight crewmember;
(3) A final FSB evaluation report; and
(4) OpSpec A025 approval.
Par 10 Page 11
10. HUMAN FACTORS CONSIDERATIONS FOR PORTABLE AND INSTALLED CLASS 1, 2, AND 3 EFB SYSTEMS. The human factors/pilot interface characteristics of the EFB system should be evaluated. Special attention should be paid to new or unique features that may affect pilot performance.
a. Human Factors Guidance Documents.
(1) AC 23-1311, Installation of Electronic Displays in Part 23 Airplanes, current version.
(2) AC 25-11, Transport Category Airplane Electronic Display Systems, current version.
(3) FAA Policy Statement ANM-99-2, Guidance for Reviewing Certification Plans to Address Human Factors for Certification of Transport Airplane Flight Decks. This document provides guidance for reviewing the human factors components of the certification plan for transport category airplanes, as well as defining what should be specifically included in these plans.
(4) FAA Policy Statement ANM-01-03, Factors to Consider When Reviewing an Applicant’s Proposed Human Factors Methods for Compliance for Flight Deck Certification. This document provides additional guidance on factors to consider when reviewing an applicant’s proposed method of compliance identified in a human factors or general certification plan. While this policy statement is tailored for part 25 airplanes, much of the guidance is general and may prove useful regardless of the make, model, or class of aircraft.
(5) DOT-VNTSC-FAA-00-22, Human Factors Considerations in the Design and Evaluation of Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs), Version 1: Basic Functions, current version. This reference is recommended as general guidance to ensure that human factors/pilot interface issues are resolved.
(6) RTCA/DO-257, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for the Depiction of Navigation Information on Electronic Maps.
b. EFB System Design and Usability.
(1) Human/Machine Interface. The EFB user interface should provide a consistent and intuitive user interface within and across various EFB applications. The interface design, including, but not limited to, data entry methods, color-coding philosophies, and symbology, should be consistent across the EFB and various hosted applications. These applications should also be compatible with other flightdeck systems.
(2) Design of Mounting Device. The mounting device (or other securing mechanism) that attaches or allows mounting of the EFB system may not be positioned in a way that obstructs visual or physical access to aircraft controls and/or displays, flightcrew ingress or egress, or external vision. The design of the mount should allow the user easy access to the EFB controls and a clear view of the EFB display while in use. The following design practices should be considered:
(a) The mount and associated mechanism should not impede the flightcrew in the performance of any task (normal, abnormal, or emergency) associated with operating any aircraft system.
(b) Mounting devices should be able to lock in position easily. Selection of positions should be adjustable enough to accommodate a range of flight crewmember preferences. In addition, the range of available movement should accommodate the expected range of users’ physical abilities (i.e., anthropometric constraints). Locking mechanisms should be of the low-wear type that will minimize
Page 12 Par 10 slippage after extended periods of normal use. Crashworthiness considerations will need to be considered in the design of this device. This includes the appropriate restraint of any device, when in use.
(c) A provision should be provided to secure, lock, or stow the mount in a position out of the way of flight crewmember operations when not in use.
(d) If the EFB requires cabling to mate with aircraft systems or other EFBs, and if the cable is not run inside the mount, the cable should not hang loosely in a way that compromises task performance and safety. Flight crewmembers should be able to easily secure the cables out of the way during aircraft operations (e.g., cable tether straps).
(e) Cables that are external to the mount should be of sufficient length to perform the intended tasks. Cables too long or short could present an operational or safety hazard.
(3) Placement of Mounting Device. The device should be mounted so that the EFB is easily accessible when stowed. When the EFB is in use and is intended to be viewed or controlled, it should be within 90 degrees on either side of each pilot’s line of sight. If an EFB is being used to display flight critical information such as for navigation, terrain and obstacle warnings that require immediate action, takeoff and landing V-speeds, or for functions other than situational awareness, then such information needs to be in the pilot’s primary field of view. This requirement does not apply if the information is not being directly monitored from the EFB during flight. For example, an EFB may generate takeoff and landing V-speeds, but these speeds are used to set speed bugs or are entered into the FMS, and the airspeed indicator is the sole reference for the V-speeds. In this case, the EFB need not be located in the pilot’s primary field-of-view. A 90-degree viewing angle may be unacceptable for certain EFB applications if aspects of the display quality are degraded at large viewing angles (e.g., the display colors wash out or the displayed color contrast is not discernible at the installation viewing angle). In addition, consideration should be given to the potential for confusion that could result from presentation of relative directions (e.g., positions of other aircraft on traffic displays) when the EFB is positioned in an orientation inconsistent with that information. For example, it may be misleading if own aircraft heading is pointed to the top of the display and the display is not aligned with the aircraft longitudinal axis. Each EFB should be evaluated with regard to these requirements. (See §§ 23.1321 and 25.1321.)
(4) Legibility of Text. Text displayed on the EFB should be legible to the typical user at the intended viewing distance(s) and under the full range of lighting conditions expected on a flightdeck, including use in direct sunlight. Users should be able to adjust the screen brightness of an EFB independently of the brightness of other displays on the flightdeck. In addition, when automatic brightness adjustment is incorporated, it should operate independently for each EFB in the flightdeck.
Buttons and labels should be adequately illuminated for night use. All controls must be properly labeled for their intended function. Consideration should be given to the long-term display degradation as a result of abrasion and aging.
(5) Approach/Departure and Navigation Chart Display.
(a) The approach, departure, and navigation charts that are depicted should contain the information necessary, in appropriate form, to conduct the operation to at least a level of safety equivalent to that provided by paper charts. It is desirable that the EFB display size be at least as large as current paper approach charts and that the format be consistent with current paper charts. Alternate approach plate presentations may be acceptable, but will need to be evaluated and approved by the FSB process for functionality and human factors.