1. DDPMAS
‘Procedure
for Design, Development and Production of Military Aircraft and Airborne Stores’
(DDPMAS) is a document released by Secretary, Defence Production, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India on 30th October 1975. The document was issued to define the procedure to be followed by various agencies involved in the design,
development and production of military aircraft and airborne stores. The
document was reviewed and reissued in 2002 as DDPMAS-2002.
2. Contents of DDPMAS
The
document is divided into five sections as follows:
Section I: Definitions
Section II: Process of Development
Section III: Design, Development and Production of Aircraft, Aero Engines
and
Major Airborne
Equipment
Chapter 1:
Prototype and Development Phase
Chapter 2:
Pre-Production, Production and In-service Phase
Chapter 3:
License Projects
Chapter 4: Bought –out Aircraft
Section IV: Design, Development and Production of Airborne Equipment, Raw Material and AGS Parts.
Section V: Procedure for Flight Testing of Experimental and Prototype
Equipment.
3. Omissions and Exclusions
1) Design, Development and Production of Airborne electronic equipment
/stores are excluded from the scope of DDPMAS and will be carried out as per
DDPIL-2000 Procedures. Installation of such equipment on military aircraft would
follow JSG: 755:2001 and procedures stipulated in DDPMAS -2002.
2)
DDPMAS – 2002 is not applicable to UAV and missiles unless they are
carried on manned aircraft.
4. DDPMAS -2002
DDPMAS
-2002 was issued to incorporate various organizational changes in the Ministry
of Defence, e.g. DTD&P (Air) renamed as DGAQA; airworthiness functions
changed from Directorate of Aeronautics (through CREs) to CEMILAC (through
RCMAs). In addition to Air Force, the Army and Navy came in a big way in
aviation wing, thus the terms ASR was replaced by ASR/NSQR/GSQR and CSDO by
CSDO/NSDO/MAG (AVN) etc. In addition to these changes, the regulatory bodies
also added certain additional requirements over and above DDPMAS-1975 requirements.
5. Changes Incorporated in DDPMAS 2002
1) General content - General content of DDPMAS -2002 is similar to DDPMAS -75; however certain changes have been incorporated.
2)
‘Section – V: Procedure for Flight Testing of
Experimental and Prototype Equipment’ has been made in two chapters as, ‘Chapter
-1: Development Flight Testing’ and Chapter -2: Flight Testing by User
Services’.
3)
Annexures: DDPMAS -2002 has added five more
annexures compared to DDPMAS -75 (all of them added in Section 3, Chapter-1). Two annexures have been split in to two parts. The new annexures added are shown below:
1) Annexure –R: Declaration of Design and Performance
2) Annexure –S: Request For change in configuration
3) Annexure –T: Hardware/Software Delivery Note
4) Annexure –U: Responsibilities of CEMILAC
5) Annexure –V: Requirement to be submitted by Developing Agency for clearance of Airborne Equipment imported from abroad.
6) Annexure – G is split into two annexures as ‘G1: Certificate o Flight Trials – Aircraft’ and ‘G2: Certificate of flight trials – Helicopters’.
7) Annexure – K (annexure J in DDPMAS-75) split into two; ‘K(i): Local Modification Committee -Details of Modification Proposed’ and ‘K(ii): Advance Modification Information’.
1) Annexure –R: Declaration of Design and Performance
2) Annexure –S: Request For change in configuration
3) Annexure –T: Hardware/Software Delivery Note
4) Annexure –U: Responsibilities of CEMILAC
5) Annexure –V: Requirement to be submitted by Developing Agency for clearance of Airborne Equipment imported from abroad.
6) Annexure – G is split into two annexures as ‘G1: Certificate o Flight Trials – Aircraft’ and ‘G2: Certificate of flight trials – Helicopters’.
7) Annexure – K (annexure J in DDPMAS-75) split into two; ‘K(i): Local Modification Committee -Details of Modification Proposed’ and ‘K(ii): Advance Modification Information’.
6. Changes Related to the Procedure for Ab-initio Development
Section
– III, Chapter -1: ‘Prototype and Development Phase’ has been substantially changed, the
discussion on the changes are shown below:
1) Progression of certification – A new para (para 3) has been added
indicating two certification routes viz., ‘certification commences after
completion of all design activities’ and ‘concurrent certification approach’
could be followed. However, DDPMAS 2002 supports the concurrent certification
approach only.
2)
New Concepts brought in – Formation of ‘Airworthiness Group’,
‘Configuration Control’, ‘Technical Reviews’ and ‘Bought out Items’. Necessary
details however has not been provided.
3)
Design Standard of Preparation – A new para (para 17) added in addition
to the original para of ‘Design Standard of Prototype Aircraft’ appearing at
Para 68. Both the paragraphs discussing ‘Design Standard of Prototype Aircraft’
create contradictions and confusion.
4)
Certificate of Design – In DDPMAS -75, ‘Certificate of
Design’ (COD) was part of the Type Record (Para 18(a)). In DDPMAS -2002, in
addition to the above requirement, ‘COD’ has been made a requirement from the vendor
before issue of first flight clearance. CEMILAC participates in Design Reviews,
evaluates Design Reports, approved test schedules, participates in test and
verification trials and finally accepts test reports. So, the requirement of
‘COD’ for each system for issue of flight clearance does not appear justified.
5)
Section III, Chap – 2:
describes the activities to be performed during ‘Pre-Production and Production
Phase’. What is ‘Pre-Production’ phase and what are the activities to be performed
during this phase has not made clear.
7. Discussion on the Changes of DDPMAS-2002 from
DDPMAS-75
a) Annexures – Though five annexures have been
added, the annexures are not sequentially arranged in the text.
b)
Declaration of
Design and Performance (DDP) – DDP concept has been introduced in DDPMAS-2002 under configuration
control. The DDP route is followed in
Civil Aviation Procedures. An aircraft development house accepts equipment
(parts & appliances) for installation on prototype aircraft on the basis of
the DDP issued by equipment developer, who is a DOA (Design Organisation
Approval) holder from Civil Aviation Authority. As and when the prototype
aircraft is certified by the CAA, the equipment also gets certified and only then, the equipment manufacture can issue ‘Airworthiness Release Certificate’
for the equipment. As CEMILAC itself is certifying the LRU (parts and
appliances), DDP may not be applicable.
c)
Design Approval of
Firm and Airworthiness Group – The design approval of firm is to be carried out as per CEMILAC/5342/1
dated Jun 1999. The document does not indicate any privilege or delegated
authority to the approved organization. The procedure for approval of
airworthiness group is to be carried out as per CEMILAC/TC/03 dated Sep
2000.
d)
Bought Out Item – Appendix ‘V’ to DDPMAS – 2002 includes
information to be provided by vendors on bought out items. It is understood that
‘RCMA’ is to clear the BOI for installation on Prototype aircraft based on the
annexure –‘V’ checklist and DGAQA is to comment on the QA process of
manufacture.
For ‘Of the shelf’ items, the procurement should be supported by
‘Authorized Release Certificates’ or ‘DDP’ from the vendor or ‘TSO
Authorisation’ for TSO items.During prototype development stage only
a very limited quantities are procured and the supplier may not provide the
QTR, FMEA, MTBF/MTBR, Reliability/maintainability reports. Requirements for
these documents will lead to great bottleneck and delay to aircraft design and
development project. The appendix ‘V’ is abnormally big and does not provide any
value addition to safety and airworthiness of the aircraft or aero-engine being developed.
8. The
Document DDPMAS
a)
Purpose of DDPMAS - The purpose of DDPMAS as indicated in its ‘foreword’ and ‘preface’, is
to evolve an optimum coordination among various agencies involved in the
design, development and production of military aircraft and airborne stores. The document was written with concurrent engineering concept with the assumption
that the design and manufacturing house (HAL), the regulatory bodies (Chief Resident Engineer and Chief Resident Inspector) and user (Air Force Liaison Office) are
co- located.
b)
Certification Procedure Document – DDPMAS is not a certification
procedural documents like CAR 21 (DGCA), FAA order 8110.4c, ‘Type Certification
Procedures‘ or USAF Policy Directive AFPD-62-6:’USAF Airworthiness (Jun 2010)’
and USAF Instruction AFI 62-601: ‘USAF
Airworthiness (May 2011)’. DDPMAS does not define the procedure, responsibilities
and delegated authorities vested on approved design and production houses.
c)
Development of Electronics Item - Development of electronic items is not
covered under DDPMAS documents. An extract of DDPIL may be included to give a
general overview of the concept and to appreciate whether it significantly
differs from development concepts of other airborne equipment.
d)
Approval of Design Organisations - ‘Design Organisation Approval’ (DOA) is
an important step toward design and airworthiness control. The DOA recognizes
the capability of the firm and define responsibilities of the design
signatories and delegates necessary authority to them. The Design Assurance
System (DAS) of the DOA carries out control and supervision over design and
design changes.The airworthiness authorities monitor the functioning of the
DAS and accepts the design and test reports by the authorized signatories. The
‘Design Approval’ (DA) by CEMILAC is similar to DOA and the ‘Airworthiness Group’
of CEMILAC DA is similar to DAS of DOA as per CAR (Civil Aviation Requirement). If the above design approval
procedure is followed no separate approval will be required for airworthiness
Group.
e) Approval of Quality Management System – In the lines of the Production Organisation Approval (POA) in CAR, DGAQA confers Approval of Firms Quality Management System (AFQMS). Here, AFQMS does not delegate any authority to the firm and DGAQA resorts to spot check to detect quality deficiency. DGAQA have restricted the AFQMS limited to Government and Public Sector Undertakings only.
e) Approval of Quality Management System – In the lines of the Production Organisation Approval (POA) in CAR, DGAQA confers Approval of Firms Quality Management System (AFQMS). Here, AFQMS does not delegate any authority to the firm and DGAQA resorts to spot check to detect quality deficiency. DGAQA have restricted the AFQMS limited to Government and Public Sector Undertakings only.
9. General Comment
a)
It is essential to have a separate document bought out by CEMILAC detailing
the procedure for design certification starting from the establishment of
certification basis to the culmination of issuance of type certification.
b)
A separate document should be brought out by DGAQA detailing the
procedure for Quality Assurances through AFQMS during manufacture of the
prototype as well as series production.
c) The procedural documents released by both CEMILAC and DGAQA should clearly define the responsibilities and authorities delegated to the approved signatories so as to cater
for situations where the vendors and regulatory bodies are not co-located.
d)
The procedural documents should be made available in the electronic media
so that it become accessible to the vendors, development houses and the
users.
