Topic · ARP 4754A

What is ARP 4754A, and how do I keep the system requirements true in CI?

Gist

ARP 4754A is SAE guidance for developing civil aircraft and their systems. It sits above DO-178C. The safety assessment writes system shalls; software inherits an allocation. Proof lands that allocation with proof req import exported.reqif --spec system, then fails the merge when a satisfies edge goes stale. Proof does not run FHA or PSSA. Jama still authors.

proof req import exported.reqif --spec system

Keep Jama, Visure, or DOORS for the programme. Keep the safety group for FHA, PSSA, and fault trees. An imported shall is not a hazard analysis.

Request demo Last FHA pack vs this graph

01 · System, not software

ARP 4754A writes the aircraft function. DO-178C writes the code that implements a slice of it.

A flight-control function, a braking function, a display that must not lie. The system document allocates those functions to software. Last year's allocation PDF does not reopen on this push.

SAE ARP 4754A, Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems, is the process above software. FAA AC 20-174 points at it. EUROCAE publishes related system text. Functional Hazard Assessment, Preliminary System Safety Assessment, and the allocation of system requirements to software items all live in that process. Proof does none of those three jobs. It receives the allocated shalls and keeps them attached to the code that claims them.

The airborne software H1 lives on DO-178C-style verification. Ground CNS/ATM is DO-278. The interchange file those ALMs already export is ReqIF. This page is the system document: land the allocation, then fail CI when the graph no longer matches it.

proof req import exported.reqif --spec system
proof req link add SYS-REQ-0080 --satisfies STK-REQ-001
proof audit --fail-level warn

The first command is the allocation arriving as YAML under the system spec. The second is a named satisfies edge, not a comment in a spreadsheet. The third is the standing gate. A pasted RTM from last PSSA is not this check. Jama still owns the programme authoring. Proof does not replace SAE, and it is not a qualified tool.

02 · The exhibit

Same flight-control function. A PDF from last PSSA, or this graph.

The pack still has last year's allocation table. The software item changed. Click the tabs.

Jama / Visure programme

SYS-REQ-0080 flight-control function allocated to SW-12
PSSA table still 100% on last freeze

Pack present

This push

SW-12 changed. The PDF did not.

No re-import

Jama / Visure programme

Still last freeze. Still the authoring system.

Keep the programme

Proof

Ask does SYS-REQ-0080 still satisfy the allocated function
Gate audit --fail-level warn

Merge blocked if satisfies is stale

Same flight-control function. A PDF from last PSSA, or this graph. Click the tabs.

Who	What they notice	What they lose
ARP 4754A / SAE	Civil aircraft and systems development. FHA, PSSA, allocation to software items.	They write the requirement. Keep them. Proof does not replace the standard and is not a qualified tool.
Jama / Visure / DOORS	The programme: authoring, review, and export of the system shalls.	They still win at programme authoring. Proof imports the allocation. It does not author the FHA.
DO-178C	Airborne software under the allocation. Design Assurance Levels, not system functions.	Different H1. The steal-the-four-jobs page lives on DO-178C-style.
Proof	Allocated shalls in this tree, then the same audit on every push	No FHA. No PSSA. No fault tree. A `satisfies` edge is a trace record, not a proof the child does not contradict the parent.

The generate path is a view of the same graph, not a second source of shalls:

proof init --standard do-178c
proof doc generate npr7150-srs --format html --output docs/srs.html
proof audit --fail-level warn

proof init --standard do-178c scaffolds stakeholder specs so system shalls from an ARP 4754A assessment have a place to land. It is not an ARP 4754A template. Unknown template names fail before render. If the graph is thin, the report is thin. We have not run this import against a frozen ARP 4754A corpus, and we have not scored it against Jama or Visure on the same pack. The loss is named, not scored.

03 · The honest loss

A green Proof audit is not ARP 4754A credit.

Credit under the recommended practice requires a safety assessment and a human who can sign. Proof does not perform FHA, PSSA, or fault-tree analysis.

Proof does not pick a Development Assurance Level for a system function. That classification is yours. We store the allocated shall and the satisfies edge. We do not map that edge onto an FHA table and call it done. AADL, STAMP, and specialized safety tools still own the system-level assessment. Component hazard analysis that is not this standard lives on hazard analysis tied to the component. Jama still authors.

ARP 4754 (no letter) is the 1996 text. ARP 4754A is the revision people type. ARP 4754B exists in the SAE catalogue. One URL for the cluster. DO-330 is tool qualification; Proof is not qualified. Keep VectorCAST or LDRA if a DER has to stamp a software kit. That H1 lives on Proof vs LDRA.

Request demo How the install is bought

04 · Nearby questions

What people type next.

What is ARP 4754? The 1996 predecessor. Same cluster. This URL. The typed query is ARP 4754A.

Does Proof run Functional Hazard Assessment? No. FHA, PSSA, and fault trees stay with the safety group. Proof receives the allocation those assessments already produced.

What is ReqIF, and how do I keep the interchange true in CI? The file format Jama and DOORS already export. Different H1. ReqIF.

I need DO-178C style verification but I'm not in aerospace. What can I use? The four jobs, not the Type Certificate. DO-178C-style.

What is DO-278, and how do I keep CNS/ATM software true in CI? Ground, not airborne. DO-278.

Is Proof a Jama alternative? No. Jama owns programme authoring. Proof vs Jama. DOORS is a mention there.

What is a requirements traceability matrix, and how do I keep it true? The matrix the graph can print after the allocation lands. RTM.