Szymon Różański
DO-178C Compliance Engineer · Avionics & Embedded Systems
Warsaw, Poland
DO-178C Compliance Engineer responsible for planning and executing software certification activities across multiple DAL levels. Authors and maintains certification artifacts (PSAC, SAS, SCI, SVP, STP), manages requirements traceability, and coordinates with Designated Engineering Representatives (DER) for FAA and EASA approvals. Has led compliance activities for Level A, B, and C software on commercial aircraft programs.
Expertise
- DO-178C compliance planning and execution
- software certification artifact authoring (PSAC, SAS, SCI)
- requirements traceability management
- DER coordination and liaison
- software tool qualification (DO-330)
Technologies
Work History
2025-01
SAS (Software Accomplishment Summary) authoring for program milestone DDA (Data Delivery Agreement) — consolidated evidence from 18 software components into a single SAS demonstrating compliance with all 71 DO-178C Level B objectives.
Challenge: Three components had open corrective actions that were not resolved at the SAS submission date. Required negotiating a limited approval with the DER — SAS approved with specific open-item conditions and a binding closure plan.
Learned: Software certification milestone schedules must account for open-item resolution time. An SAS submitted with unresolved corrective actions is a foreseeable outcome if the schedule does not include a dedicated close-out phase before the DDA.
2024-04
DO-330 tool qualification for the LDRA Testbed static analysis and coverage tool — authored the Tool Qualification Plan (TQP) and Tool Qualification Report (TQR). Coordinated with LDRA for TAS (Tool Accomplishment Summary).
Challenge: LDRA Testbed TAS covered most qualification objectives but had a gap in the error detection capability claims for the MC/DC analysis module. Required additional operational testing with specially constructed test cases that exercised known MC/DC counter-examples.
Learned: Tool qualification TAS gaps require program-specific supplemental testing to close. Tool vendors rarely provide TAS documents that exactly match all program usage domains — always perform a gap analysis against your specific usage before relying on the vendor-provided TAS.
2023-09
Requirements traceability matrix for a 1,200-requirement Level B software component — established bidirectional trace from aircraft-level requirements → system requirements → software requirements → design → code → test.
Challenge: DOORS Next performance degraded severely with 1,200 requirements and 5 levels of traceability links — baseline operations that should take seconds were taking 4+ minutes. Python automation using the DOORS REST API for batch link operations was 8x faster than the DOORS UI.
Learned: For large requirements databases (>500 requirements), IBM DOORS Next GUI becomes unusable for bulk operations. A Python REST API automation layer is essential for any bulk traceability operations — invest in it at the start of the program.
2023-02
PSAC (Plan for Software Aspects of Certification) authoring for a new Level B avionics software component — defined the certification basis, lifecycle processes, software level rationale, and tool qualification strategy.
Challenge: The DER rejected the first PSAC draft because the tool qualification strategy for the auto-code generation tool (TargetLink) was inadequate — the qualification approach referenced a TQL-5 qualification when the usage domain required TQL-1. Required a complete rework of the tool qualification section.
Learned: DO-178C tool qualification levels depend on the tool's failure mode and the absence of any downstream verification that would detect the tool's output errors. Auto-code generators eliminating manual coding verification require TQL-1 qualification — a common and costly mistake to discover late.