The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command released a new version (Rev B) of AMACC, the Army Military Airworthiness Certification Criteria, in November 2024.

While the document presents the airworthiness criteria for US Army aircraft, there are some great lessons from the guidance that can be applied to multicore certification in a wider context, including A(M)C 20-193, and we thought we'd share them. 

A handy to-do list for multicore certification

The most striking difference between AMACC Rev B and A(M)C 20-193 is the level of detail given in the guidance. 

While the objectives in AMACC Rev B are very similar to those in A(M)C 20-193, the former doesn’t just list high-level objectives, it clearly lists activities too. 

A(M)C 20-193 specifies 9 high-level objectives and expects you to fill in the blanks of how to meet them. AMACC Rev B, meanwhile, presents no fewer than 163 individual requirements imposed on a wide range of deliverables for multicore certification. This enumeration of detailed requirements provides a concrete to-do list for certification, and as an added bonus, the guidance specifies where each part of each activity should be documented.

This detailed approach should be much easier for organizations to follow than the low-detail approach in A(M)C 20-193, especially for organizations new to the complexities of multicore certification.

The detailed breakdown of activities in AMACC Rev B is very similar to that in the planning documents in MACH¹⁷⁸ Foundations, which also includes procedures for meeting objectives, as well as handy checklists, templates and white papers to support multicore certification.

Making things clear

The level of detail provided in AMACC Rev B helps in other ways too. There’s a lot of nuance in A(M)C 20-193, which may not be apparent the first time you read it. For example, A(M)C 20-193’s MCP_Resource_Usage_4 objective requires that multicore mitigations are planned for, verified and reviewed, but it only does so implicitly.

This could easily be missed on a first read through the document and a first draft of multicore planning documents. This should be picked up at SOI#1, but if it’s missed, more effort may be needed to update plans after the certification milestone.

Another example of how AMACC Rev B makes things clear relates to identifying interference channels. A(M)C 20-193 only specifies that this is needed at DALs A and B (MCP_Resource_Usage_3 objective), and not at DAL C. However, identifying interference channels is required to be able to characterize the impact of interference on hosted software, which is required for DAL C (MCP_Software_1). While this isn’t a contradiction – the impact is that you’ll need to identify channels but not need to include documentation of them in your submission – the guidance can confusing on this point.

The additional clarity in AMACC Rev B really helps reduce ambiguity and should ultimately lead to more efficient certifications. This is obviously a good thing, and that’s why we provided more clarity wherever possible when developing MACH¹⁷⁸ Foundations, breaking down each objective into a list of sub-objectives that are individually actionable, and identifying where each should be documented in a DO-178C process.

Conclusion

Fundamentally, there is a huge overlap in the multicore objectives of A(M)C 20-193 and AMACC Rev B, but the latter is presented in a way that’s much easier to follow. An itemized list of requirements, presented clearly along with expectations on where evidence is to be documented, can all help provide clarity on what’s needed and when, even to an organization new to multicore certification.

If you’re beginning to plan for A(M)C 20-193 certification, it may be a good idea to review the objectives and expand them into a list of activities reminiscent of that presented in AMACC Rev B. Or you could just use MACH¹⁷⁸ Foundations, in which we’ve done that for you already, as well as providing templates and checklists for each activity.