How to Meet DO-160 Requirements for Aviation Electronics

The test report lands on your desk: FAIL. Three months of development, $40,000 in lab fees, and your radiated emissions exceeded limits by 8 dB at 230 MHz. The fix requires a board respin, new shielding, and another full test cycle. Your program just slipped six weeks and $120,000.

This scenario plays out constantly in aviation electronics development, not because engineers lack skill, but because they approach DO-160 certification as a test to pass rather than a specification to design against. The standard’s 400+ pages and 26 test sections feel overwhelming, so teams focus on building a working product first and worry about qualification later. That’s exactly backward.

The decisions that determine whether you pass DO-160 testing happen in the first 20% of your development cycle. By the time you’re scheduling lab time, your fate is largely sealed. This guide focuses on getting your aviation electronics compliance approach right before you ever reach the test lab.

How DO-160 Actually Works: Categories, Sections, and Your Specific Requirements

DO-160G defines environmental conditions and test procedures for airborne equipment. It’s not a certification standard itself; it’s the test standard that certification authorities and OEMs invoke to verify your equipment can survive its intended installation environment.

The critical concept newcomers miss: not all 26 sections apply to your product. Each section defines multiple categories representing different severity levels. A display unit mounted in a pressurized, temperature-controlled cockpit faces vastly different requirements than a sensor mounted on an engine pylon.

Your first task isn’t reading the standard cover-to-cover. It’s obtaining your Equipment Test Specification (ETS) or Environmental Qualification Test Plan (EQTP). This document, provided by the airframer, integrator, or defined through your certification basis, specifies exactly which DO-160 sections and categories apply to your equipment. If you’re a supplier, push your customer hard for this document. If you’re the integrator, work with your DER or certification authority to define it based on installation location.

Without the ETS locked down, you’re designing blind. A category B2 temperature requirement (-40°C to +55°C) demands fundamentally different thermal design than category A3 (-55°C to +70°C). Get this wrong and no amount of last-minute engineering saves you.

High-Priority Test Categories: Where DO-160 Certification Projects Succeed or Fail

While your specific ETS governs, three areas consistently cause the most failures and rework across aviation electronics programs: temperature, vibration, and electromagnetic interference. Master these, and you’ve addressed 80% of your qualification risk.

Temperature Testing (Section 4): The Silent Component Killer

Section 4 defines operating and storage temperature requirements across categories ranging from mild (Category A: 0°C to +55°C) to severe (Category D: -55°C to +95°C operating, with short-term +70°C requirements). The test profiles include temperature cycling, which stresses solder joints and component packages through repeated expansion and contraction.

Common failure modes:

• Electrolytic capacitors exceeding ESR limits at low temperature
• LCD displays failing to initialize below -20°C
• Processors hitting thermal shutdown during high-temperature dwell
• Solder joint cracking after temperature cycling (often latent: passes initial test, fails in service)

Design-phase solutions: Conduct thermal analysis early using CFD simulation or simplified hand calculations. Identify your hottest components under worst-case conditions (maximum ambient, solar loading if applicable, full processing load). Apply proper derating: a component rated to 85°C doesn’t give you margin at 70°C ambient if its junction temperature rises 25°C above case temperature.

Select components rated for your full temperature range from the start. Substituting industrial-grade parts (-40°C to +85°C) for commercial-grade (-20°C to +70°C) late in development often forces schematic changes when pinouts or packages differ.

Vibration Testing (Section 8): Mechanical Resonance is Unforgiving

Section 8 specifies random and sinusoidal vibration profiles based on installation location. The differences are dramatic: a standard fixed-wing profile might specify 0.04 g²/Hz PSD, while helicopter installations can require 1.0 g²/Hz or higher at rotor harmonics. Getting your category wrong means designing for the wrong environment entirely.

Common failure modes:

• PCB resonance amplifying vibration at component locations, causing cracked ceramic capacitors or BGA solder joint failures
• Connector fretting and intermittent contacts
• Wire fatigue at termination points
• Mounting hardware loosening (even with proper torque and locking features)

Design-phase solutions: Perform finite element analysis (FEA) on your mechanical design to identify resonant frequencies. If PCB resonances fall within the test profile’s high-energy frequencies, add stiffeners or move mounting points. Target first-mode PCB resonance above 500 Hz where possible.

Select connectors rated for the vibration environment (MIL-DTL-38999 or equivalent for high-vibration installations). Use strain relief on all wire terminations. Apply conformal coating to protect against fretting corrosion on solder joints.

EMI Testing (Sections 15-22): The Most Complex and Most Failed

Electromagnetic interference testing spans eight sections covering conducted emissions (Section 21), radiated emissions (Section 21), conducted susceptibility (Sections 17-19), and radiated susceptibility (Sections 20, 22). Category B emissions limits, typical for equipment with external wiring, allow significantly more noise than Category Z limits required for some sensitive installations.

Why EMI fails more than anything else: EMI behavior emerges from the interaction of every design decision: component selection, PCB layout, grounding architecture, cable routing, and enclosure design. Unlike temperature or vibration, where problems often localize to specific components, EMI failures frequently require system-level redesign.

Common failure modes:

• Switching power supply harmonics exceeding conducted emissions limits
• Digital clock harmonics radiating through cables acting as unintentional antennas
• Inadequate filtering on power input lines
• Ground loops between multiple chassis connections creating common-mode noise
• ESD susceptibility causing processor resets or latch-up

Design-phase solutions: Establish your EMI strategy during schematic development, not during layout. Define your grounding architecture (single-point, multi-point, or hybrid) and stick to it. Select switching frequencies to avoid placing harmonics at sensitive frequencies. Design power supply input filtering to meet conducted emissions limits with 6 dB margin minimum.

On the PCB, maintain continuous ground planes beneath all high-speed traces. Keep clock and high-speed signal traces short and away from board edges and connectors. Use proper return path planning: current doesn’t just disappear into “ground.”

Plan your shielding strategy early. If your architecture requires a shielded enclosure, design it from the start rather than adding conductive gaskets and finger stock as band-aids. Every seam and aperture in your enclosure is a potential emission point.

Building Your DO-160 Compliance Roadmap

Follow this sequence to embed compliance into your development process:

Step 1: Lock down applicable test categories. Obtain your ETS or work with the integrator to define applicable sections and categories. Don’t start detailed design until this is complete.

Step 2: Create a compliance matrix. For each applicable section, document the required category, test conditions, pass/fail criteria, and the specific design features that ensure compliance.

Step 3: Conduct DO-160-focused design reviews. Before design freeze, review your thermal analysis, mechanical analysis, and EMI architecture against DO-160 requirements. This is cheaper than test failures by a factor of ten or more.

Step 4: Plan and execute pre-compliance testing. EMI pre-scans, thermal chamber testing, and vibration spot-checks on prototype hardware catch 80% of issues at 20% of formal lab costs. You need basic test equipment or access to a non-certified lab for this phase.

Step 5: Select your test lab early. Qualified DO-160 labs book out months in advance. Engage them during test planning to use their experience. They’ve seen hundreds of failures and can often spot problems in your design documentation.

Step 6: Document everything. Configuration management of test articles is mandatory. Serial number tracking, modification records, and photographic documentation of setups are non-negotiable for certification credit.

Mistakes That Guarantee Expensive Rework

Treating DO-160 as “test and fix.” If your plan is to build hardware and iterate based on test failures, budget for three or four test cycles and a six-month schedule slip. Design to the requirements instead.

Underestimating EMI complexity. Teams consistently allocate too little schedule and engineering attention to emissions control. If you’re not worried about EMI, you don’t understand the problem yet.

Using commercial components without analysis. A commercial-grade MEMS accelerometer might work fine at room temperature but drift wildly at -40°C. Derating analysis and qualification testing of critical components must happen before they’re in your design.

Losing configuration control. The test lab certifies a specific configuration. If you can’t prove your production units match the tested configuration, you’ve wasted your test investment.

Your First Week: What to Do Now

DO-160 certification doesn’t have to derail your program. Engineers who succeed treat the standard as a design input document, not a final exam.

This week, take three actions: obtain your ETS or initiate the process to define applicable categories, identify your highest-risk sections (almost certainly including Sections 4, 8, and 21), and schedule a design review specifically focused on DO-160 compliance before your next design freeze.

Download DO-160G and read the specific sections that apply to you. Build a checklist. Start designing to the requirements rather than hoping your design passes them. The $40,000 you don’t spend on a failed test cycle funds a lot of engineering analysis upfront.

Hubble Network’s satellite-direct connectivity is designed with aerospace-grade reliability in mind. Learn about our technology →