Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:safeav:as:summary [2026/04/24 09:55] – raivo.sell
+++ en:safeav:as:summary [2026/04/24 10:08] (current) – tables moved to appendixes raivo.sell
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 In the subsequent chapters, we will delve deeper into these topics with a framing informed by autonomy abstractions as shown in the figure below.  At the “bottom” of these abstractions are the physical objects such as the mechanical devices and the associated electronics hardware.  Layered above the electronics hardware layer are various software layers which start with middleware/infrastructure, algorithmic layers, and finally the connection to humans.
-{{:en:safeav:softsys:figure2b.jpg?700|}}
+{{:en:safeav:softsys:figure2b.jpg?400|}}
 These topics will be addressed at the conceptual level and also examined in specific fashion for the four physical domains (example figure below).
-{{:en:safeav:softsys:figure2c.jpg?700|}}
+{{:en:safeav:softsys:figure2c.jpg?400|}}
-**Productization Lessons and Assessments:**
-Key lessons for productization include:
-  - Engineers must understand their products operate inside a governance structure consisting of laws, regulations, and standards.
-  - In the case of autonomy, there are many historical standards, but standard development is also under development.
-  - A very key aspect of product design is the expectation function for the product. This expectation function is key to communication from a marketing perspective and also from a legal liability perspective.
-^ Domain ^ Primary Standards Body ^ Key Autonomy Standard ^
-| Ground | SAE | SAE J3016 |
-| Ground | ISO | ISO 26262, ISO 21448 |
-| Ground | UNECE | UN R157 |
-| Airborne | RTCA | DO-178C, DO-365 |
-| Airborne | FAA/EASA | UAV autonomy certification |
-| Marine | IMO | MASS autonomy levels |
-| Marine | DNV | Autonomous ship standards |
-| Space | NASA | ALFUS autonomy framework |
-| Space | CCSDS | Spacecraft autonomy protocols |
-| Cross-domain | IEEE | IEEE 7000 series |
-| Cross-domain | IEC | IEC 61508 |
-| Cross-domain | NIST | AI Risk Management Framework |
-Industries  and Companies:
-^ Type ^ Description ^ Example Players (Companies / Organizations) ^
-| Regulators & Government Agencies | Define laws, certification pathways, and operational constraints for autonomous systems across domains (ground, air, marine, space). They translate legislation into enforceable rules and approvals. | NHTSA, FAA, EASA, International Maritime Organization, NASA, ESA |
-| Standards Organizations / Industry Consortia | Develop technical standards, safety frameworks, and autonomy classification systems that regulators and industry rely on (e.g., SAE levels, ISO safety standards). | SAE International, ISO, IEEE, RTCA, ASTM |
-| Legal & Advisory Firms | Interpret liability, compliance, and regulatory frameworks; support litigation, risk assessment, and policy strategy for autonomy deployments. | Baker McKenzie, DLA Piper, Latham & Watkins |
-| Certification & Testing Authorities | Provide independent validation, certification audits, and compliance verification against safety standards (ASIL, DAL, etc.). Critical for market entry. | TÜV SÜD, UL Solutions, DNV |
-| Simulation & Digital Twin Software Providers | Provide tools for scenario-based validation, digital twins, and V&V workflows across autonomy stacks (SIL/HIL, scenario generation, formal testing). | NVIDIA (DRIVE Sim), MathWorks, Ansys, Siemens |
-| Test Track & Physical Testing Infrastructure Providers | Operate controlled environments for real-world validation (proving grounds, UAV corridors, maritime test ranges). Bridge sim-to-real validation. | American Center for Mobility, MCity, FAA UAV Test Sites |

en/safeav/as/summary.1777013736.txt.gz · Last modified: 2026/04/24 09:55 by raivo.sell