Aerospace

Safety analysis built from test evidence, not assumptions. ARP4761 native.

DFMEA, PFMEA, and FMECA from your engineering data. ARP4761 and MIL-STD-1629A compliant. IA9100 ready.

Book a working session
See case studies

<3 weeks
vs. months manual

MSG-3
task analysis native

ARP4761
compliant from day one

What we do for aerospace

Built for aerospace safety analysis.

ARP4761 Safety Analysis

Functional hazard assessments, fault tree analysis, and FMEA aligned with ARP4761 and ARP4754A. Traceable to system requirements and certification evidence.

MIL-STD-1629A FMECA

Criticality analysis for military and defense aerospace programs. Severity classifications, detection methods, and compensating provisions mapped to every failure mode.

Design FMEA from Specs

Generate DFMEAs from engineering drawings, BOMs, and interface specs. Cross-referenced against field reliability data and service bulletins.

Maintenance Program Optimization

MSG-3 aligned task analysis. Identify missing inspections, redundant checks, and incorrect intervals from your maintenance history.

Supply Chain Traceability

Link failure modes to parts, suppliers, and lot numbers. Trace quality escapes and warranty claims back to root causes across the supply chain.

Private Deployment

Air-gapped and ITAR-compliant deployment options. Zero data egress. SOC 2 controls. Runs inside your approved environment.

AI Companion

Search across engineering specs, regulatory documents, and FMEA libraries in conversation. Ask questions, get cited answers, edit FMEAs inline. Works in 34 languages, online or air-gapped.

Continuous Data Quality Monitoring

Score every record for completeness and accuracy in real time. Track quality trends across teams, sites, and shifts. Alerts when quality drops below thresholds. Audit-ready reporting.

Reliability Insights & Analytics

Recurring failure patterns, cross-program learning, and maintenance effectiveness scoring. What one system reveals applies across your fleet. Trend detection flags affected rows when fleet data changes.

Is this for you?

Who this is built for.

Aerospace engineering teams with complex systems, existing maintenance programs, and regulatory requirements for structured safety analysis.

Brownfield

Existing operations

Existing MRO records, service bulletins, and flight data. We extract failure modes, build FMEAs, and validate your safety analysis against operational evidence.

Greenfield

New installations

No operational history yet. We work from OEM manuals, design specs, and certification documents to build your safety analysis baseline before first flight.

Compliance

AS9100 / IA9100 (2026)

ARP4761

ARP4754A

MIL-STD-1629A

DO-178C

IEC 60812

The Partnership

Three phases. Clear gates. You decide at each one.

Each phase has a deliverable and a go/no-go gate. We earn the next one.

Phase 1

Prove It

Weeks 1-3

1 critical subsystem. Draft FMEA/FMECA. ARP4761-aligned safety analysis.

Gate
70-90% of rows pass engineer review → expand

Phase 2

Expand

Months 2-4

Roll out across additional systems and assemblies. Connect to safety assessment processes.

Gate
Is the team accelerating safety analysis without compromising rigor?

Phase 3

Operate

Months 5-12

Living safety model: field events and test results update FMEAs automatically. Cross-program knowledge reuse.

Gate
Renew and expand across programs.

Book a working session

Bring one manual. We show you what yours missed. 30 minutes.

Questions

Aerospace FMEA questions, answered.

How does this align with ARP4761 safety assessment?

The system generates functional hazard assessments, preliminary system safety assessments, and FMEAs aligned with ARP4761 methodology. Severity classifications map to ARP4761 hazard categories (catastrophic through no safety effect). Every failure mode links to the system requirement or safety objective it traces to, so your DER or certification team can review evidence directly.

Can it handle DO-160 environmental qualification?

DO-160 test categories (temperature, vibration, altitude, EMI) feed directly into FMEA environmental stress inputs. If qualification testing reveals failure modes under specific conditions, those are captured and linked to the relevant DO-160 section. The FMEA reflects what your hardware actually does under environmental stress, not generic assumptions.

What is the difference between FMECA and FMEA in this context?

FMECA adds quantitative criticality analysis to the FMEA process, per MIL-STD-1629A. The system calculates criticality numbers (Cm and Cr) from failure rate data and severity classifications. You get both the qualitative risk picture (FMEA) and the quantitative criticality ranking (FMECA) from the same dataset. Switch between views depending on whether your program requires ARP4761-style or MIL-STD-1629A deliverables.

How does it support MSG-3 maintenance program development?

FMEA outputs feed MSG-3 logic directly. Failure modes are categorized by consequence (safety, operational, economic) and the system recommends task types (on-condition, hard-time, condition-monitored) based on failure characteristics and detection capability. Existing maintenance task cards and service bulletins are cross-referenced to identify gaps, redundancies, and incorrect intervals.

Does it meet military specification requirements?

Full MIL-STD-1629A compliance including Task 101 (failure mode and effects analysis) and Task 102 (criticality analysis). Outputs include compensating provisions, detection methods, and severity classifications per MIL-STD-882. ITAR-compliant deployment options with air-gapped infrastructure and zero data egress. Your data stays inside your approved environment.