Talk:Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics

The organization changed its name in 1993 to RTCA, Inc. "RTCA" is no longer an abbreviation for "Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics". Kernel.package (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point! Maybe the "parenthetical" remark about the name change would not have to be in the "lede" -- [the very first sentence of this article] -- if the name of this article were to be changed to "RTCA" (the current name, or the NEW name, of the organization) instead of (the OLD name:) "Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics".  Just my 0.02 ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the "History" stuff (about the OLD name, etc.) should actually be relegated to a "== History ==" section of the article! (if appropriate.)  Any consensus (OR comments?) about [the "idea" of] changing the name of this article? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RTCA membership is international, it is not limited to companies and people United States. Its printed guidelines are used world-wide. In Europe, EUROCAE utilizes them in a manner similar to that used by the U.S. D.O.T.'s FAA. --Kernel.package (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The page should have added to it, a section that lists the organizations publications. Such as list would provide information useful to the worldwide manufacturing industry, in addition to people working in aviation but who are far enough removed from regulatory affairs that they may not be aware of all that RTCA can influence. No commercial airplane in the U.S. has ever fallen from the sky due to a software failure. This fact is due, in no small part, to the achievements made by RTCA, Inc. The achievements are not technical; credit for the technical aspect of its publications is due to RTCA Inc.'s members. The achievements are in management and in social expertise. They have created an environment where hundreds of technical poeple can pool their knowledge. Once pooled, RTCA brings the process of document creation to an end and a guideline is born. --Kernel.package (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RTCA, Inc.'s use of the term "guideline" reflects the careful selection of the term, in contrast with "standard". Rather than create something that has obsolesence designed into it, as does a standard, it uses the term "guideline". In this way, the FAA can require compliance with the given document without restricting the entity who seeks TSO approval from adhering to an obsolete reference. RTCA Inc.'s guidelines describe sets of minimums, to which a regulatory agency (such as the FAA) can require compliance without the possibility of there being an argument about what the guideline (document) means. The FAA seeks compliance with the levels of safety and reliability that the guidelines describe. This leaves flexibility open to the party seeking approval whereas compliance with a standard is more likely to result in a fixed, inflexible requirement that is prescribed by the agency.

As an organization that advises a Federal Regulatory Agency, RTCA's accomplishments are noteworthy. (That is, compared to other agencies like the, say, the FDA). Through the FAA, its influence applies to everything that is in the air above the United States including the Space Shuttle. Since the statement about being noteworthy is an opinion, it cannot be stated in the article as it is here. Enough facts about RTCA do exist to make this clear. (Its success is due in part to the engineering wing of the FAA. These are the folks who audit the manufacturers for compliance with a guideline. The engineering wing tends to be overlooked. The well-known parts of the FAA are those that get involved during accident investigation or when there are problems with controlling air traffic. Nonetheless, it is the engineering people who contribute their IP through RTCA during document development and these contributions play a part in the development of both new and improvement avionics hardware).

--Kernel.package (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Standards" or "Guidance"
RTCA devoted substantial energy to addressing this matter internally. RTCA provides guidance, in its documents, not standards. The difference is that there is no "standard" means for complying wiuth the document. And, as determined by the FAA (in the U.S.), if an equivalent or greater level of safety and reliability can be established by another means, the FAA will accept this other means.

RTCA's role is that of a technical expert. This is not hte same thing as regulation, but is part of regulation. RTCA has no regulatory authority but is extremely proficient in its ability to form teams with members from academic, commercial, and government institutions, who also speak different languages, and enage disprate regulatory agencies.

In my opinion, the cost of attaining an RTCA publication makes them less accessible than may be desired but their value exceeds this cost. Outside of the many TSOs issued by the FAA, the only reference to DO-178B also refers to DO-254 and is a book entitled, "Avionics Certification: A Complete Guide to DO-178 (Software), DO-254 (Hardware)". (I'll get this into a REF template shortly, if someone else does not.

http://www.amazon.com/Avionics-Certification-Complete-Software-Hardware/dp/1885544251 Vance Hilderman and Tony Baghai (Authors), Len Buckwalter (Editor)

71.211.239.184 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC) --kernel.package (from an inconvenient location)

Requested move 9 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus Yashovardhan (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics → RTCA, Incorporated – RTCA is the offical name, but RTCA is ambiguous. Thus, use an existing redirect; proposed and supported since 2012 on Talk:Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is guidance in WP:NCCORP against using Inc. and Co. after the name of a company or organization, with an exception for when it is necessary for disambiguation. Since the fully-spellled-out name, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, is not ambiguous, the proposed shorter name seems like it is solving a non-problem. At a minimum someone should figure out which is more commonly used: RTCA or Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. Per WP:OFFICIAL we are not persuaded just by what the organization itself prefers. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.