When Interfaces Fail: The Hidden Frontier of Aerospace Safety

In modern aircraft development, failures rarely originate from a single component misbehaving.
They emerge from interactions — subtle, undocumented or simply misunderstood.

Over the last decade, across AAM demonstrators, CS-23 platforms and even legacy fleet upgrades, engineering teams are facing a pattern that is statistically consistent:
👉 interfaces, not components, are driving an increasing portion of safety-critical findings.

1. Why interfaces are becoming the weak point

Three structural trends explain it:

1. System integration is deeper than ever.
Power, avionics, software and pilot-vehicle interaction no longer sit in vertical silos. A small change in one domain affects two or three others.

2. Supply chains are fragmented.
Multiple suppliers contribute subsystems developed “as black boxes”, with different assumptions and documentation cultures.

3. Certification guidance is evolving slower than architecture complexity.
AMC and SC updates reduce ambiguity, but integration outpaces regulation.

The result is integration brittleness: behaviour that is correct in isolation but unsafe when everything works together.

2. The silent propagation of ambiguity

Most interface-related hazards arise from issues that look trivial on paper:

• A timing assumption not made explicit
• An error state that one subsystem reports and another ignores
• A “default mode” that each supplier interprets differently
• Two teams using different versions of the same ICD
• A pilot alert generated under conditions no one validated combinatorially

None of this appears dramatic.
But in a safety assessment, these tiny mismatches can unlock failure paths no FMEA or FHA ever intended to contemplate.

3. What high-performing programmes are doing differently

Across recent programmes in Europe, three practices make a measurable difference:

➤ Interface Definition as a first-class artefact
Not an appendix, not a diagram: a living document reflecting real system behaviour as it evolves.

➤ Early integrated safety reviews
Cross-domain working sessions where Systems, Avionics, Human Factors, Safety and Certification validate assumptions together, not sequentially.

➤ Configuration discipline
Consistent version control for ICDs, safety analyses and supplier data — avoiding the classic trap of “correct data, wrong vintage”.

4. The mindset shift

Ultimately, preventing interface-driven hazards is less about tools and more about engineering culture:

“If two subsystems interact, both teams own the safety of that interaction.”

In a landscape defined by electrification, AAM architectures and rapid prototyping, this mindset will distinguish programmes that scale safely from those that accumulate latent risk.

‍