![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel wrote: In article , ?Le Chaud Lapin wrote: I agree. Safety is paramount. ?Computers, with proper discipline on behalf of the designer, can be programmed to speak up when they are sick or think there is a chance that they could be sick. ?They can even help in complaining about potential future faults in mechanical components. ?For example, using raw data such as temperture, humidity, pressure, fuel mixture, and power-output, a computer very easily can calculate probability of carb icing. ?There is an essentially unlimited number of things that a computer can assisst with in flying that comes at no real material cost beyond having put the computer in place in the first place. What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering, has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be developed "with proper discipline"? That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline, allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable on the spectrum of intellectual discipline. However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide. His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious". I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know a few people who studied aero/astro at university. In any case, while process is important, the end result is most important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would imagine that there would be people who would criticize the architecture for free. From the perspective of dealing with software development for about a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know **** from shinola about software development, reliability, and testing. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |