Future of Electronics In Aviation

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.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
[...]
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.
[...]
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.

Well I've been programming for 35 years and been getting paid to do it for
30, so by your own metric I am presumably in some sort of authoritative
position to judge your counter arguments to Lapin re software development.
But I somehow doubt you really want to know what I think of your arguments.
;-)

On Jun 20, 12:01*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
[...]
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.
[...]
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.

Well I've been programming for 35 years and been getting paid to do it for
30, so by your own metric I am presumably in some sort of authoritative
position to judge your counter arguments to Lapin re software development.
But I somehow doubt you really want to know what I think of your arguments..
;-)

Please, do tell.

Being in software field, you know that there are people who have been
programming for 40 years whom you would not trust to design a flight
control computer that relies on advanced mathematics.

Obviously not saying that you are in that category. I'm merely saying
that I would look for other personal attributes beyond experience that
makes an engineer/designer predisposed to not make a mess, someone who
is acutely aware of the potential outcome of bad engineering. That
person might or might not have 35 years of experienece, but if I had
to choose between the Dutch guy mentioned above, who probably has
12-15 years experience,, and a random senior engineer with 40 years
experience, I would not hesitate to choose the Dutch guy, simply
because I already know that he possesses these attributes.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
[...]
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.
[...]
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.

Well I've been programming for 35 years and been getting paid to do it for
30, so by your own metric I am presumably in some sort of authoritative
position to judge your counter arguments to Lapin re software development.
But I somehow doubt you really want to know what I think of your arguments.
;-)

Have you ever known reliablility and correctness testing to be either
easy or cheap, particularly when dealing with life critical systems?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Have you ever known reliablility and correctness testing to be either
easy or cheap, particularly when dealing with life critical systems?

No.

I now think I probably shouldn't have entered this thread. My own ideas
about system development don't appear to agree with either the idealistic
and inexperienced/naive views expressed by Le Chaud Lapin or necessarily
with your hard earned cynicism. Well, cynicism doesn't quite contain the
nuanced meaning that your real position probably entails, so forgive me
that it doesn't characterize your full position.

I think I might have argued from a different perspective than you, or at
least used a different set of arguments, not that I nessarily disagree with
your general thrust. I wouldn't, for example, have used some the anecdotes
you used - which for some reason bothered me, but in retrospect it isn't
like any of us get paid to insure every post is rigorously logical!

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Have you ever known reliablility and correctness testing to be either
easy or cheap, particularly when dealing with life critical systems?

No.

I now think I probably shouldn't have entered this thread. My own ideas
about system development don't appear to agree with either the idealistic
and inexperienced/naive views expressed by Le Chaud Lapin or necessarily
with your hard earned cynicism. Well, cynicism doesn't quite contain the
nuanced meaning that your real position probably entails, so forgive me
that it doesn't characterize your full position.

I'm a bit on edge at the moment as I am deeply involved in testing a
system due to go live in a couple of days which if it goes tits up
will embarass a lot of people and cost me a lot of money and if it
works means a huge amount of follow on work.

So while test cases run I have a far amount of thumb twiddling time
to play USENET.

I think I might have argued from a different perspective than you, or at
least used a different set of arguments, not that I nessarily disagree with
your general thrust. I wouldn't, for example, have used some the anecdotes
you used - which for some reason bothered me, but in retrospect it isn't
like any of us get paid to insure every post is rigorously logical!

Exactly, not to mention the fact that anything past the most simplistic
of arguements and examples are going to fly right over the head of
Le Chaud Lapin.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
I'm a bit on edge at the moment as I am deeply involved in testing a
system due to go live in a couple of days which if it goes tits up
will embarass a lot of people and cost me a lot of money and if it
works means a huge amount of follow on work.

Sounds like fun. ;-) Seriously though, I wish you good success.

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
I'm a bit on edge at the moment as I am deeply involved in testing a
system due to go live in a couple of days which if it goes tits up
will embarass a lot of people and cost me a lot of money and if it
works means a huge amount of follow on work.

Sounds like fun. ;-) Seriously though, I wish you good success.

Thanks.

A bunch of major tests just finished with zero problems.

Things are looking good...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
wrote:

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.

I would have phrased it a bit more delicately, but yes.