Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 20, 8:40*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
are using to send these messages.

Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
authored it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
are using to send these messages.

Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
authored it.

Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document,
controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an
airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive
excitement to life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 20, 11:35*am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
are using to send these messages.
Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
authored it.

Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document,
controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an
airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive
excitement to life.

Every machine can fail.

What matters so much is not whether the machine is a computer or
something else, but the probability of failure of that component, and
the probability of failure of the overall system as a result.

I read on regular basis about ICE's that failed for whatever reason.
But people still use ICE's.

One should look at the math of each situation and do what is necessary
to make likelihood of system failure at least equivalent.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 11:35?am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
are using to send these messages.
Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
authored it.

Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document,
controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an
airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive
excitement to life.

Every machine can fail.

True but irrelevant.

What matters so much is not whether the machine is a computer or
something else, but the probability of failure of that component, and
the probability of failure of the overall system as a result.

And establishing that probablility is generally an extremely
expensive process.

I read on regular basis about ICE's that failed for whatever reason.
But people still use ICE's.

Irrelevant

One should look at the math of each situation and do what is necessary
to make likelihood of system failure at least equivalent.

Already been done. It is called FAA certification requirements.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.