Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Which is the crux of the question:

What makes something possible in the future, but not the present?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Are you really this stupid?

If you have an idea patent it and then tell us about it. Or just shut
the hell up.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:58?pm, es330td wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:11?pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a
1994 Mustang? ?If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
which one would you pick?

I would ask my mechanic first.

I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators
replaced by fuel-injection.

I am an EE with a real degree and like electronic doodads.

I've had many more cases of a car dropping dead because of the
electronic crap than I have had from mechanical failure.

In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
somewhere to get it fixed.

I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
4 years.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
somewhere to get it fixed.

I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
4 years.

Ah, anecdotes!

Well then, as to mechanical failures:

* I've had a steering tie rod break on one car (fortunately it failed when
I was traveling at low speed),
* the transmission give up the ghost on another (an '88 Acura Integra that
was at around 200k miles - lots of mountain driving too),
* a radiator thermostat fail on a third,
* a head cracked on a Chevy Vega.

* No flat tires - so far - on any of the cars I've ever owned.

As to electrical failures:

* The '88 Acura Integra had a electrical ignition gizmo fail while I was on
the freeway one day - engine just plain stopped working. Fortunately I was
able to pull over to the side without incident (light traffic, thankfully).
A cop showed up and helped - cool. Turns out the part that failed was part
of a recall that I hadn't been informed of.

* On my second ('99) Integra (hey, I liked the first one) the electrical
system eventually exhibited a short in one of the interior circuits due to
improperly run wires having their insulation rubbed away due to vibrations.
The outfit that fixed it had to remove the entire dash to get at the runs.

* Dead batteries a couple times though.

I'm still driving the '99 Integra.

I think you've been fortunate to not have any mechanical failures - in fact
I'm going to say that your anecdotes appear opposite of typical
expectations.

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
somewhere to get it fixed.

I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
4 years.

Ah, anecdotes!

Well then, as to mechanical failures:

* I've had a steering tie rod break on one car (fortunately it failed when
I was traveling at low speed),
* the transmission give up the ghost on another (an '88 Acura Integra that
was at around 200k miles - lots of mountain driving too),
* a radiator thermostat fail on a third,
* a head cracked on a Chevy Vega.

* No flat tires - so far - on any of the cars I've ever owned.

As to electrical failures:

* The '88 Acura Integra had a electrical ignition gizmo fail while I was on
the freeway one day - engine just plain stopped working. Fortunately I was
able to pull over to the side without incident (light traffic, thankfully).
A cop showed up and helped - cool. Turns out the part that failed was part
of a recall that I hadn't been informed of.

* On my second ('99) Integra (hey, I liked the first one) the electrical
system eventually exhibited a short in one of the interior circuits due to
improperly run wires having their insulation rubbed away due to vibrations.
The outfit that fixed it had to remove the entire dash to get at the runs.

* Dead batteries a couple times though.

I'm still driving the '99 Integra.

I think you've been fortunate to not have any mechanical failures - in fact
I'm going to say that your anecdotes appear opposite of typical
expectations.

I forgot; I had a clutch linkage break in my old beater back in '71.

I never said I didn't have mechanical failures, I said I never had
a failure that prevented a limp to somewhere convenient, e.g. carburetor
failure where the car wouldn't go faster then about 20.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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"?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin 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.

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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving anything useful are pretty small.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 9:54 pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article
,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

---------paragraph snipped----------

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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

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

Peter

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.

On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, es330td wrote:
I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a
1994 Mustang? *If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
which one would you pick?

I don't know much about 94 Mustangs, but I know a lot about 64 and 04
models. And the 04 is dramatically more reliable. You can count on
it to start and run. And it will do this with only a thrice-annual
visit to the shop for an oil change.

On the other hand, there is no maintenance schedule on a 64 Mustang.
You work on it all the time. You see, all the electronics in the
thing - and there is a ton - make the 04 Mustang far more reliable.
What's more, it needs far less maintenance, and far less regular
maintenance.

I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown
frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics.

On the contrary - those are the planes that need electronics least.
Those planes can demand a higher workload, since they are flown by
professional crews, and they can demand more finicky maintenance,
since it can effectively be required. You want electronics to reduce
workload and skill requirements, both in flight and maintenance. I
think it's absolutely abysmal that modern (as in - built this century)
airplanes don't have idiot lights and do have things like cowl flap,
mixture, and prop controls, EGT's, CHT's, etc. But with what it costs
to certify anything new, well, it's no surprise.

Go try selling the FAA on the idea of eliminating EGT, CHT, MP, Oil
Temp, Oil Pressure, and Tach in favor of a computer, and they will
simply throw FAR's at you. EGT (really TIT) required for every
turbocharged engine. MP required for engines with controllable
props. CHT required for engines with cowl flaps. Oil Temp and
Pressure and Tach always required. By regulation. That's all there
is to it. You're not going to replace that with a %Power gauge and
idiot lights, but really you should be able to. Then the idiot light
could tell you to land and check the engine.

*Given
that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended
periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think
that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes
to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep
the plane off the ground.

Sure - and reliability at reasonable cost comes only from technology.
If the cost is not reasonable, it hardly matters how reliable it is -
because it won't get manufactured in any reasonable quantity, the
fleet will shrink with the pilot population, and in the end there
won't be any GA left. Oh, wait...

Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog,
physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they
do, they don't usually fail completely. *You start to get indications
from the plane that something is having a problem long before it
actually fails. *Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0%
in the blink of an eye without warning.

Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your
computer-controlled engine is failing. Like idiot lights. And those
engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days.

to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire
needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot.

Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a
light airplane. Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons
it's not terribly practical. But fully electronic engine controls and
full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine.

Michael