Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

In article
<083ff04d-201b-4be8-b6bd-612954a17a9a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 im****tant, the end result is most
> im****tant.  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!!!)