Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel <ihatessppa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> > In article
<42217a97-d754-4162-b4fa-5a4b538ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > ?Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 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.

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 ****nola about software development, reliability, and testing.


-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.