Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:35?am, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" <lefty...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > 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-
> >
> > > > 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 do***ent,
> > 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 establi****ng 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.