Re: over-automation with glass cockpits

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         08 Aug 96 12:11:49 
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>This discussion would benefit if people dropped their respective biases
>for or against Boeing/Airbus and US versus European aircraft manufacturers.

Why is it that whenever anyone says anything that might in any way be
taken as negative to Airbus, all the Airbus fanatics start jumping up
and down about "US vs Europe?"  This seems to happen even with both
Airbus and McDonnell-Douglas are compared to Boeing -- I guess MacDAC
must be European and not US.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

>The real point is that a sensible approach to fault tolerance does both:
>Use rigorous control over design and implementation with extensive test
>programs, and try to limit common failure modes of redundant parts of the
>system.

>Using different people to build the redundant parts certainly REDUCES the
>likelihood of common failure modes. I don't think anybody would claim
>otherwise.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a theoretical world devoid of costs.
Doing so costs roughly twice as much, yet it's not clear that there is
a *substantial* reduction in common failure modes.  Indeed, the higher
complexity may result in a net loss in reliability of the system.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills