Re: Boeing 777 - Totally Irresponsible?

Date:         27 Dec 96 13:32:20 
From:         Pilot@netcom.ca (Alecs Bains)
Organization: Netcom Canada
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 12 Dec 96 03:49:23 , "Bernie Gracy, Jr." <bgracy@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>The keynote speaker of the 1996 Pacific Northwest Software Quality
>Conference reviewed the 10^9 (ten to the ninth power) problem.  Years of
>testing a PC program are required to believe that it won't fail within a
>week of release.  To meet the FAA standard of 10^9 hours of failure free
>operation would require 100 years of testing assuming that one could
>execute 1 test/sec (there are about 10^7 seconds in a work-year).
>
>He went on to say that because of the millions of lines of code written
>for the 777 that it would be impossible to test all of the failure
>conditions, and therefore was irresponsible to design and deploy such an
>aircraft.  He vowed never to fly on one...
>
>How was the 777 tested?  Is it safe?  Or is it "unsafe at any airspeed?"

	Hi there. I think this is a little but if an extreme attitude.
Although he may be right that it is impossible to test the 777 program
to those standards, the standards may be a little high. Boeing is very
good for redundancy of aircraft systems and chances are that
regardless of the computer failure that occurs, there is some sort of
back up or way out. I am confident that if the 777 was truly unsafe to
fly on they would not have sold them. They have a reputation to hold.

					Regards  Alecs Bains

					Pilot@Netcom.Ca