AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Steve Hix** · June 20th 08, 06:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student

In article ,
wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article
,
?Le Chaud Lapin 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 important, the end result is most
important. 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 shinola about software development, reliability, and testing.

I would have phrased it a bit more delicately, but yes.