Future of Electronics In Aviation

On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?

Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
some significant disadvantages).

Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving anything useful are pretty small.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 9:54 pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article
,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

---------paragraph snipped----------

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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
are using to send these messages.

Peter

"Michael" wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 2:58 pm, es330td wrote:
I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a
1994 Mustang? If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
which one would you pick?

I don't know much about 94 Mustangs, but I know a lot about 64 and 04
models. And the 04 is dramatically more reliable. You can count on
it to start and run. And it will do this with only a thrice-annual
visit to the shop for an oil change.

On the other hand, there is no maintenance schedule on a 64 Mustang.
You work on it all the time. You see, all the electronics in the
thing - and there is a ton - make the 04 Mustang far more reliable.
What's more, it needs far less maintenance, and far less regular
maintenance.

-----snip-----

Sorry to post this without reading the rest of the thread.

It appears that your experience with the 64½ Mustang is fairly recent.

There was indeed a maintenance schedule for your car, which IIRC was
approximately quarterly after an initial visit that took place a little
earlier. A number of items on the list were semi-annual, annual, and
bi-annual and the cars were quite reliable when maintained in accordance
with the maintenence schedule.

I also once had a car that seemed to need constant tuning--a 70 MGB--untill
I rebuilt the carbs and ignition using the complete and correct parts kits.
After that, it ran perfectly for so long that I nearly forgot how to work on
it.

Peter

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Pennino has been hitting on everyone analysing
future technology, now below he's gone sexual,
**** him, tell him he's fired!!!

Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

The computer can be switched off and the pilot has
direct analog control, or, instead of farting around
with nav, trims etc, he sets, altitude 4000@120 knots,
heading 250 into the computer , and he sits back and
rests to enjoy the scenerary....and he can even set-up
a wake-up call.
Ken
PS:Pennino is an annoying wop.

Speakers don't generate thrust genius.

PS:Tucker is a babbling idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?

Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
some significant disadvantages).

Exactly.

Lapin seems to be fixated on using technology simply because it exists,
as opposed to using technology to solve an existing problem or to make
life easier.

He also seems to be incapable of understanding that roughly zero
people will spend extra for something who's cost doesn't provide
the benefits to justify that cost.

Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

Yep, and as in general they aren't needed but rather just make life
easier, there are only a small percentage of people willing to pay for
them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 20, 6:07*am, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article ,
And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
software.

I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.

Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
(or any system).

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 20, 8:40*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.

-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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 20, 5:16*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?

Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
some significant disadvantages).

I disagree.

For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
dynamically.

A computer can take any of many objectives defined by pilot:

1. Minimum time in flight.
2. Minimum fuel consumption.
3. Altitude stabilization.
4. Minimum susceptibility to turbulence.
5. Maximum visibility of surroundings.

etc...

And make the flight conform to those requirements, and warn if it can
not.

That very same computer could communicate flight plan to ground, store
minute details of entire flight on hard disk and automatically move
them to home computer for recap....

Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

These systems are massively expensive, and there is much redundancy.
For example, the entire radio stack could be eliminated by a software
radio, which controls fed through LCD monitor. The software radi
costs $1000. The computer would be one of same 2 computers used for
other functions.

The possibilities are essentially endless. GA is at the beginning,
not the end, of discovering them.

-Le Chaud Lapin-