From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f6912,fd6a0f1d05ce01f8 X-Google-Attributes: gidf6912,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,539c04254abf1b37 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-28 09:33:59 PST Message-ID: <3C7E69E3.AD3A0F05@baesystems.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:33:23 +0000 From: David Gillon Organization: BAE SYSTEMS Avionics (Rochester) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: naval systems References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com> <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com> <3C763746.CC8B2965@baesystems.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: rc3284.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com X-Trace: 28 Feb 2002 17:33:03 GMT, rc3284.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!btnet-peer1!btnet-feed3!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!rc3284.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com Xref: archiver1.google.com sci.military.naval:103503 comp.lang.ada:20581 Date: 2002-02-28T17:33:23+00:00 List-Id: tony gair wrote: > I was present on the project testing phase of the 777 ada fly by wire > system, and my understanding of Boeings choice for Ada was the following > > 1) The systems functions and procedures needed testing at a component level, > Most Ada programmers I've met have experience of rigourous testing. > > 2) The contract for the fly by wire system was completed by Marconi Avionics > in Elstree, UK, who are mainly Ada programmers and normally do Big Guns > projects. This probably decided the project language. The ready availability > of design, and test tools used on Big Guns projects was possibly also a > deciding factor. This is almost completely inaccurate. The only thing you have right is that the contract was to MAv/GMAv, but even here it was in fact at Rochester. On the initial prototype development two out of three teams were non-Ada and the engineers reflected that. The decision to focus on Ada across the entire aircraft, not simply the FCS, was Boeing's. Their decision to go for single design/common code on the production FCS was driven by certain decisions out of the FAA and came very late in the day. MAv were only the sub-contractor on the FCS, and couldn't, for instance, drive the choice of language on the AIMS which was being written by Honeywell, or on any of the other systems. For the Boeing perspective on their adoption of Ada for 777 there's a rather good article in the Crosstalk archives. > Would you fly on this aircraft? In an instant. And I was on the project from before formal launch of the 777 to entry into service so I know precisely what went on during development. -- David Gillon