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: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-01 04:55:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!4.24.21.153!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:55:17 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3F0176A5.8050001@noplace.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.a0.62 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 1 Jul 2003 11:55:22 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39953 Date: 2003-07-01T11:55:22+00:00 List-Id: That is exactly wherein lies the fault. The software itself was designed properly and it behaved exactly as it was intended to for an A-4 rocket. It detected a failure and accommodated it. Just that in the A-5 this wasn't a "failure". The true problem came in that the unit in question was never flown on a bench simulation for the new rocket. This was *extremely* poor judgement on the part of the program management - probably under pressure to cut costs. Its just practically unheard of to take a critical piece of avionics and mount it in a new application and not do some form of system test across the expected flight envelope. (Even if the "system test" is a flight test with a pilot and a parachute. ;-) This was a management screw-up, pure and simple. Had they conducted a system test, it would have shown the flaw in the system. You can't blame the IRS - it did *exactly* what it was designed to do. Attempts to do so are akin to mounting a golf-cart tire on a semi truck and then cursing it when it blows out. MDC Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > Surely there was a /requirements/ document for both A-4 and A-5, and > somewhere in there was something specifying the performance of the > vehicles. /That/ should have been the red-flag that something needed to > be retested. That is, if the A-4 had a spec stating some performance > feature of "x", and the A-5 equivalent shows "X+1", then shouldn't the > software responsible for handling the spec be tested to ensure it can > handle "X+1"? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire ======================================================================