Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #45513
From: Richard T. Schaefer <schaefer@rts-services.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Imagination
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:46:38 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>

 


On the other hand, to hold that an all electronic system has as favorable probability numbers as electronic plus mechanical backup is not a matter of personal comfort level.  It's just not a correct statement of the facts.

 

Colyn, This statement can very well be true or false.

You must always evaluate failures as a system. Identify where failures can happen and confirm that you have a backup and/or can LIVE with the failure.

 

I could easily IMAGINE scenarios where an aircraft with an electrically dependent engine and mechanical gauges is more likely to have serious risk mitigation problems then an aircraft with a non electrically dependent engine and only electrical instruments.

 

You can have a false sense of security if, for example, some of your mechanical devices are electrically dependent and your failure mode takes out it’s electrical source.

 

Vacuum systems are far more likely to fail than non vacuum systems. So when you really need them there is more likely a probability they may have their own failures.  

 

An all electric backup, that has no system coupling to the primary systems (i.e. independent power, transducers, wire harness, connectors, etc.) can be as reliable in a “System” context to those systems that you IMAGINE with mechanical backups.  

 

 

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster