|
|
Dave,
I think you and Al W. have a misunderstanding here, based on semantics.
What Al was talking about wasn't reducing the risk of a specific component failing but, rather, mitigating the _consequences_ of a particular component failing. If there is only one CAS and it failed, things get really quiet up there. If there are two, then there is a much better chance of completing the flight as originally planned. Therefore, the overall risk to the flight, from causes related to the ECM, is reduced.
My $.002,
Dale R.
From: david mccandless <daval@iprimus.com.au>
Date: 2005/06/06 Mon PM 01:31:40 EDT
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks
Hi Al,
I fail to see how installing another CAS will 'dramatically' reduce risk of all ECM causes.
We have already said we have no history of failure of the CAS, how can installing another CAS (with no history of failure), 'dramatically' reduce the risk of failure?
And how can installing another CAS have any influence on "the risk of all ECM causes" ?
I also have great respect for redundant systems, but I cannot see your logic in this one. It is the 'dramatic reduction' that troubles me. BR, Dave McC
|
|