3 ms·

Known, calculable circumstances. If a component may fail, then redundancies are added so that failure will not result in a crash.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
You just keep digging. All adding redundancy can do is lower the chance of a crash. > If a component may fail As has already been pointed out to you, all components may fail, including any that you add to compensate for the potential failure of other components. An engineer should know this by instinct.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  An engineer should know nothing by instinct. Adding redundancy was incorrect. Redundancy should be inherent to the design. If one must be added, the design is already a failure. Redundancy does not mean adding a new component, but maintaining operation under component failure. For example, if the engines fail, it should still be possible to make a controlled landing.
  - mthoms 10y ago
    If you can build an airliner with 100% failsafe redundancies at a cost that makes you competitive with the incumbants I'll be the first to buy a ticket. Heck, I'll be the first to invest.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Nothing is 100% failsafe. Machines can be designed that will not enter known failure modes, given they are operating in within known conditions. If such a machine is detected to be able to enter a failure mode in expected coming conditions, it should not be used commercially. Cf. The grounding of all Boeing 787s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_batter...
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
"Redundancies are added"? Sorry but you just made that up. If the risk of an accident and death was "calculable" in the way you're trying to say it is, we wouldn't "add redundancies". We'd just avoid flying (or driving) and nobody would ever die in an accident.

3 ms·

Known, calculable circumstances. If a component may fail, then redundancies are added so that failure will not result in a crash.

by jsprogrammer 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago
You just keep digging. All adding redundancy can do is lower the chance of a crash. > If a component may fail As has already been pointed out to you, all components may fail, including any that you add to compensate for the potential failure of other components. An engineer should know this by instinct.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  An engineer should know nothing by instinct. Adding redundancy was incorrect. Redundancy should be inherent to the design. If one must be added, the design is already a failure. Redundancy does not mean adding a new component, but maintaining operation under component failure. For example, if the engines fail, it should still be possible to make a controlled landing.
  - mthoms 10y ago
    If you can build an airliner with 100% failsafe redundancies at a cost that makes you competitive with the incumbants I'll be the first to buy a ticket. Heck, I'll be the first to invest.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Nothing is 100% failsafe. Machines can be designed that will not enter known failure modes, given they are operating in within known conditions. If such a machine is detected to be able to enter a failure mode in expected coming conditions, it should not be used commercially. Cf. The grounding of all Boeing 787s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_batter...
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
"Redundancies are added"? Sorry but you just made that up. If the risk of an accident and death was "calculable" in the way you're trying to say it is, we wouldn't "add redundancies". We'd just avoid flying (or driving) and nobody would ever die in an accident.