3 ms·

Somehow, "never considered" seems a different thing than "assumed it would never happen".

• Jtsummers 10y ago
  My reading is that the assumption was: There will never be two faulty sensors in flight.
  • ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    Understood. It's just ambiguous. Being nauseatingly pedantic :), it just seems that the probability of not thinking of it is higher than thinking of it and dismissing it. I just have a failure-fetish :) What ya gonna do?
    • Jtsummers 10y ago
      That's fair. And see my comment in the parallel thread. In that situation, I think the original tester just never conceived of the possibility that there would be a failure with reporting of fires when two systems which functioned individually were run together. So the procedures didn't have the situation defined in the test plan. It was in beefing up the test procedures that the error was discovered (and others).
      • ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        "The original tester" was probably working from a Byzantine morass of requirements.
        • Jtsummers 10y ago
          Surprisingly not. I got to read all the original documents. They were unimpressive in every way. I had the pleasure of putting everything into a proper requirements tracking database (a thing that company actually did get right by the time I got there, moved away from word and excel based document systems). It was all pretty straightforward and a very simple system in the scheme of things. Fundamentally the sensors all worked fine. There was a box which collected all the sensor data and that was what was failing.