newbie question

[lunchbreak]

ok, hi to all - first post & new member :ok:

it'll prob take some time for me to learn the layout etc, and like others i'm subject to the os act :oh: as a member of the uk mod, so hopefully i'll catch up soon.

i'm going to throw in a safety question really to see the thoughts from a wide community - work hat off though - a personal interest thing - i've already made my professional views well known.
i've also tried to be deliberately vague in order to focus on the 'core' of the issue rather than specifics & obviously communities involved:


you're designing an a/c for military purposes, your original flying controls design had a dual setup for redundancy purposes. it encounters problems which require modification. you are left with options that cover roughly two paths:

1-re-fettle - including the removal of a portion of the redundancy
2-design & introduce an additional section to the system that may include further considerations e.g. electrical/hydraulic systems

obviously each path would require further testing/safety assessment to 'prove' & meet platform loss targets prior to use, but I am wondering which path appears most obvious to take.

for further context - from a project perspective option 1 is obviously quicker & cheaper and your project is delayed & over budget. I realise some will feel this doesn't make any odds.

thanks in advance for your thoughts :ok:

[Flap62]

Good try journo!!

Suggest you google typhoon and LGC and you'll have more luck.

[lunchbreak]

thanks for the warm welcome :hmm:, i have googled the a/c in question extensively, you're well wide of the mark though.

oh, and i suspect i'd be earning more if i were a journalist

[Pontius Navigator]

LB, suggest you name names and ask for PMs.

[lunchbreak]

PN thanks, i didn't want to drag out the specifics as having googled this doesn't appear to be a common knowledge issue and is still on ongoing item to be resolved, but there are people who strongly believe my thoughts are incorrect in this matter and i wanted to see what other people's opinions might be.

personally i feel the further design option would have been the most obvious way forward from a safety point of view, but other people's opinion is that as long as the option chosen is shown to meet the loss targets (& is not a single point of catastrophic failure) it's fine.

how can you demonstrate the system is ALARP if you haven't at least explored your options (even if only at a high-level?) for modification?

add to that the thought of removing redundancy from a flying control system :uhoh:

[lunchbreak]

cheers for the msg PN, much appreciated :ok:

sorry for the necessary vagueness people, just hoped i could stimulate some discussion on it

[L Peacock]

hmm.. a mil aircraft, still under development that may be experiencing flying control problems.
-
-
-
no, couldn't even hazard a guess.

[H Peacock]

you're designing an a/c for military purposes, your original flying controls design had a dual setup for redundancy purposes. it encounters problems which require modification. you are left with options that cover roughly two paths:

1-re-fettle - including the removal of a portion of the redundancy
2-design & introduce an additional section to the system that may include further considerations e.g. electrical/hydraulic systems

Well a third option, albeit somewhat drastic, would be to call it a day and start all over again with a nice big clean sheet of paper!

[taxydual]

Lunchbreak. Be aware, vague queries get vague replies.

This is the Internet, the home of conspiracy theories and weird people. To get a sensible answer, ask a sensible question and be willing to discard 98% of the answers you get.

Bear in mind, them that know won't tell, and them that don't know, won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[Irish Tempest]

LB it might be worth checking the Flight Test Forum as there are some extremely wiley engineers that loiter in there. If any one can help you they can.

I used to deal with ALARP issues and gave advice on Safety Case development. I have some mates that still work in this field and I can put you in touch with them if you wish. Please PM me if you want more info.

There is a poster by the name of 'safetyhelmut' on here who seems to do a lot of work on SCs. You maybe able to get in touch with him.

[Safety_Helmut]

lunchbreak, I think the lack of responses says quite a lot, I read it earlier in the week, and your question is simply to vague. As ever when questions of safety arise, context is everything. Without knowing more about the situation you refer to, it is very difficult to offer thoughts, and I suspect that is why none of the people I know to be safety authorities have responded.

Personally, I found this bit interesting:
you're designing an a/c for military purposes, your original flying controls design
So, are you designing an aircraft, or are you (very heavily) modifying an existing aircraft ?

Feel free to drop me a PM, it looks like an interesting question.

S_H

[lunchbreak]

cheers all for the responses :ok: sorry for the poorly phrased question then, but like i said - newbie :O

i think i'd be tempted with H Peacock's suggestion, and by the looks of things his bro?? :\ LP could hazard (sorry didn't mean a pun) a guess at where this is all aimed.

TD - good point, well presented! it would make a good story in the wrong/journo hands hence the vagueness :oh:

Irish - thanks for the info, i might check out that room. i must admit that during this saga the TP's gave me the impression that they were initially unhappy with the proposed way forward, but had been led to believe that it was the only feasible way to progress - i was disturbed by that apparent misdirection also. :=

SH - i see what you're all getting at with the context thing - i must admit it was why i was questioning the core of the decision (does that make sense in other people's head??) rather than the actual situation as i would have had to provide the details to give context.
By the 'existing design' i had meant that you were already in a position where the bulk of the design work had been completed and you were modifying this. however i see where you are coming from and i wouldn't have worded it this way if I had thought someone would pick up on that :oh: