Not sure who you are arguing with there, Clandestino, since your post appears unaddressed, but my comment was directed to 'gleaf' on 'programming' issues (and quoted out of context) and I refer to your post above. It would have been more sensible to quote my whole paragraph to gleaf
Originally Posted by BOAC
Each false or failed input that enables you normally to identify 'it is not flying' has to be 'protected' against generating a false warning on its own and in an 'and' scenario with other units. We have already seen the fallacy of the '2 out of three' sensors voting at Perpignan.
Regarding
to beat the technical genius
- you should remind yourself of the saying about something 'foolproof' - the world can always find a better fool, as is often evidenced here. Human history is stuffed with demonstrations of Murphy's Law, and if you don't cater for that. in aircraft and software design....................