News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FAA pushes back on Boeing exemption for 787 safety flaw by ken on Friday July 06, 2018 @11:44AM (#17472342)
The problem sounds to me like it's triggered by environmental conditions, not random chance: "during a step climb to a higher altitude in ice crystal icing conditions". In that case, does having two identical engines really constitute redundancy?
Re:FAA pushes back on Boeing exemption for 787 safety flaw by cmurf on Friday July 06, 2018 @12:24PM (#17472679)
As the probability of a condition triggering failure increases, there is a decreasing probability that redundancy helps.

e.g. volcanic ash is also an environmental trigger. But it is likely to certain to cause engine failure. No amount of ash is acceptable, but there is a density at which engine failure will happen quickly, and it's going to affect all engines at pretty much the same time. So in this extreme case, certain probability of engine failure in the triggering conditions means you have no redundancy with additional engines.

Whereas the problem sounds more variable and complex. Probably is low, therefore additional engines does provide redundancy just not as much redundancy as being in non-triggering conditions. Decent chance there's enough time to find another altitude to avoid additional failures.

Re:FAA pushes back on Boeing exemption for 787 safety flaw by eloff on Friday July 06, 2018 @12:11PM (#17472572)
Exactly, are we looking at correlated or uncorrelated risk here, because that makes a huge difference!