Meant to send this to the list, not just to Randall.
--- Begin Message ---
--- Randall Clague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:04:35 -0800 (PST), Adrian
> Tymes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >minimal human inspections that in practice are
> rarely more than formalities
>
> Thinking of safety inspections as formalities is a
> good way to get
> people killed.
Very true. I was describing a hypothetical reality to
be striven for: the craft would be *so* safe, and
proven to be so through prior flights, that even the
most hostile safety officer can never - in practice -
find a reason to ground the craft. In this case, said
hostile safety officer would, at least in part, be
written into the automated inspections. The ideal
would be, "We've come up with a complete list of
things someone could possibly check on this vehicle,
and the robots check 'em all. If any of them is out
of spec by even the slightest, or if the whole system
looks even the slightest bit unusual, ground the
vehicle until this is corrected. But in practice,
this rarely if ever happens, at least for things that
can not be automatically fixed on the spot." For
instance, a loose panel would be pulled and replaced
with a known good panel, even if it seemed extremely
obvious to the crew on hand at the time that the only
"malfunction" was a loose screw: let the mechanics
figure that out when the safety of a vehicle does
*not* depend on it.
Now, how much effort and how many flights it would
take to get there is debatable; personally, I'd
disbelieve anything below "a lot". It is a goal that
may be aimed for, not anything like a statement of
present reality.
--- End Message ---
