My fault, Frank. Miscellany was the right word... I was including many of the issues you've brought up here, in one post: man-machine interfaces (aircraft control in unforeseen circumstances, programming issues), the use of advanced design processes (ie., CAD in design as with the Airbus 380), production delays because you're "pushing the envelope" in new designs (Airbus and Boeing), susceptibility of new materials (delamination of composites, Airbus and Boeing), suitability of composites in airframes that experience lightning strikes (no "Faraday cage"), susceptibility of fly-by-wire systems to lightning strikes, use of RF reporting as an adjunct to/replacement of black boxes (with possible implications for cloud storage), and finally, possible unforeseen RF interference issues near low-frequency naval communication sites.
Almost all of these issues were covered in the "Comments" section of the NYT blog about the mid-Atlantic Airbus crash. It's worth reading.
Others have arisen separately, as we follow the info streams associated with Airbus' and Boeing's troubles in getting their latest-gen aircraft to customers. They're both late, and the evidence is that they're both having problems because they're pushing the limits of current design, manufacture and (perhaps) safety.
On reflection, I don't see how you could possibly have understood all that. Mea culpa.
Jim |
