nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:48 am    Post subject: Failure Mode Effects Analysis | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				At 11:44 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
   	  | Quote: | 	 		  | Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But that is not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly designed in that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was not conducted. I'm not arguing the point, but I do think such a statement should be accompanied by the specifics that back up the opinion. (Much the same as if someone declared Bob's OV module is poorly designed without providing any specifics.) Incidentally, the "newfangled" OV module suffers a similar problem of very limited availability. | 	  
    Conducting an FEMA is a process of considering the
    consequences of perhaps hundreds of simple failures
    with respect to:
 
    1. How are the ways that this particular component
       can fail?
 
    2. How would this particular failure manifest in
       terms of system performance?
 
    3. Does the failure elevate risk for a comfortable
       termination of flight?
 
    4. How would the pilot become aware of that failure?
 
    5. Is the system fitted with a means by which that
       failure can be mitigated?
 
    6. Is the failure pre-flight detectable?  If not,
       should a means for pre-flight testing or in-flight
       annunciation be incorporated?
 
    Deducing the answer to these questions for EVERY
    part of an airplane allows the competent and
    experienced observer to write a report that speaks
    to the rational for sprinkling holy-water on
    the collection of parts that make up a component
    of the overall system. FMEA can and should be
    applied to every part of a system whether a nut
    and screw or a transistor in the EFCI. To be
    sure there are few really critical parts but unless
    they are identified and accounted for, the system
    is burdened with unnecessary and perhaps catastrophic
    risk.
 
    The goal is to achieve a high level of confidence
    that the system is failure tolerant. This means
    that probable failures are either (1) insignificant
    with respect to comfortable termination of flight
    or (2) have backup plans that makes the failure
    insignificant.
 
    This is the foundation for my assertions that
    there should be no reason that OBAM aircraft
    should not be fitted with out-of-reach fuse
    panels. The ultimate salute to the FAA requirement
    for carrying spares for all 'critical' fuses
    is to eliminate all critical fuses. 
   
    Crew awareness of failures is an important
    part of the analysis. I.e. no high risk
    failure should be allowed to go
    un-noticed . . . ideally, annunciated
    in flight or identified during pre-flight.
 
    Beyond the FMEA, there are cost of ownership
    issues. Some of which are obvious based on 
    lessons learned; others that won't manifest
    until the marketplace has a chance to conduct
    the real-life studies.
 
    My concerns for devices like EFII, EXP-Bus
    extend beyond FMEA to also cover cost-of-
    ownership and abandonment of legacy design
    goals.
 
    
 
  
  
    Bob . . .
 
  |  | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - |  |   |  Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
 
  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  |