Dave,

   I think you and Al W. have a misunderstanding here, based
on semantics.

   What Al was talking about wasn't reducing the risk of a
specific component failing but, rather, mitigating the
_consequences_ of a particular component failing.  

   If there is only one CAS and it failed, things get really
quiet up there.  If there are two, then there is a much
better chance of completing the flight as originally planned.  Therefore, the overall risk to the flight, from
causes related to the ECM, is reduced.

My $.002,
Dale R.

 
> From: david mccandless <daval@iprimus.com.au>
> Date: 2005/06/06 Mon PM 01:31:40 EDT
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks
>
> Hi Al,
> I fail to see how installing another CAS will 'dramatically' reduce
> risk of all ECM causes.
>
>   We have already said we have no history of failure of the CAS, how can
> installing another CAS (with no history of failure), 'dramatically'
> reduce the risk of failure?
>
> And how can installing another CAS have any influence on "the risk of
> all ECM causes" ?
>
> I also have great respect for redundant systems, but I cannot see your
> logic in this one. It is the 'dramatic reduction' that troubles me.  
> BR, Dave McC