X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
X-SpamCatcher-Score:   1 [X]
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [68.202.132.19] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1.3)
  with HTTP id 1692426 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:50:52 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: electric attitude indicators
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1.3
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:50:52 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1692426@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <45880F51.50208@starband.net>
References: <list-1690857@logan.com>
 <45880F51.50208@starband.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



Posted for "Hamid A. Wasti" <hwasti@starband.net>:

  Posted for "Chatfield S. Daniel" <csdaniel@FNBSouth.com>:
>  
>  Mathematically it is actually 1% X 1% which is .01%
  Except for when the cause of the failure is common to both so when one fails
the other is certain to fail as well.  In that case, the failure rate is  1% x
100% which is 1%
  
  The reality is that failure analysis at a system level is not as simple as
making up a bunch of numbers (or even using the actual published numbers from
the individual component manufacturers) and multiplying them.  There has to be
analysis of each potential failure mode and how it would affect all the
components involved.
  
  Regards,
  
  Hamid