[LINK] Expert advise sought please...
scott at doc.net.au
Tue Jan 22 13:09:51 EST 2008
On 1/21/08, David Lochrin <dlochrin at d2.net.au> wrote:
> But there's a more fundamental consideration of good systems
> design. Almost all aircraft accidents result from more that one failure
> (mechanical, procedural, etc). In similar fashion, it's just too easy for a
> database to accumulate errors - for example, the database says that aircraft
> 'a' includes engine 'b' which includes fan 'c' when it's actually fan 'z' -
> and in an accident investigation one would like to be able to confirm by
> direct inspection of an engraved serial number which fan was involved. It
> may well be that some mistake like that contributed to the accident.
In the nirvana world of RFID, this is exactly the type of problem that RFID
(combined with physical serial numbers) can help solve.
Imagine if after maintenance had been carried out on an aircraft, and the
database updated with the physical serial numbers of the parts, the frame
could simply be "scanned" to confirm that records have been updated
correctly. This would significantly decrease the possibility of records
being incorrectly updated - even (or perhaps, especially) if it was only
being used as a cross-check.
Of course I'd be fairly sure that RFID technology still isn't at the point
where this is possible, but it's getting closer.
This is one application where the cost of doing it is probably significantly
less than the possible savings. A single hull-loss accident can cost 100's
of millions of dollars in equipment alone - without even considering the
human life factor - and it wouldn't be the first time an accident occurred
due to incorrect maintenance records.
More information about the Link