Could we stop saying that computers “could never do” things? It always gets proven wrong. Anything we can detect as humans has some physical reason that we can detect it. Sensors can detect it more effectively. To suggest that you can’t program a computer to know what those sensors are supposed to be reading is just absurd.
Airliner engines are getting to ludicrous reliability numbers (the latest generation appears to be closing in on 10M hours between inflight shutdowns) largely through predictive maintenance performed far in advance. We’re well past ‘most pilots never see an engine failure’ and approaching ‘most airlines don’t see an engine failure’.
And there are few locations more abusive to sensors than the hot section of a turbine engine.
Could we stop saying that computers “could never do” things? It always gets proven wrong. Anything we can detect as humans has some physical reason that we can detect it. Sensors can detect it more effectively. To suggest that you can’t program a computer to know what those sensors are supposed to be reading is just absurd.
Airliner engines are getting to ludicrous reliability numbers (the latest generation appears to be closing in on 10M hours between inflight shutdowns) largely through predictive maintenance performed far in advance. We’re well past ‘most pilots never see an engine failure’ and approaching ‘most airlines don’t see an engine failure’.
And there are few locations more abusive to sensors than the hot section of a turbine engine.