It was a multitasking system using core memory, as I recall. The point was that the programs were over complex due to unit conversion. (The architecture of those computers was remarkable and reminds me in some ways of a much simplified PIC).
I may be wrong but I remember distinctly being told this by someone who worked with NASA and directly with the astronauts.
Definitely not, I knew nothing about 13. But now I’ve read it up on Wikipedia. I am going to make a USist comment. My justification is my own one time membership of an IEC safety committee, and running an R&D department designing electrical safety devices. (I actually used to know one of the US delegates dealing with thermostats).
The root problem is likely to be that the US has had an extremely sloppy attitude to electrical safety - it has been left up to industry and the level of testing and approval of components expected in Europe just hasn’t been there. It doesn’t surprise me that Beech thought a switch rated at 28VDC would continue to work at 65, even though the reason 28V was chosen is because, basically, it doesn’t create arcs.
And why has there been a lax attitude to safety? Machismo, I think. We’re still seeing the recklessness in male-dominated occupations (which is what software development has become). Risk taking behaviour, in fact. When it was women who wrote the software - mainly in COBOL let it be added - things like banking programs were written which, with a Y2K hiccup, are in many cases still in use. The new “agile” methodology relies on rapid break/fix. Not the attitude you want in building spacecraft, but what you expect from a Silicon Valley where taking risks is seen as a route to promotion and the more cautious (and wider ranging) approach of women tends not to be valued.
German Sitzfleisch and the British Standards Institute preserved Northern Europe from the worst of it. Our switches, plugs and sockets are largely idiot proof.
And that’s enough rant.