Thomas,
Can you please elaborate on your comments? In almost every other
endeavor we've tried, introducing advanced technology attempts to reduce
risk while improving efficiency and reliability. Now that we've got FADECs
around, why shouldn't we expect the same goals from that technology?

When NASA introduced computing capabilities to the space program (flight
side) they understood how we would come to rely on the technology and how it
would become mission critical. As such they built in certain redundancies -
and this was 30 years ago.

Why shouldn't we expect further improvements beyond that early
technology from today's FADEC equipped aircraft? As far as current SPOFs, we
still have the mechanical or electro/mechanical fuel system, but we have
eliminated the magnetos. However the magnetos were usually a redundant
installation. With FADEC we've introduced a single engine controller that
manages the prop, the fuel, the air intake, and the resulting power output.
So we've traded one redundant system for a SPOF system even though they
don't do exactly the same things.

Please don't just say "I disagree"; explain yourself so maybe we can
learn something from each other.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

but I would hope the new technology offered by FADEC would begin to
eliminate those SPOFs without introducing new ones.

That's pretty much impossible by definition. Not even NASA does it on
spacecraft.

It appears to me that we
still have all of the legacy SPOFs and have now added new ones.

I disagree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)