FADEC = complex

Morgans writes:

False. Situational awarness is increased, by the use of automation.

I've explained my point of view. Why don't you explain yours?

Where are you getting this nonsense?

From accident reports, and from a couple of decades of looking into
the risks of automated systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
The ideal airplane to rent is a pressurized, taildragger,
with a engine over 200 hp, constant speed prop and
retractable landing gear. If it was also two engines you
could do all the 61.31 endorsements in one airplane. Maybe
a Queen Air taildragger conversion back to a BE 18, sort of
like, you know, cobbled together.
High performance, taildragger, high altitude, complex,
multiengine. It is just too much trouble to find a CFI and
the appropriate airplane for a one-time requirement.

Humm. I picture a pressurized twin engine RV.

Call Van, and tell him to get on it, right away!

That would be sweet! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans writes:

Tell us, how a oil pump failure is made worse, with FADEC?

The software may not be designed to anticipate and react to an
oil-pump failure. The failure may cause the software to follow and
unexpected and unpredicted path, or it may cause a fault in the
software; both can produce catastrophic results.

The error may be one of system design (inadequate specifications), or
one of coding (careless writing or testing of code).

Explain how FADEC could be made to take into account a oil
pump failure, or how not having FADEC makes the oil pump failure
any better of a situation.

I'm not an engine specialist, so I'm not sure how best to deal with an
oil-pump failure.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Kev,

If you believe official investigations all the time,


Oh yeah, conspiracy theories are so much better.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

It is true that now
that Boeing is beginning to include some FBW features,


What'S true now is that your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all.
But that'S not really surprising.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

I'm not an engine specialist,


Oh, really?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Then, you either don't understand your sim or don't understand the
relationship of your sim to the real world. In the real world, one
*does* get plenty of clues about such things as a change of flight
parameters, regardless of the cause.

No, one does not, as many accidents (real-world accidents, not sim
accidents) have proved.

In addition to the many other things w/r/t aviation that you are
completely clueless about, you may now include statistics and accident
analysis.

The reality of flying is that changes in trim or
a control setting results in a trade-off, and these trade-offs are
easily observable and we are trained from day one to do so.

No, they are not.

And, you know this, because?

When the autopilot is in charge, lots of things can
gradually happen, and you won't know about it unless you _explicitly_
look for it.

Yeah, well, if you _aren't_ explicitly looking for it, then the problem is
you. One reason that there is more than one instrument on the panel is so
that pilots can explicitly look for such things. It's our responsibililty
to do so, and most (if not all) pilots can do so very easily. Whether or
not one does so is a personal matter, not one of mechanics or electronics
making the task impossible, as you seem to think.

No magic sixth sense will tell you that anything is
wrong. And when the autopilot finally gives up and disconnects,
you're going to have to catch up and act fast if you don't want to
die.

More utter nonsense. As I said before, you don't have any knowledge of
piloting an airplane, so you can't present a valid argument. Why not just
ask a question and sit back and take in the answers?

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Morgans writes:

That is EXACTLY opposite from what is the truth.

Unfortunately, no, it is not.

Unfortunately, you are completely wrong, yet again.

Each automation system removes some aspect of the pilot workload. An
unavoidable consequence of this is that the pilot is also allowed to
lose awareness of the aspect that has been removed (if he were not,
there'd be no point in the automation).

Complete bull. The pilot is *never* "allowed to lose awareness of the
aspect that has been removed". The truth is just the opposite. You clearly
don't know the "point in the automation".

Automation in the cockpits allows the pilot to MONITOR the systems
...

He could do that already, when he was flying the plane himself.

When automation is used, the pilot is still responsible for verifying that
the automation is operating correctly. This is not difficult.

And automation does not require monitoring; that's why it is called
automation.

WHAT??????

If, one day, you find yourself in a position to get into a real airplane,
please first locate the instructor from the "my first solo" thread and
engage him so that he can knock some sense into you before you kill
yourself.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

I'm not an engine specialist, so I'm not sure how best to deal with an
oil-pump failure.

Damn! You had *me* fooled!

Neil

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Oh yeah, conspiracy theories are so much better.

Are you always such a snotty child?

I worked in Intelligence and for NSA. I have always said, "Never look
for a conspiracy when it can be explained by sheer stupidity or
bureacracy."

But in this case, it's obvious that France was not about to let Airbus
get blamed. Not much different from blaming the co-pilot for ripping
off that Airbus rudder.

Kev