FADEC = complex

"Jose" wrote

Mx has his flaws,

Too many to even begin naming

but this group has taken to attacking everything he says, no matter whether it
is totally wrong, somewhat wrong, or just has a spelling error,

Your "somewhat wrong"analysis of his posts are from your point of view. To
other people, me included, what you say is somewhat wrong is blatently wrong, to
the people arguing these points.

Spelling errrors? I don't recall that being a major issue. Certainly no more
than anyone else, and possibly less that others.

and also attacking him ad hominum.

For good reason. Many, many good reasons.

This is unacceptable behavior, and is also counterproductive (it increases
noise).

If it takes making more noise to get rid of a constant sonic boom, then I'm all
for it. Acceptable behaviour.

True. One must be aware that one is or isn't using that kind of autopilot.
The basic point however is still valid. Autopilots can hide a developing
problem, sometimes leading to an unpleasant surprise.

You have lost sight of the reason for jumping on the auto pilot issue.

To compare a faulty mode in a FADEC with ignoring (or whatever) an auto pilot is
absurd. They are totally different systems, with totally different failure
modes, and even a totally different level of pilot interaction. He has been
successful in leading you astray if you think, in any way, they are comparable
issues.

You know, you are one of the most argumentative people on this group. Why are
you having a problem with people arguing with him? I'm starting to believe that
you are part of the problem, too.
--
Jim in NC