FADEC = complex

Thomas Borchert writes:

And the studies that prove that statement can be found where?

Innumerable automation projects have made this pretty obvious over the
past half-century or so. Today it is generally not considered
something that must be proved, at least by people who design these
systems.

And how would you explain away
the FAA-certified FBW aircraft that have been flying so succesfully and accident free
for decades?

You don't need certification to fly safely. Conversely, certification
is not a guarantee that your flight is safe.

The domain of fly-by-wire is still much more poorly understood than
more traditional systems ... so much so that certification and testing
are still much more trial and error than they are for older systems.
Thus, certification is far less useful for fly-by-wire systems; they
can still fail very catastrophically indeed.

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

Mxsmanic,

Nothing but hot air. A meager try at argument-by-authority. And not a
SHRED of evidence in your sorry post. Thought so...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Innumerable automation projects have made this pretty obvious over the
past half-century or so. Today it is generally not considered
something that must be proved, at least by people who design these
systems.

What??? There are automated systems all around you, that are functioning just
fine. It should be easy to prove, it it is such a problem. You do need to
prove it. Cites? Otherwise, utter bull.

You don't need certification to fly safely. Conversely, certification
is not a guarantee that your flight is safe.

Irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is failures of FADEC, and the modes
of failure. Certification is a distractor. If there is a problem with FADEC,
show a cite of said problem. Otherwise, utter bull.

The domain of fly-by-wire is still much more poorly understood than
more traditional systems ... so much so that certification and testing
are still much more trial and error than they are for older systems.
Thus, certification is far less useful for fly-by-wire systems; they
can still fail very catastrophically indeed.

Yu need to get it into your head that we are not talking about fly by wire. Get
it? FADEC is NOT fly by wire.

Even though that is just a distractor, I will refute your statement by saying
that fly by wire is very reliable, and very well understood. There are large
airliners flying all over the place, carring millions of people, and they don't
fall out of the sky. If fly by wire is such a huge probem, and it is so poorly
understood, certainly you can cite a NTSB case where the fly by wire caused a
crash. Most military high performance aircraft also use fly by wire, and once
they leave the test ing and development stages, they don't have a problem
either. Perhaps you can cite a case of fly by wire causing a crash in military
aircraft, post development. If not, utter bull.

Just a reminder, though, that fly by wire is not the subject. FADEC is the
subject. Go ahead, the ball is in you court.

If you can not back up your statements, and continue to argue, you waste
everyone's time.

You are a troll. But that has been established, to my satisfaction, already.
Give up. Go away.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans writes:

There are automated systems all around you, that are functioning just
fine.

There are automated systems failing all around me, too.

Yu need to get it into your head that we are not talking about fly by wire. Get
it? FADEC is NOT fly by wire.

Full-authority digital engine control is most definitely fly-by-wire.
It's one of the premier examples of it. It has also been a source of
a lot of problems.

If fly by wire is such a huge probem, and it is so poorly
understood, certainly you can cite a NTSB case where the fly by wire caused a
crash.

I've already provided a list.

Most military high performance aircraft also use fly by wire, and once
they leave the test ing and development stages, they don't have a problem
either.

Many military aircraft have had serious problems with fly-by-wire even
after deployment.

Just a reminder, though, that fly by wire is not the subject. FADEC is the
subject.

The latter is an example of the former.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote: More nonsense.

There was nothing there, that dignified a response...

Just one question.

Are you afraid to get out of bed, and leave the house, with all of those
automated systems failing all around you?
--
Jim in NC