FADEC = complex

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-11-24, Walt wrote:
snip anecdote about F250

I think overall, modern electronic engine systems are MUCH more reliable
than old purely mechanical systems. Back to a car anecdote - when I was
a student, I had an old (1969) Mini. It had simple points-and-condenser
ignition control - all completely mechanical.

No doubt Lucas. It is said that if Lucas made guns wars wouldn't work
either. :-

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
If you can not see the nonsense in it, well......

I =do= see the nonsense in it. However, I also see that the group is
responding to =everything= as if it were nonsense. This is =also= a
disservice to readers. It is probably better to not respond, but f one is to
respond, it is important to condemn only that which is in fact way off base.


Jose

Perhaps I should not give away my thoughts here, but I will, since I don't think
it will make any difference.

This thread is a very pointed example of the trolling that MX has been doing.
He has gotten sloppy, and argued points that have no merit, and that are totally
out of what most would consider reasonable.

With most of the trolling he has done, he has been careful to keep the questions
on the edge of plausible. Enough of the group has been willing to go along with
the questions, that it has enabled him to get responses and stay here; getting
the attention he craves.

I, and many others, have been tired of the ridiculous questions, the refusing to
believe what he is told, and his pretending like simulating flying is real
flying - if not being superior to real flying. He has entered every thread, and
injected his argumentative quips, and taken the joy out of reading this group,
for me, and I suspect from comments others have made, for them, too.

I will not let him off with this behavior any longer, and call him on every
fictitious statement, and point out every ridiculous statement for what it is -
trolling.

Perhaps he will get tired of me, or the group will get tired of him, or some of
the group will get tired of me. If it is me that gets ignored or blocked, so be
it.

With other's help, I intend to expose him for what he really is.

A TROLL. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Walt" wrote in message
oups.com...
I didn't really want to get involved in this thread since, IMHO, it's a
clash of personalities more than knowledge of FADEC, but I'll offer
something that's vaguely on topic.

I own a new Subaru Outback. It has an electronic throttle, i.e., there
is no physical connection between the gas pedal and the engine.

Good post.

A couple differences between autos and airplanes, with "FADEC".

Planes (except from what someone wrote about the Theilert, which I have a
hard time understanding, and am unable to confirm) still have a mechanical
connection with the engine.

The autos do not have any redundancy built in. Airplanes do.


Auto's have redundancy in the form of parallel software calculations and
seperate montior chips in the PCM. But, since the primary concern is "torque
greater than demand" what the redundant software / chips typically do is
shut things down when a discrepancy is detected. You will also find that the
pedal input to the electronic throttle control will have multiple position
sensors that provide signals that have different chararacteristics (eg. one
increases as the throttle is depressed, while one decreases). Air flow from
an air meter provides a redunant input to the throttle position. But, again,
the action taken is generally to reduce power or shut down the engine to
avoid the #1 worry bead.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"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

"Jose" wrote

Fine. Don't respond to him.

Why not? Why is he above being taken to task for his comments towards others?
Why are you defending him?

But to take a statement that is =not= "utter rubbish" and call it that does
disservice to the statement, and those reading it.

Once again, that which you have judged to be "=not= utter rubish" is total
rubbish to others, or they would not be attacking the statement. Why are you
defending him?

That which =is= utter rubbish should be called that. But that which is only
partly misleading, if it is responded to, should not be called "utter rubbish".

Your point of view, only. Don't decide for me what is misleading, and the
extent that it is misleading, and what is rubbish and what is not.

Ignore a post you wish to ignore.

Once again, why? Why should we ignore posts that we feel are out of line? Why
are you defending him?

But if one chooses to respond (that is, after all, a choice), then one should
respond carefully and correctly.

And you are now the judge of what is "careful and correct." What a hoot!

Yes, it certainly would be a pilot error. But the underlying statement (which
is the reason it would be a pilot error) is still correct. Autopilots =can=
hide a developing problem. It is part of piloting to ensure that they are not
successful in the attempt.

Autopilots were not the subject being discussed. FADEC failure, and modes of
FADEC failure. That is the subject, not pilot error, and certainly not pilot
controlled systems. Try to keep up.
--
Jim in NC

Yes, backup battery or alternator. The latter is a better choice I'd
think, since a battery only gives about an hour. If it's belt-driven
though, it seems risky to me.

You would get a dedicated battery for the FADEC, the ones I've seen are
smaller than a motorcycle battery and this would easily outlast your fuel
supply at any power setting that keeps you aloft. It draws very little
currrent.

In all fairness, you have to consider the drain of current to run a fuel pump,
if it is a low wing that has an electric fuel pump that runs all the time, and
also any other absolutely essential drains on the emergency battery. Still, it
would have plenty of endurance to get down for a precautionary landing, if
things were going wrong in a major way, like that.

The exception might be on a ferry flight accross the Atlantic, or something. A
"wise" pilot with a plane that had systems that had to have electricity to keep
the fan going would pack an extra battery along, and a way to connect it to the
emergency buss.

Are you reading this NW Pilot? g Seriously.
--
Jim in NC

"Thomas Borchert" wrote

The redudancy is not the reason for the price of the Thielert. And under many
operating circumstances, a Thielert conversion might be cheaper than a normal
engine.

Thomas, do you know of a FADEC that at a minimum, does not have dual channels,
for all components, with a detectable warning of a failure in one channel?

I do not know of one single certified FADEC that does not have redundancy. As a
matter of fact, I think I have read that it is a condition to certification,
unless it is proven to have such a very low risk of failure as to not be a
factor. It is not worded exactly like that, but it is something along those
lines.
--
Jim in NC

"Greg Farris" wrote

So the guy who is not motivated enough to find out on his own what a magenta
shaded area on a sectional means is now a designer of FADEC's?

The lie was put to this when he demonstrated (at the beginning of this thread)
that he didn't have a clue what is meant by "complex" or why that is of
interest to pilots.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

chuckle Yeah, that got me in the funny bone, too.

I have not heard a response as to what, I now quote: "I built systems like
that." - would be talking about, when referencing FADEC designing.

Anyone wanna' take any bets on me ever hearing as to exactly what systems he has
designed, like FADEC? :-)

More rope, anyone?
--
Jim in NC

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.

Greg Farris writes:

That is demonstrably false!
There are several documented cases of mechanical failures of throttle
linkages in airplanes, and when it happens it is a genuine,
life-threatening emergency.

As I've said, failure modes are very limited for mechanical throttles,
and generally they are not catastrophic. A failure of a linkage, for
example, may deprive you of throttle control, but it is much less
likely to peg the throttle at idle or full power (although this
depends on design).

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