FADEC = complex

Mxsmanic wrote:

Morgans writes:


That is EXACTLY opposite from what is the truth.


Unfortunately, no, it is not.

Each automation system removes some aspect of the pilot workload.

Exactly.


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).

As usual pure crap from you. Automation in aircraft gives me more
situational awareness not less.




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


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

No, he had to manipulate the device. Now he can monitor very quickly
what is automated, freeing up more time to do other more important tasks.



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

It may not require it but that doesn't mean we don't. In aviation we
monitor lots of things that have been automated. This is basic. Pull
your head out of your ass.



And if it did require monitoring, it would serve no
purpose.

You're an idiot. This is a ridiculous statement.



The purpose of automation is to make things automatic--that
is, to remove the need for monitoring and intervention.

You're half right. It removes the need for intervention, not monitoring.

"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

Morgans wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote
Of course, folks arguing about trolling is exactly what many trolls
seek.

True. It is unfortunate to have to do as I am, but necessary to show everyone
his true colors.

Uh, and why do you think it's necessary for you to show anyone
anything?

Do you think you're so much smarter than everybody else, that they all
need your guidance to know what to think?

Kev

"Mxsmanic" wrote

If you'll look more carefully at the text you just quoted yourself,
you'll see that I said "attitude," not "altitude."

OK, I did read that as altitude. Score, you - 1, Everyone else 5,000,000
--
Jim in NC

"Mxsmanic" wrote

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

Oh, is that so?

Tell us, a quick synopsis will be fine, what accidents you have studied, where
it is documented, and what your conclusions were?

Also, I am still waiting for you to tell us what systems similar to FADEC that
you have designed. You did claim this, earlier.
--
Jim in NC

On the other hand, if one finds that one cannot resist engaging in a long
drawn out urinating contest, E-mail is always an option. You get to have
your fun without hosing down the whole newsgroup.

--
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.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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.

What type of catastrophic result? What would you expect the software to
anticipate? What type of path might it follow?

What exactly does FADEC control in a air cooled, opposed cylinder, internal
combustion airplane engine, anyway? Do you know?

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

Surely with your vast knowlege of writing systems like FADEC, an occurance like
an oil pump failure would be easy for you to anticipate. What would you have
the FADEC system do, if it were you?

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

That is the first accurate and truthful statement I have ever seen you write in
this forum. Congratulations.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
Utter nonsense. Tell us, how a oil pump failure is made worse, with FADEC?
[...]
You are making things up as you go, now.
But that is what a troll does.

Then you must be a troll, too. Here's an example of how a pump failure
ended up being worse because a FADEC was indirectly involved.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...200104093.html

Basically, the pump failed and a warning light came on. Following SOP,
the pilot recycled the computers. A software bug caused the FADEC to
cycle the rotor pitch. Eventually the recycling caused a crash,
killing four Marines.

If there'd been no FADEC, all that would've happened is that the pilot
would've seen a pump failure light and landed. (This aspect is covered
in other reports.)

Kev

In article . com,
says...



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.



This gets better and better!:
Was that in the "embedded" period - or still rebuilding car engines?

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...



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.



This gets better and better!:
Was that in the "embedded" period - or still rebuilding car engines?

Was that an NSA simulator?