FADEC = complex

I snipped the true nonsense part, the "spiral down to death" thing.

Well, then it's not "utter and complete nonsense", there's just a
somewhat nonsensical conclusion. And even that isn't "utter nonsense",
as tail icing which is masked by an autopilot can =actually= cause a
"spiral down to death".

Mx has his flaws, 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, and also attacking him ad hominum. This is
unacceptable behavior, and is also counterproductive (it increases noise).

Not with all autopilots. Some S-Tecs don't use trim.

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.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Garret wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
:

Not if you value freedom. Fear-first-and-ask-questions-later is the
attitude that leads to children and old women being strip-searched at
airport security.

He doesn't value his freedom. He moved to France.

Recently, Jose posted:

I snipped the true nonsense part, the "spiral down to death" thing.

Well, then it's not "utter and complete nonsense", there's just a
somewhat nonsensical conclusion. And even that isn't "utter
nonsense", as tail icing which is masked by an autopilot can
=actually= cause a "spiral down to death".

One gets plenty of clues that something is going awry prior to this
happening. If those clues are ignored...

Mx has his flaws, 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, and also attacking him ad hominum. This is
unacceptable behavior, and is also counterproductive (it increases
noise).

As I see it, the group treats everyone posting here with the same kind of
scrutiny, and usually only becomes beligerent when they are grossly
insulted, so in that light let's not overlook Mxsmanic's *many* insults to
group members, explicit and implied.

Not with all autopilots. Some S-Tecs don't use trim.

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.

It appears that you are describing another form of pilot error. If one
believes that they can set an autopilot and then take a nap, *that* is the
problem, not the behavior of the autopilot.

IMO, a pilot must understand the behavior of their equipment, be it FADEC,
autopilots, aux fuel systems, or whatever. Given that so few accidents can
be charged to the failure of these devices, it may be reaching to claim
that some unreasonable level of danger is presented by their use.

Neil

In article ,
says...


Thomas Borchert writes:

Sure. And anytime you have that direct linkage, that linkage can fail
catastrophically just the same.

No. Direct linkages have very limited failure modes, none of which is
usually catastrophic. Analog, physical systems rarely have
catastrophic failure modes.



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. You talk off the top of your head, and make no
effort to verify the validity of your statements.



Analog, physical systems rarely have
catastrophic failure modes


Yes we all mknow that mechanical devices cannot break!

Unmitigated stupidity

In article . com,
says...




....
But judging from my forty years' experience with automobile engines
(including having rebuilt my share as a youth), I would have to agree
with Mxsmanic that you're far more likely to have a sudden unannounced
failure with a FADEC system than with a traditional mechanical system,
where some warning (slack in the controls, engine output not up to par,
etc) is often forthcoming.


Well, that's a brilliant non-sequitor!
It is less surprising that you systematically defend this maniac, when we see
that you share the same deficient logic! Would you please care to tell us how
rebuilding car engines as a kid permits you to make otherwise unsubstantiated
claims about failure modes of FADEC systems in aircraft?


I worked in a pet store when I was 16, and I can assure you Mxsmaniac is
correct in his evaluation of failure modes in FADEC systems…...

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
Well, the FAA requires redundancy, Ford doesn't.


At Ford ...Certification is Job 1


Montblack
Built FAA Tough

so in that light let's not overlook Mxsmanic's *many* insults to
group members, explicit and implied.

Fine. Don't respond to him. But to take a statement that is =not=
"utter rubbish" and call it that does disservice to the statement, and
those reading it. 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".

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

Autopilots can hide a developing problem,
sometimes leading to an unpleasant surprise.

It appears that you are describing another form of pilot error.

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.

Given that so few accidents can
be charged to the failure of these devices, it may be reaching to claim
that some unreasonable level of danger is presented by their use.

It is "reaching" to claim that. Nonetheless, there is risk. Pointing
that out is not "utter rubbish". It is the reason pilots can't get away
with taking a snooze while George flies.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Morgans writes:

The Continental has every injector controlled by two computers. The
spark is
controlled by a different computer for each cylinder, with each of the
two plugs
in the cylinder having a different computer. There are dual sensors of
each
type of sensor. There are two electrical systems for each set of
computers.
Everything is protected from lightning strikes, and the associated
surges.

Catastrophic failure is usually caused by software, not hardware.

Absolutely not true by any stretch of the imagination. Another theme for
the Twilight Zone.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert writes:

Sure. And anytime you have that direct linkage, that linkage can fail
catastrophically just the same.

No. Direct linkages have very limited failure modes, none of which is
usually catastrophic. Analog, physical systems rarely have
catastrophic failure modes.

Absolutely not true.

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
Well, the FAA requires redundancy, Ford doesn't.


At Ford ...Certification is Job 1

At Ford...a billion dollar loss per quarter is Job 1.

Montblack
Built FAA Tough