Study of Reciprocating Engine Failures

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-04-03,
wrote:
The pilot is the next big threat to the engine; abusing it,
just
like abusing your car's engine, will shorten its life expectancy.
Pushing that throttle open too fast, overboosting, or misusing the
prop control can all do damage. We could built idiot-proof engines,
but they'd be too heavy to fly.

No, not really: you could solve many of the pilot-induced problems
with a FADEC. The trouble is, people seem to trust themselves, and are
highly suspicious of a FADEC, even though it's quite likely FADECs
fail far less often than human-induced engine failure.


Huh?


Bertie

On Apr 3, 10:41*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
No, not really: *you could solve many of the pilot-induced
problems with a FADEC.

Yes, you could.

The trouble is, people seem to trust themselves, and are highly
suspicious of a FADEC

No, that's NOT the trouble. The trouble is people

(a) don't want to pay a huge amount of money for the FADEC. It costs
huge money because it has to go through the FAA certification process.

(b) don't trust the FAA certification process not to produce some
abomination that will be counterintuitive for the experienced pilot,
like the early versions of IFR GPS.

even though it's quite likely FADECs fail far
less often than human-induced engine failure.

The people who would really benefit from FADEC (the ones causing the
human-induced engine failures) mostly don't realize they need it. The
ones who know what the issues are would be happy to use it if it were
cheap and reliable (knowing they're not going to do better than the
FADEC) but for reasons (a) and (b) listed above it's not.

Michael

Michael wrote:
On Apr 3, 10:41 am, Dylan Smith wrote:
No, not really: you could solve many of the pilot-induced
problems with a FADEC.

Yes, you could.

The trouble is, people seem to trust themselves, and are highly
suspicious of a FADEC

No, that's NOT the trouble. The trouble is people

(a) don't want to pay a huge amount of money for the FADEC. It costs
huge money because it has to go through the FAA certification process.

(b) don't trust the FAA certification process not to produce some
abomination that will be counterintuitive for the experienced pilot,
like the early versions of IFR GPS.

even though it's quite likely FADECs fail far
less often than human-induced engine failure.

The people who would really benefit from FADEC (the ones causing the
human-induced engine failures) mostly don't realize they need it. The
ones who know what the issues are would be happy to use it if it were
cheap and reliable (knowing they're not going to do better than the
FADEC) but for reasons (a) and (b) listed above it's not.

Michael

Hello,

Two sound solutions to human-induced engine failures other than FADEC;

1) RTFMUTC (until total comprehension) = most budget friendly
2) Install (retrofit) Diesel = at first not all that budget friendly
;-), but IMHO a much better solution than FADEC.

Jan

On Apr 3, 6:52*pm, Eze ""break.********_\"@_online_ ._fr" wrote:
Two sound solutions to human-induced engine failures other than FADEC;
1) RTFMUTC (until total comprehension) = most budget friendly

Assuming you don't break it in the process.

2) Install (retrofit) Diesel = at first not all that budget friendly
;-), but IMHO a much better solution than FADEC.

Actually, the only certified diesel for small airplanes is the
Thielert, and it is FADEC equipped.

Michael