FADEC = complex

[Bob Gardner]

The feds have just designated a plane with retractable gear, flaps, and
FADEC as a complex.

Bob Gardner

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> The feds have just designated a plane with retractable gear, flaps, and
> FADEC as a complex.

I thought FADEC was simpler. :-)

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> I thought FADEC was simpler. :-)

Simpler when things are going well, much more complex when things go
wrong. Like all fly-by-wire systems.

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

[Peter Dohm]

> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > The feds have just designated a plane with retractable gear, flaps, and
> > FADEC as a complex.
>
> I thought FADEC was simpler. :-)
>
> Matt

I believe that there are presently FADEC systems offered with one-peice
props (such as the Liberty) and with constant speed props controlled by the
FADEC (such as the Cirrus). Presuming that the announcement, which I have
not read, pertained only to FADECS controlling constant speed props; I
believe that it would really only be a clorification rather than a change.

Peter

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>
>>I thought FADEC was simpler. :-)
>
>
> Simpler when things are going well, much more complex when things go
> wrong. Like all fly-by-wire systems.

There is no change in complexity when things go wrong with FADEC.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> There is no change in complexity when things go wrong with FADEC.

Yes, there is, because digital systems have different failure modes
from those of analog systems, and digital failure modes are often
catastrophic failure modes.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>There is no change in complexity when things go wrong with FADEC.
>
>
> Yes, there is, because digital systems have different failure modes
> from those of analog systems, and digital failure modes are often
> catastrophic failure modes.
>

Spoken like a sim pilot. If you had the slightest idea what the hell
you were talking about you would know that when the FADEC fails, usually
the computer goes belly up but it could be an electrical power loss, the
engine continues to run but does so at a very rich setting. If the
FADEC controls the prop then that goes to high RPM. The pilot doesn't
have to do anything except land and landing immediately isn't necessary
either. These failure modes are a requirement for certification.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Newps writes:
>
>> There is no change in complexity when things go wrong with FADEC.
>
> Yes, there is, because digital systems have different failure modes
> from those of analog systems, and digital failure modes are often
> catastrophic failure modes.

You should be advised that not all digital systems are designed like
Windows...

For example, most of today's cars are designed with computer controlled
systems as well. Yet you don't see cars explode every time you click the
right turn signal.

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Newps writes:
> >>There is no change in complexity when things go wrong with FADEC.
> >
> > Yes, there is, because digital systems have different failure modes
> > from those of analog systems, and digital failure modes are often
> > catastrophic failure modes.
> >
>
> Spoken like a sim pilot. If you had the slightest idea what the hell
> you were talking about you would know that when the FADEC fails, usually
> the computer goes belly up but it could be an electrical power loss, the
> engine continues to run but does so at a very rich setting. If the
> FADEC controls the prop then that goes to high RPM. [..]

Seems like you just proved his statement that digital failure modes are
different. If my analog (mechanical in this case) prop control fails,
it doesn't affect my mixture at the same time, as you're saying FADEC
does.

At the same time: Mxsmanic, apparently they've designed FADEC to fail
without being catastrophic.

My own personal worry is coming automobiles with totally electronic
steering and brakes. I'm sorry, even thoughI design reliable embedded
systems and I still would hate owning a car like that :-)

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Spoken like a sim pilot.

No, spoken like a computer specialist.

> If you had the slightest idea what the hell
> you were talking about you would know that when the FADEC fails, usually
> the computer goes belly up but it could be an electrical power loss, the
> engine continues to run but does so at a very rich setting.

FADECs can fail in all sorts of ways, depending on the software bugs
they contain.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> At the same time: Mxsmanic, apparently they've designed FADEC to fail
> without being catastrophic.

The designed-for failure modes are never a problem. The problem with
digital systems is with unforeseen failures, which usually have no
correlation with real-world constraints and are often catastrophic
failures in consequence.

You always need a way to disconnect the computer, and it has to be a
mechanical disconnection, not just an option on the screen menu.

> My own personal worry is coming automobiles with totally electronic
> steering and brakes. I'm sorry, even thoughI design reliable embedded
> systems and I still would hate owning a car like that :-)

If you design embedded systems, you know why such a car would be
risky.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You should be advised that not all digital systems are designed like
> Windows...

Unfortunately, many are, including systems that affect safety-of-life
issues.

> For example, most of today's cars are designed with computer controlled
> systems as well. Yet you don't see cars explode every time you click the
> right turn signal.

There are many cases of catastrophic failure modes in car systems, and
this will only increase.

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

[Newps]

Kev wrote:


>
>
> Seems like you just proved his statement that digital failure modes are
> different.



I never said they weren't different, only that the complexity of the
situation doesn't change. The pilot will be notified, probably by a red
light, that the FADEC failed. That's it, there's nothing for him to do.
Indeed in most cases there's nothing he could do even if he wanted.


If my analog (mechanical in this case) prop control fails,
> it doesn't affect my mixture at the same time, as you're saying FADEC
> does.

I didn't say that either. I meant to say that if the part of the FADEC
fails that controls the prop then the exact same thing happens there as
will happen to you, high RPM.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
> FADECs can fail in all sorts of ways, depending on the software bugs
> they contain.

No, they cannot.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No, they cannot.

One day, you may be surprised.

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

[Ben Hallert]

Why do you feel you can speak with such authority on this subject?
You're not a pilot, you have no training in how the various systems
work and interact.

Why are you even here? I no longer assume good faith in your posts. I
think that the folks that have identified you as a troll are correct,
Msxmanic.

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> Spoken like a sim pilot.
>
> No, spoken like a computer specialist.
>
>> If you had the slightest idea what the hell
>> you were talking about you would know that when the FADEC fails, usually
>> the computer goes belly up but it could be an electrical power loss, the
>> engine continues to run but does so at a very rich setting.
>
> FADECs can fail in all sorts of ways, depending on the software bugs
> they contain.

Examples of this happening? Risk vs. reward analysis?

m

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:

> > FADECs can fail in all sorts of ways, depending on the software bugs
> > they contain.
>
> Examples of this happening? Risk vs. reward analysis?

Failure Hazard Analysis?

Actually, it's unlikely that anyone with access to an authoritative
analysis would have permision to put it on USENET. Generally these
are proprietary.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> You should be advised that not all digital systems are designed like
>> Windows...
>
> Unfortunately, many are, including systems that affect safety-of-life
> issues.
>
>> For example, most of today's cars are designed with computer controlled
>> systems as well. Yet you don't see cars explode every time you click the
>> right turn signal.
>
> There are many cases of catastrophic failure modes in car systems, and
> this will only increase.

Name 3.

[Jon Kraus]

He is a troll and has been identified as one for a long time, yet folks
seem compelled to answer him in record numbers. He'd find somewhere
else to claim his expertise if a couple of months went by with no one
taking his bait and his posts were left unanswered.

Unfortunately that will never happen here. Matter of fact you can now
see other kinds of sim adventures posted in here. It appears that
Msxmanic has transformed the group for the worse.

Thank God there are other places to give and receive information about
our "real" airplanes and piloting.

Ben Hallert wrote:
>
> Why are you even here? I no longer assume good faith in your posts. I
> think that the folks that have identified you as a troll are correct,
> Msxmanic.
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
m...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>> Spoken like a sim pilot.
>>
>> No, spoken like a computer specialist.
>>
>>> If you had the slightest idea what the hell
>>> you were talking about you would know that when the FADEC fails, usually
>>> the computer goes belly up but it could be an electrical power loss, the
>>> engine continues to run but does so at a very rich setting.
>>
>> FADECs can fail in all sorts of ways, depending on the software bugs
>> they contain.
>
> Examples of this happening? Risk vs. reward analysis?

I would like to give MX the opportunity to explain to us what FADEC does, and
what it controls, and how. Just an approximate analysis will be sufficient.

Go ahead, Mxsmanic, you have the floor.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
. ..
> He is a troll and has been identified as one for a long time, yet folks seem
> compelled to answer him in record numbers. He'd find somewhere else to claim
> his expertise if a couple of months went by with no one taking his bait and
> his posts were left unanswered.
>
> Unfortunately that will never happen here. Matter of fact you can now see
> other kinds of sim adventures posted in here. It appears that Msxmanic has
> transformed the group for the worse.
>
> Thank God there are other places to give and receive information about our
> "real" airplanes and piloting.

If you would not mind giving me a back channel e-mail, to let me know where you
would suggest, I would love to know where. He has gotten on my last nerve, by
entering EVERY thread that comes up. Make the obvious change to my address.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>No, they cannot.
>
>
> One day, you may be surprised.



No I will not. Once again you're clueless.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I like MX's comments most are completely true. Just BEING a pilot is not
sufficient to be able to impart knowledge on the subject.

For instance, Flight Safety, the world's most prestigious and expensive
flight training has MANY instructors who are not pilots.

Karl
ATP BE30, CE500, LrJET, DA50
"Curator" World's most hangar queen Cessna 185, N185KG




"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why do you feel you can speak with such authority on this subject?
> You're not a pilot, you have no training in how the various systems
> work and interact.
>
> Why are you even here? I no longer assume good faith in your posts. I
> think that the folks that have identified you as a troll are correct,
> Msxmanic.
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>I like MX's comments most are completely true. Just BEING a pilot is not
>sufficient to be able to impart knowledge on the subject.
>
> For instance, Flight Safety, the world's most prestigious and expensive flight
> training has MANY instructors who are not pilots.

His being a pilot or not is completely irrelevant to his comments about FADEC
failure. That only clouds the issue.

What does FADEC do, what does it control, and how does it fail, MX. The
question is still on the floor.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No I will not.

Famous last words.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Happy Dog writes:

> Examples of this happening?

Throttles setting themselves too high or low, refusing to answer
commands, etc.

> Risk vs. reward analysis?

I generally feel that fly-by-wire isn't safe enough to use for most
normal flight. It is justified for some types of military aircraft,
where performance is more important than safety.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ben Hallert writes:

> Why do you feel you can speak with such authority on this subject?

Where did I make any specific claim of authority?

> You're not a pilot, you have no training in how the various systems
> work and interact.

I built systems like that.

> Why are you even here?

I'm interested in aviation.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Happy Dog writes:
>
>
>>Examples of this happening?
>
>
> Throttles setting themselves too high or low, refusing to answer
> commands, etc.

FADEC does not control the throttle in a GA plane. It controls mixture,
spark advance and sometimes, but not usually, the prop. Maybe once you
get educated you'll stop spewing this nonsense. But I doubt it. Got
anymore drivel for us?

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Happy Dog writes:
> >>Examples of this happening?
> > Throttles setting themselves too high or low, refusing to answer
> > commands, etc.
>
> FADEC does not control the throttle in a GA plane. It controls mixture,
> spark advance and sometimes, but not usually, the prop. Maybe once you
> get educated you'll stop spewing this nonsense. But I doubt it. Got
> anymore drivel for us?

That was uncalled for.

I doubt that 99% of the readers here know what GA FADEC does or doesn't
do, and most would probably have made the same failure assumptions,
especially since those actions have occured on FADEC-equipped
airliners.

Since you're acting the expert, how about providing some meatier
information for us? Like most here, I'm too busy to look up
everything that interests me, but am willing to read details if
presented without the speaker acting too pompous.

Do you own a plane with FADEC? Worked on it? If not, got a favorite
pointer to info?

Thanks,
Kev

[Matt Barrow]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Newps wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Happy Dog writes:
>> >>Examples of this happening?
>> > Throttles setting themselves too high or low, refusing to answer
>> > commands, etc.
>>
>> FADEC does not control the throttle in a GA plane. It controls mixture,
>> spark advance and sometimes, but not usually, the prop. Maybe once you
>> get educated you'll stop spewing this nonsense. But I doubt it. Got
>> anymore drivel for us?
>
> That was uncalled for.

Nope. Entirely appropriate.

>
> I doubt that 99% of the readers here know what GA FADEC does or doesn't
> do, and most would probably have made the same failure assumptions,
> especially since those actions have occured on FADEC-equipped
> airliners.

No doubt they wouldn't know, but that 99% would not pontificate as experts
like our resident troll. What's more, their guesses would be sorta correct,
not backasswards.

You need to look at the maniacs posting history.

>
> Since you're acting the expert, how about providing some meatier
> information for us? Like most here, I'm too busy to look up
> everything that interests me, but am willing to read details if
> presented without the speaker acting too pompous.

Pompous? Have you read the maniacs postings over the past few months?

>
> Do you own a plane with FADEC? Worked on it? If not, got a favorite
> pointer to info?

Get a clue (about the OP), Kev!

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> No doubt they wouldn't know, but that 99% would not pontificate as experts
> like our resident troll.

Please don't call it out resident troll.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> No, they cannot.
>
> One day, you may be surprised.

So, if you are so sure that he will be surprised at the failure mode of FADEC,
why don't you show your credibility, by telling us what FADEC Controls, and what
its failure modes are?

Without that, you show no credibility, at all.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote

> That was uncalled for.

It certainly was called for.

If you don't even know what a system does, you surely don't know how it fails.
If you don't know how it fails, you should not spout drivel of doom and gloom if
it stops working. That is the problem, in this case.

> I doubt that 99% of the readers here know what GA FADEC does or doesn't
> do, and most would probably have made the same failure assumptions,
> especially since those actions have occured on FADEC-equipped
> airliners.

Anyone who has read one or two general aviation Magazines would know what FADEC
is. You don't? Are you a pilot? Have you ever read any aviation magazines,
belong to AOPA? If any of the answers are yes, you should get current with what
is happening in the industry.

FADEC is not on airliners. Piston singles and twins.

I'm beginning to believe you are a sock puppet. If not, sorry, but you sure do
jump to the manic one's defense, every time, and that makes me wonder how smart
you are, or certainly about your judgment.

Any of you defenders of manic out there catching all of this? More showing of a
willingness to talk like an authority on a subject that "he" has no knowledge
of. Still wondering if he is a troll?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> I built systems like that.
>
Like what? You have my full attention. You have built a FADEC?

Something close? What?
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> No doubt they wouldn't know, but that 99% would not pontificate as
>> experts
>> like our resident troll.
>
> Please don't call it out resident troll.
>
Sorry!

I promise I won't call it that anymore. :~)

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> like our resident troll.
>
> Please don't call it ou(r) resident troll.

Why, is there a title lower than that?
--
Jim in NC

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote
> > That was uncalled for.
>
> It certainly was called for.
>
> If you don't even know what a system does, you surely don't know how it fails.
> If you don't know how it fails, you should not spout drivel of doom and gloom if
> it stops working. That is the problem, in this case.

Gloom and doom I can handle. He speaks like a programmer, that's all.
It's the unnecessary insults I take exception to. Especially since
his statements on this topic are not incorrect.

> > I doubt that 99% of the readers here know what GA FADEC does [..]
>
> Anyone who has read one or two general aviation Magazines would know what FADEC
> is. You don't? [..]

The question was not what FADEC is, but what does FADEC control, and
how does it fail. According to newps, it doesn't control props. But
it can. Any embedded programmer (are you one? I am) will tell you that
failure modes can indeed be catastrophic. What, you've never had your
car's engine or transmission computer or sensor glitch? I have, and
the car's limp home mode wouldn't meet FAA approval (they don't like
less than 85% power in case of an EEC failure).

Losing all power (including the battery backup) on a FADEC means your
engine stops. That's not at all the same failure mode as losing
aircraft power in a magneto system, is it?

> FADEC is not on airliners. Piston singles and twins.

FADEC started on airliners, which is why there's a known history of
failures meeting Mx's descriptions. As for piston singles, I know of
only one, the Liberty XL that comes with it stock. Is there another?
( Since my cancer, I've stopped reading the pile of AOPA's, Flying,
IFR, Plane&Pilots, etc next to my desk. Keep meaning to find time.)

> I'm beginning to believe you are a sock puppet. If not, sorry, but you sure do
> jump to the manic one's defense, every time, and that makes me wonder how smart
> you are, or certainly about your judgment.

No, not every time, just whenever somebody (usually with a poor posting
record themselves, if you check it out) throws insults around in an
apparent attempt to make their own weak responses look better. Or just
because they're in a mob mentality. Or maybe they have low
self-esteem. Who knows. Sad in any case.

Btw, check Google, I'm in their archives going back to the 90's, and
I've been online since the 70's. I'm proud of all my thousands of
postings all these decades, and hell yes I'll jump in if people are
being unduly jerkish.

It makes me question anyone who thinks it's okay for pilots to act as
elite foul-mouthed know-it-alls, for any reason whatsoever. It
doesn't do any of us any good and it's downright embarrassing to see
some people here trip over themselves trying to come up with stupid
one-liners like "don't worry about death in your sim" etc. I would
advise them to not quit their day jobs yet ;-)

> Any of you defenders of manic out there catching all of this? More showing of a
> willingness to talk like an authority on a subject that "he" has no knowledge
> of. Still wondering if he is a troll?

GIve me a break :-) Lots of people opine on topics over their head.
Many of those here who talk about military matters probably have never
been in service, for example. Let's shoot everyone that shouldn't
speak up on a subject, yeah that's the ticket.

Kev

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I like MX's comments most are completely true. Just BEING a pilot is not
> >sufficient to be able to impart knowledge on the subject.
>
> His being a pilot or not is completely irrelevant to his comments about FADEC
> failure. That only clouds the issue.
>
> What does FADEC do, what does it control, and how does it fail, MX. The
> question is still on the floor.

Oh no, you don't get off that easily, Jim.

Since you're claming someone else shouldn't talk about the topic, then
you first have to present to everyone how YOU can make that assertion.
Are you a FADEC expert? Are you familiar with its failure modes?
Are you an embedded programmer? Which of Mx's statements do you
disagree with and why? Please be technical, I'm an engineer.

Kev

[Newps]

Kev wrote:

>
>
> Gloom and doom I can handle. He speaks like a programmer, that's all.
> It's the unnecessary insults I take exception to. Especially since
> his statements on this topic are not incorrect.


They're not remotely close to being correct. He doesn't have the
slightest idea what he's talking about.



>
>
> The question was not what FADEC is, but what does FADEC control, and
> how does it fail. According to newps, it doesn't control props. But
> it can.



GA FADEC doesn't control props. Planes like the Cirrus and Lanceair
still have mechanically actuated prop governors, but they are actually
controlled by the throttle. For some reason the manufacturers saw fit
to limit the available RPM settings to basically two. You get full RPM
on takeoff and when you pull the throttle back a certain distance the
governor gets set to the one cruise RPM. Basically engine control for
dummies.






> the car's limp home mode wouldn't meet FAA approval (they don't like
> less than 85% power in case of an EEC failure).


That should tell you something. See my previous post about failure modes.



>
> Losing all power (including the battery backup) on a FADEC means your
> engine stops.


Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing.





Is there another?
>

Continental will sell you their version for $10K. Lycoming has one
also. Both companies take very different approaches to how they control
things.

[Kev]

Kev (I) wrote:
> FADEC started on airliners, which is why there's a known history of
> failures meeting Mx's descriptions. As for piston singles, I know of
> only one, the Liberty XL that comes with it stock. Is there another?
> ( Since my cancer, I've stopped reading the pile of AOPA's, Flying,
> IFR, Plane&Pilots, etc next to my desk. Keep meaning to find time.)

D'oh ! Sorry, I forgot the Cirrus and some Diamonds have FADEC or an
option to have it. Haven't been in the market for a while, so didn't
keep up.

Kev

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> > Gloom and doom I can handle. He speaks like a programmer, that's all.
> > It's the unnecessary insults I take exception to. Especially since
> > his statements on this topic are not incorrect.
>
> They're not remotely close to being correct. He doesn't have the
> slightest idea what he's talking about.

Could you be more vague? What was incorrect? In general, they were
true statements, even if pretty gloomy.

> > The question was not what FADEC is, but what does FADEC control, and
> > how does it fail. According to newps, it doesn't control props. But
> > it can.
>
> GA FADEC doesn't control props. [good current info on props deleted..]

But as I said, it can. I read through an long FAA requirement document
for EEC (Electronic Engine Control) including FADEC before I posted
that. And apparently many GA companies plan on doing so.

> > Losing all power (including the battery backup) on a FADEC means your
> > engine stops.
>
> Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing.

That's a copout answer. The TCM version in the Liberty certainly
fails in the way I described. To the best of my knowledge, the
Continental will too. Good old Lycoming, I don't know enough about.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> So, if you are so sure that he will be surprised at the failure mode of FADEC,
> why don't you show your credibility, by telling us what FADEC Controls, and what
> its failure modes are?

If you are interested in FADEC reliability, do your own research.
Don't believe what you read on USENET.

> Without that, you show no credibility, at all.

I'm not trying to show credibility. I don't expect people to take me
at my word, as that would be rather stupid in a venue like this.
Interested parties can do their own research and reach their own
conclusions, which may or may not agree with mine. Uninterested
parties can remain ignorant and go where fate leads them.

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

[Newps]

Kev wrote:


>
> But as I said, it can. I read through an long FAA requirement document
> for EEC (Electronic Engine Control) including FADEC before I posted
> that. And apparently many GA companies plan on doing so.


What most of us want is a basic FADEC. Just adjust the spark timing to
conditions. That way I get easy starting, a big fuel savings, cleaner
plugs, better gas mileage, longer engine life and the ability to use a
much lower octane.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> FADEC does not control the throttle in a GA plane. It controls mixture,
> spark advance and sometimes, but not usually, the prop.

Then it's not FADEC. FA stands for "full authority."

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> GA FADEC doesn't control props.

By definition, FADEC controls all _engine_ parameters, whence the term
"full-authority." If a system does not do this, it is not FADEC, no
matter what the marketing brochures might say. The prop is not part
of the engine, although I suppose one could argue that FADEC controls
all propulsion parameters, in which case it would have to include prop
control (but it would still include engine parameters as well).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> What most of us want is a basic FADEC. Just adjust the spark timing to
> conditions.

That isn't a FADEC. It may be a DEC.

FADEC accepts control inputs from the pilot, then adjusts all engine
parameters to produce behavior consistent with the pilot's expressed
desire (via the engine controls) insofar as it does not exceed a
predefined flight envelope. It may also provide special features that
configure engines for specific situations in flight beyond the simple
increase or decrease of thrust on command.

The key distinguishing feature of FADEC is that there is no direct
connection to or command of the engines via pilot controls. The
controls simply provide inputs to a computer program which then has
_full authority_ to adjust all engine parameters as it sees fit.

The risk of FADEC is in the absence of this direct connection between
pilot and engines. The well-designed FADEC always has a bypass
function that disables the digital engine control (and this function
must be external to the system software). However, overconfident
engineers and ignorant end users may accept FADECs that have no
override, and that is dangerous.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>FADEC does not control the throttle in a GA plane. It controls mixture,
>>spark advance and sometimes, but not usually, the prop.
>
>
> Then it's not FADEC. FA stands for "full authority."

That's the term used interchangeably. That some geek doesn't approve is
inconsequential.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
> > What most of us want is a basic FADEC. Just adjust the spark timing to
> > conditions.
>
> That isn't a FADEC. It may be a DEC.

Or as the FAA calls it, an EEC (Electronic Engine Control). But you
will just have to accept that, in this case, aviation companies (and
therefore, pilots as well) do use "FADEC" to mean even simple EEC's.

Marketing calls the shots. As always. Besides, PADEC (Partial
Authority) just doesn't sound right ;-)

Kev

[Jose[_1_]]

> Besides, PADEC (Partial
> Authority) just doesn't sound right ;-)

Isn't that what LASAR is?

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]

Kev writes:

> Marketing calls the shots. As always. Besides, PADEC (Partial
> Authority) just doesn't sound right ;-)

One could call it WADEC, for "weak authority."

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> That's the term used interchangeably. That some geek doesn't approve is
> inconsequential.

If your aircraft truly uses FADEC, your life depends on some geek.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> >> like our resident troll.
> >
> > Please don't call it ou(r) resident troll.
>
> Why, is there a title lower than that?

It might think it belongs here.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in
>> Examples of this happening?
>
> Throttles setting themselves too high or low, refusing to answer
> commands, etc.

Got anything more serious?
>
>> Risk vs. reward analysis?
>
> I generally feel that

Idiot.

moo

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans writes:
>
>> So, if you are so sure that he will be surprised at the failure mode of
>> FADEC,
>> why don't you show your credibility, by telling us what FADEC Controls, and
>> what
>> its failure modes are?
>
> If you are interested in FADEC reliability, do your own research.
> Don't believe what you read on USENET.

What? I KNOW what it does. I'm wondering what YOU think it does. Until
someone posted that information, I doubt you knew. No, I know you didn't (and
probably still don't) know what FADEC does. I'll bet without looking it up, you
didn't even know what it stood for.

Once again, you missed the point.

>> Without that, you show no credibility, at all.
>
> I'm not trying to show credibility. I don't expect people to take me
> at my word, as that would be rather stupid in a venue like this.
> Interested parties can do their own research and reach their own
> conclusions, which may or may not agree with mine. Uninterested
> parties can remain ignorant and go where fate leads them.

Missed again.

What a cop-out answer.

Good thing you aren't trying to show credibility. You have none to show.

I truly hope people do their own research into FADEC, so the don't believe the
boatload of crap you were trying to sell about failure modes.

Oh, and by the way,

FADEC has NOTHING to do with FLY BY WIRE !!!

Buy a vowel. Get a clue. Do something.

Better yet, do something - elsewhere. You have nothing to offer here. Nothing.

Wake up, group. Stop defending this buffoon.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> do use "FADEC" to mean even simple EEC's.
>

The example for FADEC in a GA engine is the Thielert series of engines.
Full FADEC, no mechanical connection between throttle and engine. I
don't know of any engine stoppages due to controller failure. Then
again, who cares? There's a ton of engine stoppage failure modes in a
non-FADEC engine. And there are failure modes for FADEC engines. A
higher risk? Prove it, and I might believe it. But I don't think you
can.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The well-designed FADEC
>

Jeeze, it's really hard to stand. You know NOTHING, ZIP, NADA about
FADEC design. Whatever you do in live to earn 600 bucks per month -
it's not FADEC design. You don't have a clue. What arrogance!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-24, Newps > wrote:

>> Then it's not FADEC. FA stands for "full authority."
>
> That's the term used interchangeably. That some geek doesn't approve is
> inconsequential.

But it's still wrong.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Walt]

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. When I
start it in the morning, even if it's -20F (which happens occasionally
here in Montana) I can pump the throttle all I want but it won't do a
damn thing. The chip attached to the engine determines what the engine
needs to start.

Now, this is okay. I have about 10,000 miles on the car now, have
started it in a few -20F mornings and it works fine. But...

Last February I flew down to Colorado to go on a 4-day backcountry ski
trip with some good friends. It was a fun time. Spent a few days in a
hut in the Elk Mountains above Aspen.

One of the guys on the trip, and the guy I drove to the trailhead with,
has a deisel Ford F250. With an electronic throttle.

He works for a utility company for the county around Kremmling,
Colorado. Anyone who knows that area also knows that it gets cold
there.

He was out on a job in the county a couple of winters ago, driving
around in his F250 early in the morning. Temp was around -35F. The chip
(sorry to be vague, but I'm not familiar with electronic throttles)
failed while he was on a dirt road checking out a utility problem.
Engine quit. He couldn't get it going again.

Now, for him it wasn't really a life-threatening situation; he had a
warm sleeping bag with him and a radio, and help arrived rather
quickly. And, the next day, he got a new chip, installed it, and his
truck worked fine again (although he had to build a fire around his
truck --seriously!-- to unfreeze the gas lines to get it started.

ANYWAY, to make a short story long (which I've already done) I have, I
guess, "PADEC" (Partial Authority Digital Engine Control) in my
Outback. I live with it and trust it, even though it may fail some
time. My friend has it in his F250 and still drives it around the
county even though it failed once. He doubts it will fail again and
doesn't worry about it.

FADEC in an airplane? I would love to own a Liberty, or a Cirrus. But,
I have to struggle through life flying a 1974 Warrior. Bottom line is,
yeah, any time you don't have a direct, physical linkage to the control
systems you're depending on there's a chance of catastrophic failure.
Just ask Al Haynes.

But, it's a risk I can live with. Once again, I would love to own a
Liberty. We don't live in a safe world and, as someone said before, you
need to weigh the risk/reward factor. Considering how many things can
go wrong in an airplane (usually caused by the pilot) I'd say any
problems that may arise with FADEC isn't on the radar.

There ya go. My 2 cents. I may have more flying experience (and more
importantly, more life experience) than many on this list, but I
probably have a lot less than others. But, I enjoy reading what
everyone has to say. Yes. Even MX.

--Walt
Bozeman, Montana




Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kev,
>
> > do use "FADEC" to mean even simple EEC's.
> >
>
> The example for FADEC in a GA engine is the Thielert series of engines.
> Full FADEC, no mechanical connection between throttle and engine. I
> don't know of any engine stoppages due to controller failure. Then
> again, who cares? There's a ton of engine stoppage failure modes in a
> non-FADEC engine. And there are failure modes for FADEC engines. A
> higher risk? Prove it, and I might believe it. But I don't think you
> can.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
> > The well-designed FADEC
> >
> Jeeze, it's really hard to stand. You know NOTHING, ZIP, NADA about
> FADEC design. Whatever you do in live to earn 600 bucks per month -
> it's not FADEC design. You don't have a clue. What arrogance!

The last resort of the ignorant is to fling insults. Try using facts
instead.

1) FADEC designs can have a bypass system, mechanical or not. But this
is expensive redundancy, and cars / GA planes don't usually have it.
Note: The main GA requirement is for a backup power system, thus the
extra battery or alternator in Cirrus/etc. If that fails also, then
the FADEC is useless.

2) FADEC computers will fail with power loss, and that almost always
means engine stoppage. There are many cases of this happening on
airliners. You can also see this happen with your own car, more and
more of which are FADEC these days... i.e. no mechanical throttle
linkage, just a throttle position sensor.

The "almost" I left in above is because the FAA allows a GA EEC to fail
at full throttle as long as there's still a way to shut down the
engine. However, as far as I can tell, no GA EEC maker is taking that
failure route, because of related prop worries.

3) "Catastrophic" is the wrong term to use, just for engine shut off.

Kev

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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.

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.

All things considered, there is more protection and redundancy in the aircraft
FADEC than the aircraft without the FADEC.

Although I do not know how the Theilert is set up, I would imagine it is set up
to go to wide open throttle in the event of loss of communication with the
throttle lever in the aircraft. That is more safe than stopping, compared to a
auto, where it is more safe for the engine to stop. Your friend's truck would
have a problem if it had gone to wide open throttle. <g>

You can be assured that before an engine is certified with a FADEC, that the FAA
has considered every possible failure mode, and has made sure that the engine
will keep running, if at all possible.

ANY aircraft engine can stop running. They are made to keep running, if at all
possible. An aircraft engine with a totally mechanical carb or injection with
magnetos has more possibility of stopping, than a FADEC engine, I would guess.
I do not have any facts to back up that statement.

Notice how I put it out front, when I was only guessing, or speculating? If a
certain other poster had stated his assumptions like that, there would not have
been all of the "personal" attacks.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Walt,

And the Ford you mention was certified by the FAA? There's a difference
in exactly the part we're discussing here.

> Bottom line is,
> yeah, any time you don't have a direct, physical linkage to the control
> systems you're depending on there's a chance of catastrophic failure.

Sure. And anytime you have that direct linkage, that linkage can fail
catastrophically just the same. What I doubt is that there is any risk
increase. And nobody has come forward to prove otherwise.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

>
> Try using facts
> instead.

Well, see below. And then try yourself.

> 1) FADEC designs can have a bypass system, mechanical or not. But this
> is expensive redundancy, and cars / GA planes don't usually have it.

Plain wrong. The Thielert, for example, not only has backup-power, but
also two Engine Control Units comparing each other. One ECU is the
"bypass" for the other. If those all fail, yes, you have a problem.
That's the case with all failing back-ups. Increased risk compared to
non-FADEC engines? Show me how, show me where!

Same for the power in the Cirrus, which, BTW, has nothing to do with the
engine (it's not at all FADEC, there's just one simple mechanical linkage
between prop rpm and throttle setting) and everything with an
electric-only panel. If the backup power fails, you're out of gyros.
Well, surprise, if your vacuum fails, the same happens. And that is
probably more likely, too.

> 2) FADEC computers will fail with power loss, and that almost always
> means engine stoppage.

Which is why there are back-ups in certified GA FADECS.

> There are many cases of this happening on
> airliners.

Just one related NTSB or ASRS report, please.

> You can also see this happen with your own car, more and
> more of which are FADEC these days... i.e. no mechanical throttle
> linkage, just a throttle position sensor.

Cars are completely different, they are not certified.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> except from what someone wrote about the Theilert,
>

That would be me. The whole story is at http://www.centurion-engines.com/

The "throttle" is simply a variable resistor connected to two engine
control units. They check on each other and control all aspects of the
engine. The throttle is used to set percentage of power as shown by the
engine control instrument. Thielert's description goes like this:


FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control)

The FADEC system is a fully redundant 32-bit motor management system for
the CENTURION 1.7 which includes safety appliances. The hardware and the
software of the FADEC was completely developed on our own. We adhire
strictly to the international aviation standards (JAR, FAA). The
certified FADEC passed difficult test criteria of the EMV. The ECU
regulates the high-pressure valves, the common rail pressure, the turbo
charger and the constant speed propeller's pitch. Furthermore the FADEC
contains some more special functions like the electronic event logging
which safes diagnostic data, sensorial monitoring, diacnostic interface,
the integrated run-up check or the continous surveillance of more than 30
internal and external engine parameter.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

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.

The ignition system needed a great deal of maintenance to continue
working. I learned out of experience to change the points *every* oil
change, or I was just on borrowed time until the engine quit cold. Each
oil change, when I did the ignition maintenance, the performance of the
car would leap - what had happened, it had steadily degraded over the
few thousand miles, and renewing some parts would bring it back to spec.
Even with frequent maintenance on the electrical system, it'd still
occasionally let me down.

Today, I have a 1995 Audi A4, with completely electronic engine
controls. It runs as well as the day it left the factory. It still gets
the fuel economy figures that are in the manual, despite having over
100,000 miles on the engine. It starts on cold wet days. It doesn't
randomly quit if I've not replaced bits in the ignition system. The
spark plugs only need looking at every 100,000 miles instead of at every
oil change.

The reliability difference is like night and day. Even my old Ford
Sierra (which wasn't much more advanced than the Mini, but at least had
electronic ignition) was much better reliability-wise than the purely
mechanical ignition system.

Give me electronic engine controls any day. They may have different
failure modes, but it seems to me they fail far less frequently.
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> A higher risk? Prove it, and I might believe it.

It is generally more prudent to believe in high risk and require proof
of low risk than it is to believe the opposite.

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

> You can be assured that before an engine is certified with a FADEC, that the FAA
> has considered every possible failure mode, and has made sure that the engine
> will keep running, if at all possible.

The FAA doesn't have enough experience with fly-by-wire to identify
every possible failure mode, much less consider every such mode. The
FAA still really isn't qualified to certify fly-by-wire systems.
Nobody is.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > A higher risk? Prove it, and I might believe it.
>
> It is generally more prudent to believe in high risk and require proof
> of low risk than it is to believe the opposite.

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.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

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.

> What I doubt is that there is any risk increase. And nobody has
> come forward to prove otherwise.

As I've said, it's unwise to require that people prove risk. It's
much better to require that they prove safety.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> Today, I have a 1995 Audi A4, with completely electronic engine
> controls. It runs as well as the day it left the factory.

If you fly a plane manually, and a problem with control surfaces
develops and progresses, you'll find it more and more difficult to
fly. If you have an autopilot, you'll notice nothing until the
problems with the control surfaces reach a point that is beyond the
ability of the autopilot to compensate. Then you will spiral down
into the ground. Which failure mode do you prefer?

One of the problems with "intelligent" systems is that they can
conceal problems until they become so serious that they cannot be
corrected, at which point they produce catastrophic, irrecoverable
failures.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Plain wrong. The Thielert, for example, not only has backup-power, but
> also two Engine Control Units comparing each other. One ECU is the
> "bypass" for the other. If those all fail, yes, you have a problem.

That isn't a bypass system. A bypass allows the entire FADEC system
to be physical disabled and disconnected, with only a mechanical
back-up that controls engine parameters directly.

> Which is why there are back-ups in certified GA FADECS.

A back-up is not the same as a bypass.

> Cars are completely different, they are not certified.

A certification isn't a guarantee. Sometimes it is worthless.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Catastrophic failure is usually caused by software, not hardware.

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

> The FAA doesn't have enough experience with fly-by-wire to identify
> every possible failure mode, much less consider every such mode. The
> FAA still really isn't qualified to certify fly-by-wire systems.

How would you be qualified to make such a statement? And how would you explain away
the FAA-certified FBW aircraft that have been flying so succesfully and accident free
for decades?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It is generally more prudent to believe in high risk and require proof
> of low risk than it is to believe the opposite.
>

Uhm, no. That would be ridiculous. It would prevent you to do anything
useful in real life. Oh wait, you don't DO anything in real life...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Happy Dog writes:

> Got anything more serious?

Getting military power when you want idle, or idle when you want
military power, is about as serious as it can get.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If you fly a plane manually, and a problem with control surfaces
> develops and progresses, you'll find it more and more difficult to
> fly. If you have an autopilot, you'll notice nothing until the
> problems with the control surfaces reach a point that is beyond the
> ability of the autopilot to compensate.
>

Utter, complete nonsense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

>>If you fly a plane manually, and a problem with control surfaces
>> develops and progresses, you'll find it more and more difficult to
>> fly. If you have an autopilot, you'll notice nothing until the
>> problems with the control surfaces reach a point that is beyond the
>> ability of the autopilot to compensate.
>
> Utter, complete nonsense.

How so? Oversimplified, to be sure, but "utter nonsense"? Nonsense!

One of the things pilots must be aware of when using an autopilot for
example is trim. As I understand it, if something causes the airplane
to require more trim (say, ice on the tail, or inadequate power output),
the autopilot will trim up to maintain altitude. The pilot will notice
this if he's paying attention, because (in a trim-up situation) the
airspeed will be decaying. (perhaps this is why you say "utter
nonsense"?). If the pilot misses those indications, which can occur
gradually, then when the trim reaches its limit, and the autopilot can
no longer pitch adequately, it will disengage, leaving you trimmed fully up.

The airspeed indicator is silent, it requires active monitoring. (This
is part of what being a pilot is). However, if one is flying manually,
the need for trim is not silent - it quite readily makes itself known.

Another example is fighting the autopilot... if you push the nose down,
the autopilot will compensate by trimming up to maintain altitude. It
will do this until it can no longer compensate, then it disengages,
which is a surprise to the unaware pilot.

I think that's the kind of thing he may be referring to. It might be a
mis-application of his partial knowledge, but to call it "utter
nonsense" is not quite accurate.

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.

[Montblack]

("Happy Dog" wrote)
> Idiot.


<chuckle>


Montblack

[Newps]

Walt wrote:


>
> One of the guys on the trip, and the guy I drove to the trailhead with,
> has a deisel Ford F250. With an electronic throttle.
>
> He works for a utility company for the county around Kremmling,
> Colorado. Anyone who knows that area also knows that it gets cold
> there.
>
> He was out on a job in the county a couple of winters ago, driving
> around in his F250 early in the morning. Temp was around -35F. The chip
> (sorry to be vague, but I'm not familiar with electronic throttles)
> failed while he was on a dirt road checking out a utility problem.
> Engine quit. He couldn't get it going again.


I also have an F250 although mine is the V10. The diesels have had
failures like you speak but most of the time the failure is the camshaft
sensor. Once the computer loses track of the cam position the engine
shuts off like somebody flipped a light switch or won't start. An easy
part to eplace bu no fun in 4 feet of snow on the side of a mountain.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>A higher risk? Prove it, and I might believe it.
>
>
> It is generally more prudent to believe in high risk and require proof
> of low risk than it is to believe the opposite.



When you have no statistics to start with. We do and you are wrong.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Happy Dog writes:
>
>
>>Got anything more serious?
>
>
> Getting military power when you want idle, or idle when you want
> military power, is about as serious as it can get.

Yeah, I hate it when I can't get military power in my Bonanza. Christ,
stick to the topic.

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> 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.
>
>> You can be assured that before an engine is certified with a FADEC, that the
>> FAA
>> has considered every possible failure mode, and has made sure that the engine
>> will keep running, if at all possible.
>
> The FAA doesn't have enough experience with fly-by-wire to identify
> every possible failure mode, much less consider every such mode. The
> FAA still really isn't qualified to certify fly-by-wire systems.
> Nobody is.

You are talking out of your butt, again.

Take notice group.

Are you starting to get the idea, that this guy deserves no respect, or answers?

If not, what will it take?

Treat him as what he is. A troll, plain and simple; here to stir the pot and
get responses.

Do what is appropriate.
--
Jim in NC

[Walt]

Point taken, Thomas. Of course my friend's F250 wasn't certified by the
FAA. Does this really make a difference? You're talking about an agency
that requires an air vent for a Cessna 150 to be replaced by something
costing, what, $95?

You betcha mechanical linkages can fail. I had one fail when I was
flying KC-135's, causing the #1 engine to stay at 100% power
(simplifying things here) once. It was a simple thing to fix inflight
-- we fuel-starved it -- but yes, those things do happen.

My point is (if I have one, that's debatable) with a mechanical linkage
problem you still have a chance to fix the problem. Hard in an
airplane, very doable in my friend's F250. But doable.

Pretty much impossible with a computer chip running things.

That being said, I'm totally comfortable driving my Soob, and I would
be just as comfortable flying a Liberty. We really don't have an
argument here, my friend.

--Walt


Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Walt,
>
> And the Ford you mention was certified by the FAA? There's a difference
> in exactly the part we're discussing here.
>
> > Bottom line is,
> > yeah, any time you don't have a direct, physical linkage to the control
> > systems you're depending on there's a chance of catastrophic failure.
>
> Sure. And anytime you have that direct linkage, that linkage can fail
> catastrophically just the same. What I doubt is that there is any risk
> increase. And nobody has come forward to prove otherwise.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> 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.
>
>> What I doubt is that there is any risk increase. And nobody has
>> come forward to prove otherwise.
>
> As I've said, it's unwise to require that people prove risk. It's
> much better to require that they prove safety.

Troll, troll, troll your boat. Gently down the stream.

More babble, meaning nothing.

There have been plenty throttle llinkage failures. I'll bet some people in this
group have even experienced them.

How about it, group?

Then, same question. How many have experienced FADEC failures, where the engine
quit, or ran away uncontrolled?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> If you fly a plane manually, and a problem with control surfaces
> develops and progresses, you'll find it more and more difficult to
> fly. If you have an autopilot, you'll notice nothing until the
> problems with the control surfaces reach a point that is beyond the
> ability of the autopilot to compensate. Then you will spiral down
> into the ground. Which failure mode do you prefer?
>
WHAT ???

What does FADEC have to do with controll surfaces. FADEC has nothing to do with
control surfaces, or autopilot, or fly-by-wire. Get that in your head.

> One of the problems with "intelligent" systems is that they can
> conceal problems until they become so serious that they cannot be
> corrected, at which point they produce catastrophic, irrecoverable
> failures.

FADEC has warnings that are activated when there is a problem with any of the
redundant systems.

Take notice, group. Trolling away.

Give him some more rope, I guess.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> I think that's the kind of thing he may be referring to. It might be a
> mis-application of his partial knowledge, but to call it "utter nonsense" is
> not quite accurate.

He is taking about something that has no relation to FADEC. Totally different
systems, and types of control.

If you can not see the nonsense in it, well......

Open your eyes.

This is trolling taken to the extreme.
--
Jim in NC

[Walt]

Newps wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
>
> >
> > One of the guys on the trip, and the guy I drove to the trailhead with,
> > has a deisel Ford F250. With an electronic throttle.
> >
> > He works for a utility company for the county around Kremmling,
> > Colorado. Anyone who knows that area also knows that it gets cold
> > there.
> >
> > He was out on a job in the county a couple of winters ago, driving
> > around in his F250 early in the morning. Temp was around -35F. The chip
> > (sorry to be vague, but I'm not familiar with electronic throttles)
> > failed while he was on a dirt road checking out a utility problem.
> > Engine quit. He couldn't get it going again.
>
>
> I also have an F250 although mine is the V10. The diesels have had
> failures like you speak but most of the time the failure is the camshaft
> sensor. Once the computer loses track of the cam position the engine
> shuts off like somebody flipped a light switch or won't start. An easy
> part to eplace bu no fun in 4 feet of snow on the side of a mountain.

That's interesting. My friend's F250 failed at the sensor from the gas
pedal. In fact, Ford told him he would have to replace the whole gas
pedal assembly to fix the problem. Instead he went to a friend's
salvage yard (friends are great, BTW) and picked up a "chip" and
replaced it himself. It's worked great for the last two years.

Anyway, to be flippant, it would be interesting to consider how much it
would have cost him if a Ford F250 was type-rated by the FAA. :>)

--Walt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> A certification isn't a guarantee. Sometimes it is worthless.

There are no clouds in the sky. It is daytime. The sky is blue.

You could argue that, couldn't you?
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

2025

SW Airlines begins Fully Automated Moon Flights.

[cabin announcement-recording]

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome aboard Southwest Airlines
inaugural Automated Moon flight. After nearly a decade of
passenger service to the Wal-Mart Astoria on the dark side
of the Moon, to get a better view of the Solar System
without that pesky Earthshine always being present.
In order to reduce cost further, we can now carry five more
passengers since the crew now is just the cabin service
staff. The flight deck crew has been replaced with a Full
Authority Digitally Augmented Flight Control System that
has been tested to the highest standards by the FAA and
NASA.

Do not be alarmed, nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go
wrong...go wrong... ....go wrong...


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Mxsmanic" > wrote
|
| > A certification isn't a guarantee. Sometimes it is
worthless.
|
| There are no clouds in the sky. It is daytime. The sky is
blue.
|
| You could argue that, couldn't you?
| --
| Jim in NC

[Walt]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote
>
> > I think that's the kind of thing he may be referring to. It might be a
> > mis-application of his partial knowledge, but to call it "utter nonsense" is
> > not quite accurate.
>
> He is taking about something that has no relation to FADEC. Totally different
> systems, and types of control.
>
> If you can not see the nonsense in it, well......
>
> Open your eyes.
>
> This is trolling taken to the extreme.
> --
> Jim in NC

"Partial knowledge" defines MX. He doesn't know how the different
systems interact to make an airplane fly. Read some of the other
newsgroups he's on. He does the same thing on those.

So, is he a troll, or is he a home-bound person who can't experience
the real world like we can?

I don't know. Perhaps MX can tell us.

I'll vote for the latter, for personal reasons. I may be wrong, but I'm
happy to be able to walk out to my airplane in the morning and go
flying. If MX can't, then I feel sorry for him. And, if I don't want to
hear what he has to say I'll just ignore him.

But, I do feel sorry for him, since he doesn't know what it's like to
REALLY fly.

And I feel very lucky to be able to do it.

--Walt

[Jose[_1_]]

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

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> 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.

I think that's too strict a statement. Some do as a backup and some
don't. Most appear to use a throttle position sensor like cars do (and
boy do I hate the analog ones with a simple wiper arm over a resistive
field... you're just asking for uncommanded power excursions in a car,
much less in reported cases of failure on helicopters with that kind of
system).

Others exclusively use a mechanical connection, which of course means
it's NOT a FADEC system at all.

> 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.
>
> All things considered, there is more protection and redundancy in the aircraft
> FADEC than the aircraft without the FADEC.

That's a totally invalid conclusion. An engine without FADEC doesn't
require all those dual systems, because it can't fail in the same way.
For a traditional engine to fail in a way unique to its systems, both
magnetos must stop working. Does anyone here think that's a common
situation?

For FADEC to fail, all you have to lose is electrical power, or a pair
of sensors (ever have the crank position sensors or their wires fail on
your car engine? I have. In several cars. It's not at all uncommon.)

Worse, a software failure can screw up your FADEC. Google a bit, and
you'll easily find examples of oh, say, Airbus code failures that
stopped engines mid-flight. Or the example of the Chinook helicopters
where a FADEC code review found over 480 code anomalies in the first
15% of program lines.

Btw, did you see this Thielert AD because of engine stoppage due to
software?

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/piston/thielert/THIELERT-003.pdf

> You can be assured that before an engine is certified with a FADEC, that the FAA
> has considered every possible failure mode, and has made sure that the engine
> will keep running, if at all possible.

Now you sound a lot like what you claim is wrong with Mx. Prove that
statement if you can. I don't believe the FAA does any such thing. It
simply gives the manufacturer a set of guidelines. From what I've
read, there's no requirement beyond dual power systems to ensure that
the engine keeps running, only that a failure doesn't disentegrate the
engine or prop.

> ANY aircraft engine can stop running. They are made to keep running, if at all
> possible. An aircraft engine with a totally mechanical carb or injection with
> magnetos has more possibility of stopping, than a FADEC engine, I would guess.
> I do not have any facts to back up that statement.
> Notice how I put it out front, when I was only guessing, or speculating? If a
> certain other poster had stated his assumptions like that, there would not have
> been all of the "personal" attacks.

Given that criterion, you should've put out front that you were
guessing on most of your posting. It's clear you're NOT an engineer,
despite the fact that you and newps seem to have Googled up some info
overnight. Does that mean we should all resort to personal attacks at
you?

Kev

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
> > If you fly a plane manually, and a problem with control surfaces
> > develops and progresses, you'll find it more and more difficult to
> > fly. If you have an autopilot, you'll notice nothing until the
> > problems with the control surfaces reach a point that is beyond the
> > ability of the autopilot to compensate.
> >
> Utter, complete nonsense.

How can you claim Mxsmanic doesn't know what he's talking about, when
you yourself make such obviously incorrect statements?

Do you remember, for easy example, the commuter flight that dove in a
few years ago because it iced up to the point of tail-stalling, but
their autopilot hid that condition until it was turned off?

Kev

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...


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.

GF

[Thomas Borchert]

Walt,

I know we don't have an argument :-)

> Does this really make a difference?
>

Well, the FAA requires redundancy, Ford doesn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> How so? Oversimplified, to be sure, but "utter nonsense"? Nonsense!

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

> One of the things pilots must be aware of when using an autopilot for
> example is trim.

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kev,
> > 1) FADEC designs can have a bypass system, mechanical or not. But this
> > is expensive redundancy, and cars / GA planes don't usually have it.
>
> Plain wrong. The Thielert, for example, not only has backup-power, but
> also two Engine Control Units comparing each other. One ECU is the
> "bypass" for the other. If those all fail, yes, you have a problem.

Read more carefully. I said GA _usually_ doesn't have the redundancy.
The Thielert does, but at a price. There's a good reason why GA
owners haven't jumped towards retrofitting with FADEC... it's hard to
justify $10,000 for better starting and economy.

> That's the case with all failing back-ups. Increased risk compared to
> non-FADEC engines? Show me how, show me where!

I didn't bring up increased risk. Obviously the EEC equipped engine
(FADEC or not) will have better economy, starting, and so forth, that
we've all come to love and expect in cars. Statistically speaking,
it's probably true that electronics theoretically have less risk.

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.

Of course, neither setup can prevent a sudden cylinder failure, or oil
pump, or fuel pump, or vacuum pump, or other such mechanical
commonality.

> > 2) FADEC computers will fail with power loss, and that almost always
> > means engine stoppage.
>
> Which is why there are back-ups in certified GA FADECS.

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.

> > There are many cases of this happening on airliners.
>
> Just one related NTSB or ASRS report, please.

Just Google for "fadec failure history".

> > You can also see this happen with your own car, more and
> > more of which are FADEC these days... i.e. no mechanical throttle
> > linkage, just a throttle position sensor.
>
> Cars are completely different, they are not certified.

Sorry, gotta agree with Mx again. I've done certified government
software, and it's generally a meaningless certification.

Kev

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> Does anyone here think that's a common
> situation?
>

Well, compared to what? FADEC failures? Yes, until you provide me with
numbers to the contrary, I do think they are equally common (which is
to say, very uncommon). Think of the dual Bendix magnetoes here.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> Read more carefully. I said GA _usually_ doesn't have the redundancy.
> The Thielert does, but at a price.

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.

> > Just one related NTSB or ASRS report, please.
>
> Just Google for "fadec failure history".

I did. No joy. Now you do it.

> Sorry, gotta agree with Mx again. I've done certified government
> software, and it's generally a meaningless certification.

A "government certification" is not an FAA certification.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Kev wrote:
There's a good reason why GA
> owners haven't jumped towards retrofitting with FADEC... it's hard to
> justify $10,000 for better starting and economy.

Not that hard. A big bore Continental like mine will easily save an
average of 2 gph. That's a $10,200 savings over the 1700 hour life of
my 520 at $3 a gallon.

[Newps]

Kev wrote:


>
> 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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> 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.

[Judah]

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.

[Neil Gould]

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

[Greg Farris]

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

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
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…...

[Montblack]

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


At Ford ...Certification is Job 1


Montblack
Built FAA Tough

[Jose[_1_]]

> 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.

[Dave Stadt]

"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.

[Dave Stadt]

"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.

[Dave Stadt]

"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
>

[Dave Stadt]

"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. :->

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"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.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> 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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Mxsmanic]

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]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Another example is fighting the autopilot... if you push the nose down,
> the autopilot will compensate by trimming up to maintain altitude. It
> will do this until it can no longer compensate, then it disengages,
> which is a surprise to the unaware pilot.
>
> I think that's the kind of thing he may be referring to.

Yes. As a general rule, automation systems greatly reduce situational
awareness. That is necessary for them to accomplish their purpose,
but it is also dangerous. Problems arise when human beings forget
that automation does this (unfortunately they forget this very
easily).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> He is taking about something that has no relation to FADEC.

FADEC is one form of automation; autopilot is another. They are
variations on the same theme.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> One gets plenty of clues that something is going awry prior to this
> happening.

No, one does not. The whole purpose of automation is to mask
information that contains such clues, in order to reduce the workload
for the pilot. As an autopilot moves the ailerons of an aircraft to
maintain heading and attitude, this is completely transparent to the
pilot for the most part, unless he actually looks out at the ailerons
or keeps his hands on the controls (in some aircraft). If he were
constantly being reminded of the autopilot's actions, there wouldn't
be any advantage to having an autopilot.

> 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.

A lot of commercial pilots do that. Long trips can get pretty boring.

> 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.

A lot of accidents have occurred when automated systems allowed crews
to lose their situational awareness. Autopilots are particularly
implicated in this respect, perhaps because they've been around so
long and work so well.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> What does FADEC have to do with controll surfaces.

Autopilots work by manipulating control surfaces. FADECs work by
manipulating engine controls. Both are forms of automation that can
reduce situational awareness.

> FADEC has warnings that are activated when there is a problem with any of the
> redundant systems.

But there doesn't have to be a problem with the systems. You can lose
situational awareness when they are operating perfectly. Indeed,
that's the situation in which you are most likely to lose situational
awareness.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Of course, neither setup can prevent a sudden cylinder failure, or oil
> pump, or fuel pump, or vacuum pump, or other such mechanical
> commonality.

Note, however, that digital systems are _far_ more likely to react to
unexpected events in a very extreme way. An oil-pump failure can
cause a catastrophic system failure almost instantly if the digital
system isn't designed to take into account the possibility of an
oil-pump failure.

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

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
> > [...]
> What does FADEC have to do with controll surfaces. FADEC has nothing to do with
> control surfaces, or autopilot, or fly-by-wire. Get that in your head.

You're out of date. The term "fly-by-wire" includes FADEC these days.
See wikipedia, Google, yadda yadda.

> > One of the problems with "intelligent" systems is that they can
> > conceal problems until they become so serious that they cannot be
> > corrected, at which point they produce catastrophic, irrecoverable
> > failures.
>
> FADEC has warnings that are activated when there is a problem with any of the
> redundant systems.

Like any software, it only has preset warnings for problems the
programmer knows about or can predict. A good example of this kind of
failure was with the early Patriot missile system. Although it had
various warnings built in, there was no warning when its internal clock
rolled over (due to a common programmer error in setting the clock data
size). This caused several bad shots in the first Gulf War, including
the one that caused the incoming Scud to hit our troops' mess hall.

Kev

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> Why are you defending him?

Don't you get it yet? People aren't defending him (I don't think he
requires it), as much as they're saying that they don't like YOUR kind
of behavior. They see you and your ilk as more of a threat to this
newsgroup than he ever could be.

1) Everyone loves an underdog. By insulting him all the time,
deserved or not, you have generated sympathy for him.

2) No one likes a bully, a gang or mob mentality. You and your
buddies on the attack seem like a gang of thugs sitting on a street
corner yelling insults, trying to look cool. But you aren't.

3) You try to defend your actions by saying that someone might mistake
his "information" as real. Unfortunately, and especially in this
thread (among others), the people casting insults have been shown to be
pretty much uninformed on the topic, making you the threat. Worse,
when called on your lack of knowledge, you resorted to more attacks.

4) You continue to tell everyone else to whom they should respond or
not. No one appreciates that. This is Usenet, not your personal
group.

5) By using personal attacks as a means of arguing facts, you've
opened yourself up to personal attack. Yet so far, people have been
nicer to you, than you have been to others.

You really need to take a long hard look at yourself, bud, and turn
your head 180 degrees around.

Kev

[Kev]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article om>,
> 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?

Don't act so dumb. It means that I have rather a large experience with
engines and their failure modes, having worked as a mechanic for a
living. I've also been one of the top embedded programmers in the
world. My claims are based on decades of embedded experience.

What are your qualifications?

Kev

[Kev]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> The feds have just designated a plane with retractable gear, flaps, and
> FADEC as a complex.

For anyone who wants to read it, here's the notice:

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2006/061116faapolicy.pdf

It mentions that, so far, only the DA42 meets this particular
definition.

Kev

[Kev]

Kev wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > The feds have just designated a plane with retractable gear, flaps, and
> > FADEC as a complex.
>
> For anyone who wants to read it, here's the notice:
>
> http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2006/061116faapolicy.pdf

Hmm. This is great news for those getting a commercial or instructor
certificate.

But it means that a potential aircraft owner would need a complex
sign-off even if the propeller is automatically controlled by the
FADEC.

Does that seem fair, considering the previous definition of a complex
aircraft? It seems to me that one of the reasons for building an
aircraft with such an automatic system would be to make it more
available to pilots.

Kev

[Jose[_1_]]

> He has gotten sloppy, and argued points that have no merit...

We should not get sloppy.

> I, and many others, have been tired of the ridiculous questions...

Then ignore him and his threads.

> 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.

Then do so correctly, lest you become guilty of the same sloppiness,
PLUS adding noise to noise.

> Perhaps he will get tired of me

Now =that's funny!

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

That is not necessary. We all know what he really is.

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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Your "somewhat wrong"analysis of his posts are from your point of view.

The point that evoked my contribution was a statement that a certain
statement that he made was "utter nonsense". It was not untter
nonsense. His POV may be utter nonsense, but the statement he made was
somewhat wrong, and somewhat right. I'm responding to the statement,
not the person.

> Spelling errrors?

Ok, I made that one up. :)

>> and also attacking him ad hominum.
> For good reason.

There is never a good reason for an ad hominum attack.

> If it takes making more noise...

It won't work. It's what trolls want. By your analysis, it's what he
wants.

> 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.

Ok, then make =that= point.

> You know, you are one of the most argumentative people on this group.

No I'm not. :)

> Why are you having a problem with people arguing with him?

I'm not. What I'm having a problem with is condemning statements =just=
because they are his, and the ad hominum attacks. If anybody else had
made the statement about autopilots, it would not have garnered the
response "utter rubbish".

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.

[Jim Macklin]

The ideal airplane to rent is a pressurized, taildragger,
with a engine over 200 hp, constant speed prop and
retractable landing gear. If it was also two engines you
could do all the 61.31 endorsements in one airplane. Maybe
a Queen Air taildragger conversion back to a BE 18, sort of
like, you know, cobbled together.
High performance, taildragger, high altitude, complex,
multiengine. It is just too much trouble to find a CFI and
the appropriate airplane for a one-time requirement.



"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Kev wrote:
| > Bob Gardner wrote:
| > > The feds have just designated a plane with retractable
gear, flaps, and
| > > FADEC as a complex.
| >
| > For anyone who wants to read it, here's the notice:
| >
| > http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2006/061116faapolicy.pdf
|
| Hmm. This is great news for those getting a commercial or
instructor
| certificate.
|
| But it means that a potential aircraft owner would need a
complex
| sign-off even if the propeller is automatically controlled
by the
| FADEC.
|
| Does that seem fair, considering the previous definition
of a complex
| aircraft? It seems to me that one of the reasons for
building an
| aircraft with such an automatic system would be to make
it more
| available to pilots.
|
| Kev
|

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> A lot of accidents have occurred when automated systems allowed crews
> to lose their situational awareness.
>

Well, Jose, if that statement doesn't qualify as utter BS, I don't know
what does.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> 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?
>

No, and I agree wit hyour view on certification.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Well, Jose, if that statement doesn't qualify as utter BS, I don't know
> what does.

The FAA doesn't think so. In its 1996 report on the subject (prepared
jointly with NASA), it listed a number of accidents that can be
directly attributed to problems with situational awareness linked to
the use of automated systems:

29-Dec-1972 Miami L-1011 Eastern Airlines
31-Jul-1973 Boston DC-9-31 Delta Airlines
28-Feb-1984 New York DC-10-30 Scandanavian Airlines
19-Feb-1985 San Francisco 747SP China Airlines
26-Jun-1988 Habsheim A320 Air France
3-Jul-1988 Gatwick A320
Jan-1989 Helsinki A320 KAR Air
8-Jun-1989 Boston 767
14-Feb-1990 Bangalore A320 Indian Airlines
Jun-1990 San Diego A320
11-Feb-1991 Moscow A310 Interflug
20-Jan-1992 Strasbourg A320 Air Inter
14-Sep-1993 Warsaw A320 Lufthansa
13-Sep-1993 Tahiti 747-400 Air France
6-Jun-1994 Hong Kong A320 Dragonair
26-Apr-1994 Nagoya A300-600 China Airlines
21-Jun-1994 Manchester 757-200 Britannia
30-Jun-1994 Toulouse A330 Airbus
24-Sep-1994 Paris A310-300 Tarom
31-Oct-1994 Roselawn ATR-72 American Eagle
31-Mar-1995 Bucharest A310-300 Tarom
12-Nov-1995 Bradley Intl. MD-80 American Airlines
20-Dec-1995 Cali 757-200 American Airlines

This is not an exhaustive list of such incidents, of course.

Note the huge preponderance of Airbus in this list; Airbus likes to
add automation gadgets to their aircraft, and problems are common,
both because of defects in the systems, and because crews do not know
how to use and interact with the systems.

Improved training and gradual bug-fixing have reduced the rate of
incidents for large aircraft.

Unfortunately, increasing FBW automation of small aircraft is going to
produce a huge increase in such incidents among private pilots, along
with a general dumbing down of private pilots (as has happened in
large airliners). The pilots most likely to die will be those who
refuse to believe that a problem exists.

So you see, that statement does not qualify as utter BS. And you do
indeed create the impression that you do not know what does, so I'll
agree with you on that point.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

Jim wrote:
>>
>> Why are you having a problem with people arguing with him?
>
> I'm not. What I'm having a problem with is condemning statements
> =just= because they are his, and the ad hominum attacks.
>
Really, Jose, this doesn't happen as often as you are implying. Maybe once
or twice per absurd comment. It's just the volume of his absurd comments
that make it seem like a big issue. ;-)

> If anybody
> else had made the statement about autopilots, it would not have
> garnered the response "utter rubbish".
>
Having been on the "receiving end" of some statements that the group
though were absurd, I'd beg to differ. This group takes pretty much
everyone to task for statements that they feel are inaccurate, and I see
no reason why Mxmanic should be treated differently.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Jose writes:
>
>> Another example is fighting the autopilot... if you push the nose
>> down, the autopilot will compensate by trimming up to maintain
>> altitude. It will do this until it can no longer compensate, then
>> it disengages, which is a surprise to the unaware pilot.
>>
>> I think that's the kind of thing he may be referring to.
>
> Yes. As a general rule, automation systems greatly reduce situational
> awareness.
>
Yet another absurdity. The only thing that will "greatly reduce
situational awareness" is ignoring one's situation, and that has nothing
at all to do with automation systems. Of course, you wouldn't know about
that, becuase your situation is always the same chair in the same room.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> One gets plenty of clues that something is going awry prior to this
>> happening.
>
> No, one does not.
>
And, you know this because...?

> The whole purpose of automation is to mask
> information that contains such clues, in order to reduce the workload
> for the pilot.
>
Well, Jose... this meets *my* criteria for "utter nonsense". Does it still
qualify as less so to you?

>> 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.
>
> A lot of commercial pilots do that. Long trips can get pretty boring.
>
What people may or may not do does not reasign the responsibility for
problems that their actions may create.

>> 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.
>
> A lot of accidents have occurred when automated systems allowed crews
> to lose their situational awareness.
>
The basis for this notion is...?

Neil


Autopilots are particularly
> implicated in this respect, perhaps because they've been around so
> long and work so well.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> And, you know this because...?

Because I've done the research, and because I've simmed these
situations as well.

> The basis for this notion is...?

See my other post to Thomas for one of many examples of supporting
information for this point of view. It's the sort of thing that
pilots ignore at their peril. But pilots seem to ignore a lot of
things, especially the ones who fly tin cans.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
(in response to your absurd statement of yours that one does not get
plenty of clues about something going awry prior to a critical situation
related to autopilots)
>> And, you know this because...?
>
> Because I've done the research, and because I've simmed these
> situations as well.
>
Then, you either don't understand your sim or don't understand the
relationship of your sim to the real world. In the real world, one *does*
get plenty of clues about such things as a change of flight parameters,
regardless of the cause. The reality of flying is that changes in trim or
a control setting results in a trade-off, and these trade-offs are easily
observable and we are trained from day one to do so.

> But pilots seem to ignore a lot of
> things, especially the ones who fly tin cans.
>
And, this, Jose, is an example of the kind of insults that come from this
person that doesn't even qualify as a "wannabe". It should not be
surprising that people respond to this kind of garbage with some disdain.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Then, you either don't understand your sim or don't understand the
> relationship of your sim to the real world. In the real world, one *does*
> get plenty of clues about such things as a change of flight parameters,
> regardless of the cause.

No, one does not, as many accidents (real-world accidents, not sim
accidents) have proved.

> The reality of flying is that changes in trim or
> a control setting results in a trade-off, and these trade-offs are easily
> observable and we are trained from day one to do so.

No, they are not. When the autopilot is in charge, lots of things can
gradually happen, and you won't know about it unless you _explicitly_
look for it. No magic sixth sense will tell you that anything is
wrong. And when the autopilot finally gives up and disconnects,
you're going to have to catch up and act fast if you don't want to
die.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
And when the autopilot finally gives up and disconnects,
> you're going to have to catch up and act fast if you don't want to
> die.

Pure crap, as usual. The autopilot can go to full nose up or down trim
and then let go and you still don't have to act fast. Some autopilots
do not manipulate the trim, they make you do it. There will be a little
light on the instrument telling you to trim up or down. Got any other
wisdom you'd like to pull out of your ass?

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> See my other post to Thomas for one of many examples of supporting
> information for this point of view.
>

Your post to me offers zero support for your POV.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> This group takes pretty much
> everyone to task for statements that they feel are inaccurate, and I see
> no reason why Mxmanic should be treated differently.
>

Add to that the fact that he has never, ever, not even once, beginning
with his first question (on transponders, I believe) offered factual
support of his statements when asked for it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> that can be
> directly attributed to problems with situational awareness linked to
> the use of automated systems:
>

And it says that in the report where? Who exactly "can" and does
attribute it that way? You yourself don't count.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>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).
>
>--



As I've said - as I've said - as I've said. . .
You are simply, demonstrably, completely WRONG!
It's easy to prove. Databases exist on these accidents, and they prove you
completely wrong.

"As I've said", is a meaningless phrase for someone who lives in complete
ignorance of the subject.

The USUAL failure mode for mechanical linkages results in complete, or
nearly complete power loss. There are dozens or accidents in the database
for this failure mode - several of them fatal.

I am not aware of accidents cause by software failure of Fadecs - perhaps
there have been - but these are certainly rare compared with mechanical
failures of linkages.

The databases contain thousands of accidents directly attributable to
mechanical failures in airplanes. I am not aware of ANY accident in which
software failure of a system was causal. There are plently of situations
where crew have misinterpreted situations, but I cannot think of any
accident in which a software failure has created an "unrecoverable"
situation, as has been the case in hundreds of mechanical failure
accidents.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>Note the huge preponderance of Airbus in this list; Airbus likes to
>add automation gadgets to their aircraft, and problems are common,
>both because of defects in the systems, and because crews do not know
>how to use and interact with the systems.
>



Fate plays such cruel tricks sometimes!
If only Airbus were aware that, as close as Paris, a few hundred miles away,
lives a leading world expert - perhaps even THE pre-eminent thinker on
aviation failure modes, who has at his fingertips the solution to their
massive accident rate. And at the same time this thinker is out of a job -
so destitute that he cannot afford any book, or even instruction to learn to
comprehend the few, dusty volumes he can get his hands on - he must while
away his days pretending to fly airplanes, wishing he could find practical
application for his advanced theories.

A simple phone call is all it would take for both sides of this cruel
non-equation to meet in triumphal success. Yet, we can be sure, the phone
call is not forthcoming - will never happen . . .

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> If only Airbus were aware that, as close as Paris, a few hundred miles away,
> lives a leading world expert - perhaps even THE pre-eminent thinker on
> aviation failure modes, who has at his fingertips the solution to their
> massive accident rate.

There are plenty of experts available, and not just in Paris. Airbus
still chooses to go its own way. I suppose it needs something to
distinguish itself from Boeing, just as Canon needs to distinguish
itself from Nikon, and Apple from the Wintel OEMs.

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

[Kev]

Greg Farris wrote:
> I am not aware of accidents cause by software failure of Fadecs - perhaps
> there have been - but these are certainly rare compared with mechanical
> failures of linkages.

Bell Helicopter(s):

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_68_69.pdf

Osprey:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2001/n04092001_200104093.html

Chinook Helicopters:

Unknown if its FADEC caused actual accidents, but is a suspect.
Uncommanded engine excursions, and false failure indications in early
software revisions.

Airbus:

The most famous of all, the Airbus "low pass" at the French air show,
when the FADEC throttles refused to power up (thinking the plane was
landing) and the plane settled into the trees. Not a bug per se, but
certainly poor software planning and it resulted in changes in fly by
wire thinking.

So in general, yes the failures resulting in deaths seem to be rare.
Failures that result in pilots needing a new set of underwear are a
little less rare. IFSD (In Flight Shut Downs) happen. In one case,
the ECC software kept flopping between power supplies and shut down the
engine. The software was fixed.

There are not enough small plane FADECs out there yet to judge for GA.
Hopefully the software is better tested than, for example, the G1000
that almost messed up NW_Pilot's recent Atlantic crossing!

Kev

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

> 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.

> But, again, the action taken is generally to reduce power or shut down the
> engine to avoid the #1 worry bead.

This is something new to me. What manufacturer has such a concern, of torque
greater than demand?

I wonder why that is such a concern? I had a truck that had a manual
transmission, and it was not unusual to stall it, while trying to get something
to move, that very much was resisting my desire to move it. <g> It is a case
of torque greater than demand, isn't it, or is that a case of demand greater
than torque?

So why is this a concern to the chip, or are you talking about something else?

I think I might learn something today, after all! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>There are plenty of experts available, and not just in Paris. Airbus
>still chooses to go its own way.



Aren't they just so misguided!
When you think of how simple it would be to correct their errors. . .

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> The most famous of all, the Airbus "low pass" at the French air show,
> when the FADEC throttles refused to power up (thinking the plane was
> landing)
>

Oh? Please quote the passage from the accident report that says this.
I'd be really interested. All I know is the passage where it losely
says: The pilot actively and consciously set up the system to
circumvent all the safeguards built into it to make the plane do the
stupid unapproved show-off-maneuver (sp?) instead of preventing an
accident like this as it was designed to. And after doing that, WTF did
he expect?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I suppose it needs something to
> distinguish itself from Boeing,
>

Well, if it does, neither FADEC nor FBW are it. Google "any modern jet
aircraft" for the former and "Boeing 777" for the latter.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Greg Farris]

In article m>,
says...

>
> The most famous of all, the Airbus "low pass" at the French air show,
>when the FADEC throttles refused to power up (thinking the plane was
>landing) and the plane settled into the trees.


It is anything but demonstrated that the aircraft systems did anything
unexpected in this accident. The pilot tried to make this claim at the
outset, but ended up being saddled with responsibility for his show-off
manoeuver. The official result of the investigation is that it was the
pilot's fault, and the aircraft has been exonerated of any failure.



Not a bug per se, but
>certainly poor software planning and it resulted in changes in fly by
>wire thinking.

Much more to change thinking on matters of pilot training. the claim of "poor
software planning" is unsubstantiated.



>
>So in general, yes the failures resulting in deaths seem to be rare.

Yeah, really.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> Then ignore him and his threads.

Absolutly not. He spreads untrue statements, and makes statements of his
version that are opposite from what a knowlegeable person just told him. He is
a troll, and deserves to be known as a troll. I will not give up my right to
post as I please, any more that the person that told me to "do not tell me who I
can talk to" willl be silenced.

> Then do so correctly, lest you become guilty of the same sloppiness, PLUS
> adding noise to noise.

I have not been sloppy. Everything I have posted is true, an born out by other
cites and experts.

> That is not necessary. We all know what he really is.

That must not be true, or people must enjoy responding to trolls. People
continue to answer questions, and responding to ridiculous posts like whether a
Barron has an ejection seat.

When he leaves, or conducts himself properly, I will stop. I do not think he is
capable of responsible conduct.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> They are variations on the same theme.

False. Totally different types of systems.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> Well, Jose, if that statement doesn't qualify as utter BS, I don't know
> what does.

How about this one?

MX: > As an autopilot moves the ailerons of an aircraft to maintain heading and
attitude,

Humm. Ailerons control altitude? Must be a delta wing plane. <g>

Amazing.

The thing that gets me, is that he is arguing completely about autopilots,
instead of FADEC, now. I guess he realizes that he lost that battle, so he
switched subjects. Comparing the automation of FADEC to an autopilot is not a
valid comparison. Get that , MX?

Can anyone say (with a straight face) that MX is not a troll?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> There are plenty of experts available, and not just in Paris. Airbus
> still chooses to go its own way. I suppose it needs something to
> distinguish itself from Boeing, just as Canon needs to distinguish
> itself from Nikon, and Apple from the Wintel OEMs.

Wow.

Wow.

I don't know what to say, except,

Wow. Perhaps, amazing.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> And, this, Jose, is an example of the kind of insults that come from this
> person that doesn't even qualify as a "wannabe". It should not be
> surprising that people respond to this kind of garbage with some disdain.

What is amazing to me, is that anyone will still answer questions, when they
know the dog will bit the hand that feeds it.

Respect; it's all about respect.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> No, one does not, as many accidents (real-world accidents, not sim
> accidents) have proved.

Cites, examples.

> No, they are not. When the autopilot is in charge, lots of things can
> gradually happen, and you won't know about it unless you _explicitly_
> look for it. No magic sixth sense will tell you that anything is
> wrong. And when the autopilot finally gives up and disconnects,
> you're going to have to catch up and act fast if you don't want to
> die.

Cites, examples.

Without them, utter bull.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

>
>Don't act so dumb. It means that I have rather a large experience with
>engines and their failure modes, having worked as a mechanic for a
>living. I've also been one of the top embedded programmers in the
>world. My claims are based on decades of embedded experience.
>

Well, your self-asserted belief is clear, and your unquestioning belief in the
infallibility of MxManiac is duly noted (speaking of embedded) - but you'll
just have to accept that I question the pertinence of tinkering with car
engines as a kid to any real understanding of Fadecs. . . Just a slight leap of
faith there!


>What are your qualifications?

That pet store, man.
You wouldn't believe the mechanical complexity of gerbils.
>
>Kev
>

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> It is anything but demonstrated that the aircraft systems did anything
> unexpected in this accident. The pilot tried to make this claim at the
> outset, but ended up being saddled with responsibility for his show-off
> manoeuver. The official result of the investigation is that it was the
> pilot's fault, and the aircraft has been exonerated of any failure.

I'd be wary of any "official" evaluation of this accident, given that
the flight recorders were tampered with.

> Much more to change thinking on matters of pilot training. the claim of "poor
> software planning" is unsubstantiated.

It was a combination of both. Airbus had already issued engineering
bulletins on anomalous FADEC behavior in the aircraft.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> Aren't they just so misguided!

Yes, but Airbus is essentially a political organization, not an
aviation company. It is to be expected that it would be misguided.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Well, if it does, neither FADEC nor FBW are it. Google "any modern jet
> aircraft" for the former and "Boeing 777" for the latter.

Airbus used fly-by-wire long before Boeing did. It is true that now
that Boeing is beginning to include some FBW features, Airbus has to
look for something else ... such as aircraft size.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> Your "somewhat wrong"analysis of his posts are from your point of view.
>
> The point that evoked my contribution was a statement that a certain statement
> that he made was "utter nonsense". It was not untter nonsense. His POV may
> be utter nonsense, but the statement he made was somewhat wrong, and somewhat
> right. I'm responding to the statement, not the person.
>

And I'm responding, saying his statement was NOT somewhat right, but instead, it
was all wrong, and utter nonsense.

> There is never a good reason for an ad hominum attack.

The furthest I have gone is making statements about points in his post, but I
did go as far as calling him a troll. Other than that, my language has been
above board, and I have spoken to statements. Period. Calling him a troll is
true, and necessary.

> It won't work. It's what trolls want. By your analysis, it's what he wants.

Yes, I know that is what trolls want. I will have to deal with that, and accept
that unfortunate fact, but the real goal is to make everyone, and I do mean
everyone, in the group realize that he is troll, not worthy of a response when
he posts.

> Ok, then make =that= point.

Have you been reading for comprehension? I have made that point, on nearly
every post in this thread. Look back, to verify.

> I'm not. What I'm having a problem with is condemning statements =just=
> because they are his, and the ad hominum attacks. If anybody else had made
> the statement about autopilots, it would not have garnered the response "utter
> rubbish".

I am responding his statements, not just because they are from him. You are not
in my head. Again, I call him a troll, because it is true and necessary.

With someone else, there might be a more civil discussion, but we know from
history, that is not possible with this person.

Still, arguing about the autopilot is not what the subject was. He is
deflecteng the discussion away from FADEC, because his argument is unwinable.
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>Yes. As a general rule, automation systems greatly reduce situational
>awareness. That is necessary for them to accomplish their purpose,
>but it is also dangerous. Problems arise when human beings forget
>that automation does this (unfortunately they forget this very
>easily).
>


The assertion that automation systems reduce situational awareness is
contrary to the theory and application of such systems in aviation -
exactly the opposite.

But then this is not surprising, because this assertion was made by someone
who is not apprised on matters of aviation, and does not know what is meant
by "situational awareness".

That term, like many others that have been misunderstood and abused by this
contributor (eg "complex") has a specific and conventional meaning in
aviation, and it is not sufficient to simply know the general meaning of the
word(s) to understand the specific meaning. Most of these terms are not
difficult to understand, for average students, however in the absence of any
motivation to learn, a general comprehension may be a very distant goal
indeed.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Yes. As a general rule, automation systems greatly reduce situational
> awareness.

That is EXACTLY opposite from what is the truth. Automation in the cockpits
allows the pilot to MONITOR the systems, and reduce the workload to a point
where MONITORING the systems may be done accurately.

Pleas notice the word MONITOR. That is what the pilot does, while automation is
running. How does he monitor the FADEC? (that is the subject, remember) He
looks at instruments such as fuel flow, cylinder head temperature, and whatever
the particular FADEC system has, that indicates it its healthy, and running
properly.

Once again, you have shown the group that you do not understand the subject of
real airplane systems, post un-truths, and are a troll.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
> How about this one?
>
> MX: > As an autopilot moves the ailerons of an aircraft to maintain
> heading and attitude,
>
> Humm. Ailerons control altitude? Must be a delta wing plane.




You may want to read both sentences again.

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> You wouldn't believe the mechanical complexity of gerbils.

Unless one interacts with them in unusual ways, their complexity is
not of great importance.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You may want to read both sentences again.

Too late.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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.

> I ignore what I see as trolling and answer what may be useful to others.

That is the behavior that enables him to continue his presence here.

While you are answering him, even if it is information that others find useful,
he will continue to post. Surely you can see that is undesireable.
--
Jim in NC

[Kev]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article m>,
> says...
> > The most famous of all, the Airbus "low pass" at the French air show,
> >when the FADEC throttles refused to power up (thinking the plane was
> >landing) and the plane settled into the trees.
>
> It is anything but demonstrated that the aircraft systems did anything
> unexpected in this accident. The pilot tried to make this claim at the
> outset, but ended up being saddled with responsibility for his show-off
> manoeuver. The official result of the investigation is that it was the
> pilot's fault, and the aircraft has been exonerated of any failure.

LOL. If you believe official investigations all the time, then I've
got a bridge for you. Of course the pilot was blamed. But they
changed the software afterwards, and Airbus officials had this to say:
"Until the crash, there was a genuine psychology around Airbus that it
had designed a crash-proof airplane because of the hard protections.
The repercussions from that accident continue to reverberate,"

> Not a bug per se, but certainly poor software planning and it resulted in
> changes in fly by wire thinking.
>
> Much more to change thinking on matters of pilot training. the claim of "poor
> software planning" is unsubstantiated.

Hardly <wry grin>. The pilot did what he was told to do, but had two
hits against him. First, he was told to fly by at 100'. He did so,
not knowing that Airbus had a bug in the Atlimeter software, and he was
really at 30'. This screwed him, since he also didn't know that
Airbus had issued an bulletin the month before the crash, stating that
the engines sometimes didn't respond to throttles at low altitudes.
The pilots had not gotten the notice yet. The engine software was
modified after the crash.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

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. 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).

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

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

And automation does not require monitoring; that's why it is called
automation. And if it did require monitoring, it would serve no
purpose. The purpose of automation is to make things automatic--that
is, to remove the need for monitoring and intervention.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Both are forms of automation that can
> reduce situational awareness.

False. Situational awarness is increased, by the use of automation.

> But there doesn't have to be a problem with the systems. You can lose
> situational awareness when they are operating perfectly. Indeed,
> that's the situation in which you are most likely to lose situational
> awareness.

Where are you getting this nonsense? Cite, please?

Without that, utter bull.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> How about this one?
>
> MX: > As an autopilot moves the ailerons of an aircraft to maintain heading and
> attitude,
>
> Humm. Ailerons control altitude? Must be a delta wing plane. <g>

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

Ailerons are among the control surfaces that control aircraft
attitude. Altitude is controlled mainly by propulsive thrust, but
autopilots can maintain it within a more limited range through the
adjustment of elevator control surfaces.

> Amazing.

It is indeed ... but not in the way that you think. It certainly
makes me smile.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Of course, neither setup can prevent a sudden cylinder failure, or oil
>> pump, or fuel pump, or vacuum pump, or other such mechanical
>> commonality.
>
> Note, however, that digital systems are _far_ more likely to react to
> unexpected events in a very extreme way. An oil-pump failure can
> cause a catastrophic system failure almost instantly if the digital
> system isn't designed to take into account the possibility of an
> oil-pump failure.

Utter nonsense. Tell us, how a oil pump failure is made worse, with FADEC?

Explain how FADEC could be made to take into account a oil pump failure, or how
not having FADEC makes the oil pump failure any better of a situation.

You are making things up as you go, now.

But that is what a troll does.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> False. Situational awarness is increased, by the use of automation.

I've explained my point of view. Why don't you explain yours?

> Where are you getting this nonsense?

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

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> The ideal airplane to rent is a pressurized, taildragger,
> with a engine over 200 hp, constant speed prop and
> retractable landing gear. If it was also two engines you
> could do all the 61.31 endorsements in one airplane. Maybe
> a Queen Air taildragger conversion back to a BE 18, sort of
> like, you know, cobbled together.
> High performance, taildragger, high altitude, complex,
> multiengine. It is just too much trouble to find a CFI and
> the appropriate airplane for a one-time requirement.

Humm. I picture a pressurized twin engine RV.

Call Van, and tell him to get on it, right away!

That would be sweet! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

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.

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

> Explain how FADEC could be made to take into account a oil
> pump failure, or how not having FADEC makes the oil pump failure
> any better of a situation.

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

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> If you believe official investigations all the time,
>

Oh yeah, conspiracy theories are so much better.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It is true that now
> that Boeing is beginning to include some FBW features,
>

What'S true now is that your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all.
But that'S not really surprising.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I'm not an engine specialist,
>

Oh, really?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Then, you either don't understand your sim or don't understand the
>> relationship of your sim to the real world. In the real world, one
>> *does* get plenty of clues about such things as a change of flight
>> parameters, regardless of the cause.
>
> No, one does not, as many accidents (real-world accidents, not sim
> accidents) have proved.
>
In addition to the many other things w/r/t aviation that you are
completely clueless about, you may now include statistics and accident
analysis.

>> The reality of flying is that changes in trim or
>> a control setting results in a trade-off, and these trade-offs are
>> easily observable and we are trained from day one to do so.
>
> No, they are not.
>
And, you know this, because?

> When the autopilot is in charge, lots of things can
> gradually happen, and you won't know about it unless you _explicitly_
> look for it.
>
Yeah, well, if you _aren't_ explicitly looking for it, then the problem is
you. One reason that there is more than one instrument on the panel is so
that pilots can explicitly look for such things. It's our responsibililty
to do so, and most (if not all) pilots can do so very easily. Whether or
not one does so is a personal matter, not one of mechanics or electronics
making the task impossible, as you seem to think.

> No magic sixth sense will tell you that anything is
> wrong. And when the autopilot finally gives up and disconnects,
> you're going to have to catch up and act fast if you don't want to
> die.
>
More utter nonsense. As I said before, you don't have any knowledge of
piloting an airplane, so you can't present a valid argument. Why not just
ask a question and sit back and take in the answers?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> That is EXACTLY opposite from what is the truth.
>
> Unfortunately, no, it is not.
>
Unfortunately, you are completely wrong, yet again.

> Each automation system removes some aspect of the pilot workload. 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).
>
Complete bull. The pilot is *never* "allowed to lose awareness of the
aspect that has been removed". The truth is just the opposite. You clearly
don't know the "point in the automation".

>> Automation in the cockpits allows the pilot to MONITOR the systems
>> ...
>
> He could do that already, when he was flying the plane himself.
>
When automation is used, the pilot is still responsible for verifying that
the automation is operating correctly. This is not difficult.

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

If, one day, you find yourself in a position to get into a real airplane,
please first locate the instructor from the "my first solo" thread and
engage him so that he can knock some sense into you before you kill
yourself.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> I'm not an engine specialist, so I'm not sure how best to deal with an
> oil-pump failure.
>
Damn! You had *me* fooled!

Neil

[Kev]

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. I have always said, "Never look
for a conspiracy when it can be explained by sheer stupidity or
bureacracy."

But in this case, it's obvious that France was not about to let Airbus
get blamed. Not much different from blaming the co-pilot for ripping
off that Airbus rudder.

Kev

[Newps]

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.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Kev]

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

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.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Kev]

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/Apr2001/n04092001_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

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
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?

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> 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?

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

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

I wasn't keeping score. I just like to talk about aviation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The pilot is *never* "allowed to lose awareness of the
> aspect that has been removed".

Of course he is.

If he turns on the autopilot and tells it to hold a heading, the
autopilot will do so (in many cases) by moving the ailerons without
any intervention on his part. Unless he is holding the yoke, he has
no awareness of how the ailerons are being moved by the autopilot.
Indeed, the whole value of the autopilot resides in the fact that it
can adjust the ailerons without his help, and he need not know their
exact positions. Without the autopilot, he'd have to be continuously
aware of this, which is a non-trivial task. The autopilot frees him
from this task, reducing fatigue and providing more time for other
tasks, if needed.

The flip side is that the pilot may not be aware of any unusual moves
that the autopilot is making. If the thrust from the engines is
becoming asymmetrical, the pilot may not realize it, because the
autopilot adjusts to compensate for the difference in thrust. By the
time the autopilot reaches the limit of its capabilities and
disconnects, the adjustments it has made may be very extreme, and the
pilot may be so surprised by the sudden change in the attitude of the
aircraft that he cannot recover his awareness quickly enough to avoid
an accident.

> When automation is used, the pilot is still responsible for verifying that
> the automation is operating correctly. This is not difficult.

It is not necessary for the most part, and that's precisely why the
automation exists. If he had to verify it continuously, it would
serve no purpose. And if he does not verify it continuously, there's
a chance it may do things of which he is unaware. The smart pilot
occasionally checks to see if all is well, but he cannot and should
not watch continuously--if he wants to do that, he may as well shut
off the automation.

> If, one day, you find yourself in a position to get into a real airplane,
> please first locate the instructor from the "my first solo" thread and
> engage him so that he can knock some sense into you before you kill
> yourself.

My interest in procedures, rules, checklists, and general rigor in
operating complex systems makes me quite safe as an operator of any
vehicle. The ones you have to worry about are the cowboys and the
testosterone-soaked teens.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Oh, is that so?

I wouldn't say it if it weren't so.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> What type of catastrophic result?

I don't know; if you can predict a catastrophic result, you can avoid
the catastrophe.

> What would you expect the software to anticipate?

I don't have specific expectations. One cannot really anticipate
everything, but the better the software, the more possibilities it is
designed to handle.

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

That depends on the design of the FADEC, and of the engine.

> Surely with your vast knowlege of writing systems like FADEC, an occurance like
> an oil pump failure would be easy for you to anticipate.

I haven't written FADEC software, and every module is different,
anyway.

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

[Kev]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article om>,
> says...
> >
> >I worked in Intelligence and for NSA.
>
> This gets better and better!:
> Was that in the "embedded" period - or still rebuilding car engines?

*laughing* Yeah, it's interesting isn't it? There's not much I
haven't done in 50+ years. I used to say that I"ve been a tinker,
tailor, soldier, spy. All are true. I worked as a mechanic and body
repairer/painter. I've faced down a white tiger alone in the Korean
DMZ, got shot at, rewrote tactical Intelligence gathering procedures,
and worked with the most secret NSA equipment. I was promoted for
making a secret project succeed that stopped the Soviets in a certain
region. My first computer, I designed and handbuilt in 1979 from chips
and wires. It had 4K and I wrote 3D rotation and voice analysis
programs on it in assembly language. I was a sysop on CompuServe back
in the early days when it cost $1,000 a month to support 16kbps
uploads. Later I wrote a book on an embedded operating system that's
used in satellites and military apps, and gave seminars that were
infamous for their attendance. I've written many types of realtime
drivers and applications. I designed and programmed electronic casino
equipment that many of you probably have wasted money on. I was head
of one of the first labs designing settop boxes. For the past 13
years, I've had a quarter mill yearly income as one of the top embedded
systems designers. Many of the friends I grew up with are high
officials and state attorneys in NC. I've also watched the Exorcist
about 150 times and it just gets funnier each time I see it! (oops,
sorry, that was Betelguese ;-)

Last Christmas I was diagnosed with a vicious cancer and given four
months to live. Much chemo, rad and a rather brutal operation that
removed my esophagus later, I'm still around.

In any case, yes sir, I have a little experience here and there, and I
really don't like people who attack others.

Kev

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...

>
>In any case, yes sir, I have a little experience here and there, and I
>really don't like people who attack others.
>

Are you always such a snotty child?

The belligerence here is completely atypical for this group.
It is the direct result of an injurious and defamatory attitude championed
by your protege and yourself.

It is also atypical to blow one's own horn here. There are quite a few
contributors here (fewer now, as they are being driven away) of
significant accomplishment - often in fields of endeavor related to the
purported topic of discussion (aviation). It could just be that you would
defend Mxsmanic less vociferously if you were to take full measure of the
number and quality of people he has insulted here.

I am sorry for your illness, but this is not related to the topic. I doubt
your sincerity in any desire for constructive discourse, while your
protege has clearly demonstrated a disingenuous desire to disrupt and
destroy, taking vicarious pleasure in watching the whole group
unravel.When there's nothing left (very soon), he will move to another
group and suck the life out of it. Will you follow him there?

[Kev]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article om>,
> says...
> The belligerence here is completely atypical for this group.
> It is the direct result of an injurious and defamatory attitude championed
> by your protege and yourself.

He's not my protege. He simply sounds like a older man with really
poor discussion skills. But injurious? No, don't think so.

> It could just be that you would
> defend Mxsmanic less vociferously if you were to take full measure of the
> number and quality of people he has insulted here.

My (and others') point has always been, that we haven't seem him
directly insult anyone. He's argued, yes, but never attacked anyone
as others have attacked him. Worse, the ones who attack him (and it's
always the same group) also attack anyone who dares question those kind
of gang tactics.

The only problem I see with his postings is with those who feel the
need to constantly post negative responses. Since he obviously doesn't
let that affect him, then all they're doing is clogging up the
newsgroup for others. Shut up, let him and others post, and we'd be
in much better shape. It was actually going pretty well there for a
few weeks until the gang spoke up again.

In other words, I think Jim in NC is taking the really wrong road.
It's just going to make pilots look worse and worse.

Regards, Kev

[karl gruber[_1_]]

No. Boeing used fly by wire at LEAST a decade before Airbus.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Well, if it does, neither FADEC nor FBW are it. Google "any modern jet
>> aircraft" for the former and "Boeing 777" for the latter.
>
> Airbus used fly-by-wire long before Boeing did. It is true that now
> that Boeing is beginning to include some FBW features, Airbus has to
> look for something else ... such as aircraft size.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Kev" > wrote:

> 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.)

FADEC wasn't the cause. The problem was the failure of the engineering
team not addressing basic safety considerations like system states during
reset/startup.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Each automation system removes some aspect of the pilot workload. 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).

A corollary statement to the above is that when a driver sets the cruise-
control in his car, he no longer needs to monitor his speed, and will fail to
notice if the speed in his car begins to change or if he has blows out a
tire. Is this what you do when you turn on the cruise control in your car?

> And automation does not require monitoring; that's why it is called
> automation. And if it did require monitoring, it would serve no
> purpose. The purpose of automation is to make things automatic--that
> is, to remove the need for monitoring and intervention.

Reduce, not remove...

From Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1):

au-to-ma-tion [aw-tuh-mey-shuhn] –noun
1. the technique, method, or system of operating or controlling a process by
highly automatic means, as by electronic devices, reducing human intervention
to a minimum.
2. a mechanical device, operated electronically, that functions
automatically, without continuous input from an operator.

The purpose of automation is to reduce the amount of human effort and/or time
required to manage a system. But the system still needs to be managed.

In the case of an autopilot, all of the instruments that a pilot uses to
monitor altitude, attitude, course, and direction are still effective whether
the autopilot is engaged or not. When the autopilot is off, the pilot must
monitor and provide input to the controls to ensure the plane continues to
fly at the desired altitude, attitude, course, and direction. When the
autopilot is on, the autopilot provides input to those controls, and monitors
the instruments as well. However, it is still the pilot's responsibility to
monitor the situation as well, and not to simply lay his seat back, go to
sleep, and become the passenger.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> 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.
>
> A lot of commercial pilots do that.

Really? Exactly how many?

> A lot of accidents have occurred when automated systems allowed crews
> to lose their situational awareness. Autopilots are particularly
> implicated in this respect, perhaps because they've been around so
> long and work so well.

I recollect one accident specifically attributed to pilot's loss of
situational awareness (GPS, though, not AutoPilot). The details can be read
about here: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

The pilots, not the automation, were implicated in this accident for failing
to properly monitor their situation. Numerous navigational aids were
available to them, and they were expected to use them to ensure they
maintained situational awareness, even when the autopilot was on.

Can you point me to an NTSB report where the automation was implicated in the
Pilot's lack of situational awareness? I just can't find any.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Catastrophic failure is usually caused by software, not hardware.

"Guns don't kill people...

Software kills people...

A message from the NRA..."

[Mxsmanic]

karl gruber writes:

> No. Boeing used fly by wire at LEAST a decade before Airbus.

On civilian aircraft? Which ones, and in what way?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Really? Exactly how many?

A number of the ones I've talked to. Sometimes it's hard to stay
awake.

> The pilots, not the automation, were implicated in this accident for failing
> to properly monitor their situation. Numerous navigational aids were
> available to them, and they were expected to use them to ensure they
> maintained situational awareness, even when the autopilot was on.

Ultimately it is the pilot's responsibility. But that doesn't prevent
it from happening.

> Can you point me to an NTSB report where the automation was implicated in the
> Pilot's lack of situational awareness? I just can't find any.

I've already posted a list of accidents.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> A corollary statement to the above is that when a driver sets the cruise-
> control in his car, he no longer needs to monitor his speed, and will fail to
> notice if the speed in his car begins to change or if he has blows out a
> tire.

To some extent, that is true. A tire blowing out usually catches
one's attention, but a subtle change in speed may not.

> Is this what you do when you turn on the cruise control in your car?

I refuse to use cruise control.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> I wasn't keeping score. I just like to talk about aviation.

No you just talk about things that you know nothing about, and sims.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>
>>The pilot is *never* "allowed to lose awareness of the
>>aspect that has been removed".
>
>
> Of course he is.
>
> If he turns on the autopilot and tells it to hold a heading, the
> autopilot will do so (in many cases) by moving the ailerons without
> any intervention on his part.

But he is fully aware of his heading. He takes a quick glance at the DG
or the GPS to verify the AP is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
Thus freeing much brain power for other things.




Unless he is holding the yoke, he has
> no awareness of how the ailerons are being moved by the autopilot.



He knows exactly how the AP manipulates the ailerons.







> Indeed, the whole value of the autopilot resides in the fact that it
> can adjust the ailerons without his help, and he need not know their
> exact positions.


Yes.






Without the autopilot, he'd have to be continuously
> aware of this, which is a non-trivial task.


And yakes up valuable time and brain power that could be better spent
elsewhere.


>
> The flip side is that the pilot may not be aware of any unusual moves
> that the autopilot is making.



He is aware.






If the thrust from the engines is
> becoming asymmetrical,


Not likely on my single engine plane. Easily seen on any twin engine
plane as the MP and RPM gauge is in the regular scan, autopilot or no.





the pilot may not realize it, because the
> autopilot adjusts to compensate for the difference in thrust. By the
> time the autopilot reaches the limit of its capabilities and
> disconnects, the adjustments it has made may be very extreme, and the
> pilot may be so surprised by the sudden change in the attitude of the
> aircraft that he cannot recover his awareness quickly enough to avoid
> an accident.

No, utter crap.




>
> It is not necessary for the most part, and that's precisely why the
> automation exists.


You can keep saying this a million times if you want. And you will be
wrong each and every one of those million times.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:


>
>
> A corollary statement to the above is that when a driver sets the cruise-
> control in his car, he no longer needs to monitor his speed, and will fail to
> notice if the speed in his car begins to change or if he has blows out a
> tire. Is this what you do when you turn on the cruise control in your car?

He makes $600 a month, there is no cruise control in his inventory.
Except on his driving sim.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> But he is fully aware of his heading.

But he is not aware of the position of the ailerons. He would be
aware of that without the autopilot. Thus, he has lost a certain
amount of situational awareness.

> He knows exactly how the AP manipulates the ailerons.

But he doesn't know their positions.

> Not likely on my single engine plane.

It is impossible on a single-engine plane.

> You can keep saying this a million times if you want. And you will be
> wrong each and every one of those million times.

It is true that repeating something doesn't make it right or wrong.
Ponder on that.

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> 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. 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).
>
>> Automation in the cockpits allows the pilot to MONITOR the systems ...
>
> He could do that already, when he was flying the plane himself.
>
> And automation does not require monitoring; that's why it is called
> automation. And if it did require monitoring, it would serve no
> purpose. The purpose of automation is to make things automatic--that
> is, to remove the need for monitoring and intervention.

This entire post is absolute nonsense.

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

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> He makes $600 a month, there is no cruise control in his inventory.
> Except on his driving sim.

Probably true. But perhaps in his lifetime he has experienced the sensations
of riding in a car without controlling the speed, and might be able to relate
the sensations one might get if the speed changed or the tire blew out.

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" >
>> Got anything more serious?
>
> Getting military power when you want idle, or idle when you want
> military power, is about as serious as it can get.

Cite cases.

m

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>>
>He's not my protege. He simply sounds like a older man with really
>poor discussion skills. But injurious? No, don't think so.

>
>My (and others') point has always been, that we haven't seem him
>directly insult anyone. He's argued, yes, but never attacked anyone
>as others have attacked him. Worse, the ones who attack him (and it's
>always the same group) also attack anyone who dares question those kind
>of gang tactics.

You are deeply mistaken.
You say there is a gang mentality here, but that simply is not the case. We
disagree amongst ourselves all the time, but no one ever gets ganged up on.
Anyone, pilot or no, can come here with a question - even a trivial, "stupid"
question, and will receive qualified, carefully prepared responses from career
level aviation professionals and experienced amateurs - I think that's pretty
good for starters. When the same person then turns around and says they don't
know what they're talking about, claims himself to be the only expert, takes on
the whole group, even when everyone says he is wrong, says they fly tin cans
and toys - I call that insulting.

I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt about someone with poor discussion
skills. I believe his presence here is a deliberate and vicarious
destabilization effort, and he is very close to a complete victory. This is not
so exceptional - there are plenty of usenet groups that have been hijacked
and wrecked by destructive individuals. I don't want to see that happen here,
and there are some others who share the concern, which is why we are fighting
to try to see it through.


>
>The only problem I see with his postings is with those who feel the
>need to constantly post negative responses. Since he obviously doesn't
>let that affect him, then all they're doing is clogging up the
>newsgroup for others. Shut up, let him and others post, and we'd be
>in much better shape. It was actually going pretty well there for a
>few weeks until the gang spoke up again.


Those who value this resource, and who are trying to defend it are probably
quite impefect in their methods, I admit. It certainly is leading to a lot of
bad blood that most here would probably prefer to avoid - but just "shut up"
and let him have the group? I don't think so - not yet. That will happen soon
enough, but we will call it "jumping ship" and we will refer to r.a.p. in the
past tense - a group that was destroyed through a hostile takeover.



>
>In other words, I think Jim in NC is taking the really wrong road.
>It's just going to make pilots look worse and worse.

To whom? To Mxmanic? He already has complete disdain for pilots. Perhaps
showing him that we're a craggier, more tenacious target than he had imagined
would not be so bad for our image . . .

GF









>
>Regards, Kev
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-24, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Today, I have a 1995 Audi A4, with completely electronic engine
>> controls. It runs as well as the day it left the factory.
>
> If you fly a plane manually, and a problem with control surfaces
> develops and progresses, you'll find it more and more difficult to
> fly. If you have an autopilot, you'll notice nothing until the
> problems with the control surfaces reach a point that is beyond the
> ability of the autopilot to compensate. Then you will spiral down
> into the ground. Which failure mode do you prefer?

We're talking about engine controls here - not flight controls. Please
stick to the subject!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Judah]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> We're talking about engine controls here - not flight controls. Please
> stick to the subject!

Sticking to the subject does not suit his debating tactics. Sophistry works
better for him, and he is quite good at it. He steers the discussion like a
pilot steers a plane - slightly changing course every time he starts to lose
an argument so that us as passengers barely even notice.

I'm not sure what his destination is, but I'm hoping he runs out of fuel
soon.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>But he is fully aware of his heading.
>
>
> But he is not aware of the position of the ailerons.

Yes he is. He's got that yoke thingy right in front of his face you
dumbass.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> The autopilot does not move the joystick when you play pretend pilot.
> The autopilot DOES move the yoke in my plane.

Well, all planes are not alike, but I'm aware that autopilots often
move the yoke.

> How do you know what the ailerons are doing.........EYES.

Oh really? You know exactly how much aileron has been applied by
looking at the yoke? Or even by looking outside at the wing?

Anyway, if you are constantly doing this, why bother with the
autopilot? Just fly the plane manually.

The whole idea of the autopilot is to make it _unnecessary_ to do this
sort of thing. You don't have to look at the yoke or the ailerons;
the autopilot worries about that. You sacrifice your awareness of the
aileron position in exchange for a lower workload.

The smart pilot will _occasionally_ glance at instruments to see if
anything looks odd, but he will not continuously monitor the
autopilot's actions. That would defeat the purpose of the autopilot.

If you glance at the yoke from time to time and you notice that it
seems to always be turned sharply to one side, that may be cause for
concern. If you notice that your airspeed seems lower than it was
before even though your altitude hasn't changed, check your attitude
to see if the autopilot is concealing a power setting that is too low.
Little things like that you can do periodically. But you cannot and
should not stare at the controls continuously just to see what the
autopilot is doing.

To a certain extent, you have to accept that something may escape your
awareness while you're on autopilot. That's why you check everything
carefully before you turn it off, to avoid any surprises. Make sure
it's not straining to keep your wings level or to maintain your
altitude; if it is, find out why before you disconnect.

> Unusual moves are very obvious.

No, they are not, as many accident reports prove. That's why an
occasional glance at the controls and instruments doesn't hurt. On
autopilot, the signs of something unusual are different from what they
would be if the autopilot were off. It's especially important to
check everything before you disconnect the autopilot.

> How do you know that if you don't actually operate any?

I have operated some vehicles, with an excellent track record for
safety. Safety in aviation is largely a matter of procedures, not
seat-of-the-pants flying.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>
>>The autopilot does not move the joystick when you play pretend pilot.
>>The autopilot DOES move the yoke in my plane.
>
>
> Well, all planes are not alike, but I'm aware that autopilots often
> move the yoke.

In GA planes, which is what we're talking about here, they all move.


>
>
>>How do you know what the ailerons are doing.........EYES.
>
>
> Oh really?

Yes, really. You're such an idiot.



You know exactly how much aileron has been applied by
> looking at the yoke?


Yes, why would you think otherwise? That's right you're a pretend pilot.





Or even by looking outside at the wing?
>
> Anyway, if you are constantly doing this, why bother with the
> autopilot? Just fly the plane manually.

What a moronic question.



>
> The whole idea of the autopilot is to make it _unnecessary_ to do this
> sort of thing.


No, it's not the whole idea.




You don't have to look at the yoke or the ailerons;
> the autopilot worries about that. You sacrifice your awareness of the
> aileron position in exchange for a lower workload.

Mission accomplished. I now become a manager.




>
> The smart pilot will _occasionally_ glance at instruments to see if
> anything looks odd, but he will not continuously monitor the
> autopilot's actions.

The smart pilot? How would you ever know?




>
>
>>Unusual moves are very obvious.
>
>
> No, they are not,


Yes they are.



>
> I have operated some vehicles, with an excellent track record for
> safety.

Yes, it's hard to get hurt on your tricycle.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> In GA planes, which is what we're talking about here, they all move.

All is a broad statement. Have you flown all GA planes?

There seems to be great variability in autopilot implementations, and
it is certainly possible to design one that does not move the yoke.

> Yes, really.

It seems that it would take quite a bit of stretching around the
windows to see exactly what the ailerons are doing on both wings, at
least from what I've seen of the way cockpits are arranged. That's
very distracting when you have other things to do.

> Yes, why would you think otherwise?

Because I know how inaccurate such eyeball estimates typically are.
Pilots have the same physiology as everyone else.

> The smart pilot? How would you ever know?

I suppose all the sources I read could be conspiring to mislead me.

> Yes, it's hard to get hurt on your tricycle.

When I was very little, I used to ride a tricycle with no handlebars.
The handlebars had come off, but I discovered that it was possible to
steer by using asymmetrical pressure on the pedals.

The other vehicles I've operated have been cars and scooters. I think
that's all, although I'm not certain.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Yes

How?

> Wrong

You see, this is why I don't accept answers as given. I write a
paragraph to explain how I've reached a particular conclusion, and
then someone else writes "Wrong," followed by nothing. Do you really
expect me to accept answers like that? I'm not stupid.

> Don't need to. I still know. can't miss it.

A sixth sense, eh? Odd that commercial pilots with thousands of hours
don't seem to have this sixth sense. Perhaps one must be born with
it.

> How would you know?

Because I do research and learn. It's more productive than bickering
here.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> You read a few things that you don't understand and then think
> you're an expert. In reality, and as you keep proving, you don't
> know ****.

I read things, and I learn very fast, and that bothers a lot of
people. But that's not my fault.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-24, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>> 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. :->

Yeah, the 'Prince of Darkness' was certainly prevalent on the Mini - but
it wasn't just cars with Lucas electrics that suffered this sort of
reliability in the bad old days.

Incidentally, my (very reliable) Audi is all Lucas electronics! (I was
quite surprised when I lifted the hood the first time). Lucas logos
everywhere, but it's not let me down.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>In GA planes, which is what we're talking about here, they all move.
>
>
> All is a broad statement. Have you flown all GA planes?

Have you flown even one? Get back to us when you do.



>
> There seems to be great variability in autopilot implementations,

There's almost none. A servo grabs a cable and pushes/pulls.


and
> it is certainly possible to design one that does not move the yoke.

It's possible to design anything. But the yoke is directly connected to
the control surface by a cable. How the hell are you going to move a
control surface without moving the yoke?
>
>
>>Yes, really.
>
>
> It seems that it would take quite a bit of stretching around the
> windows to see exactly what the ailerons are doing on both wings,

It doesn't.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Have you flown even one?

Since they are all different, flying one isn't necessarily much better
than flying none, with respect to aircraft one hasn't flown.

> There's almost none. A servo grabs a cable and pushes/pulls.

You haven't used autopilots on large jets, have you?

> It's possible to design anything. But the yoke is directly connected to
> the control surface by a cable. How the hell are you going to move a
> control surface without moving the yoke?

If it's not directly connected, it might not move.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
> You haven't used autopilots on large jets, have you?



We're not talking about jets or even turboprops. Nice evasion though.
The subject at hand, my dimwitted friend, is GA aircraft of the type
people in this group fly and the very same type you yourself referenced.


>
>
>>It's possible to design anything. But the yoke is directly connected to
>>the control surface by a cable. How the hell are you going to move a
>>control surface without moving the yoke?
>
>
> If it's not directly connected, it might not move.



They are always connected.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> We're not talking about jets or even turboprops.

I'm talking about all aircraft.

> The subject at hand, my dimwitted friend, is GA aircraft of the type
> people in this group fly and the very same type you yourself referenced.

There's more to aviation than go-karts with wings.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> We're not talking about jets or even turboprops.
>
> I'm talking about all aircraft.
>
>> The subject at hand, my dimwitted friend, is GA aircraft of the type
>> people in this group fly and the very same type you yourself referenced.
>
> There's more to aviation than go-karts with wings.
>
You are truly setting a new record for stupid, which I did not think you
could top based on your other posts.

[Ben Hallert]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I read things, and I learn very fast, and that bothers a lot of
> people. But that's not my fault.

What bothers us is that you read things, then make authoritative
statements that are factually incorrect and represent:
1. A basic misunderstanding about the subject and
2. A dogged determinism not to allow yourself to be corrected by people
who DO know.

You have repeatedly soiled yourself conversationally and any shred of
respect or admiration you might have had at any point during the
'grooming' phase of your troll here has been blasted out the window by
your recent behavior here and in other threads.