FADEC = complex

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.

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.

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...6faapolicy.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
|

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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.