FADEC = complex

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

Bob Gardner

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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...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