FADEC = complex

"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

"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

"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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.