If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
Mxsmanic wrote: FADECs can fail in all sorts of ways, depending on the software bugs they contain. No, they cannot. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
Newps writes:
No, they cannot. One day, you may be surprised. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
FADEC = complex
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this a Complex Plane? | [email protected] | Piloting | 12 | December 7th 05 03:19 AM |
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? | Marc J. Zeitlin | Piloting | 22 | November 24th 05 04:11 AM |
Complex / High Performance / Low Performance | R.T. | Owning | 22 | July 6th 04 08:04 AM |
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? | Jack Allison | Owning | 12 | June 14th 04 08:01 PM |
Complex Aircraft Question | Chris | General Aviation | 5 | October 18th 03 04:40 AM |