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.

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.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:



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

No, they cannot.

Newps writes:

No, they cannot.

One day, you may be surprised.

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

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.

"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

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

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.

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.