Greybeard33
Established Member
If you are in a fly-by-wire plane, and all the sensors stop working, you will fall out of the sky! This is the 21st century....
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Suggestions to phase out diesel-only rolling stock if electrification does not progress as quickly as planned
- Thread starter PTR 444
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If you are in a fly-by-wire plane, and all the sensors stop working, you will fall out of the sky! This is the 21st century....
There’s a deiffenrce between all the sensors on a plane (which wouldn’t cause it to fall out of the sky, incidentally!), and an APCO system!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you are in a fly-by-wire plane, and all the sensors stop working, you will fall out of the sky! This is the 21st century....
Which is why you (unless you're Boeing and building the 737 Max, which was a literally murderously bad piece of bodgit-and-scarper design) have a backup and a backup-backup, ideally from different suppliers. The Airbus philosophy generally works with 3; if all 3 agree, great, if 2 agree go with that and give a warning, if none agree step down to a more manual mode.
Greybeard33
Established Member
I meant, for example, the sensors that detect the pilots' control inputs. My point was that automatic systems can be designed with sufficient redundancy that manual backup is unnecessary. It is not rocket science to raise and lower a pantograph.There’s a deiffenrce between all the sensors on a plane (which wouldn’t cause it to fall out of the sky, incidentally!), and an APCO system!
I agree. The 'wit of man', 'not rocket science' etc.I meant, for example, the sensors that detect the pilots' control inputs. My point was that automatic systems can be designed with sufficient redundancy that manual backup is unnecessary. It is not rocket science to raise and lower a pantograph.
I agree also re the 737 max (allegedly) and remind myself of the Challenger spacecraft which took off without challenge despite the not-good-enough weather (also allegedly).
Few folk wish to fly in a plotless plane (yet?) despite the evidence that it's safer than a human pilot.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.