Hi,
First, i will use some words of a phrase you posted:
I throw my hands up in the air every time I hear FBW/FMC avionics systems
To say you what happens to me when i realize the "circuitry" amount and complexity used (required) in highly complex FBW a/c.
Just a detail: You need to use 3X (acting as 5X) redundancy. Approaching the one used in the STS fleet now retiring.
(Yesterday night i was reading again on the
F8 DFBW. A MUST read)
Well,
But aren't denser IC's just moving the complexity "up the chain", as it were?
In this case, i would say: No. The complexity is about the same. And the use of more memory presents "no drawbacks".
Denser IC's also tend to generate more heat energy
We are talking about Audio (low power signals), so, no problem.
so the new components would have to be re-certified - an expensive and time-consuming process.
You are talking on the ICīs or the final product, the CVR? Anyway every change or evolution is not free. And ROI must be checked.
Complexity and lack of predictability in new hardware is the reason that digital circuitry introduced in aviation tends to be of the simpler "tried and true" designs
I agree 100%. And will use this to ask: Whatīs your feeling (on this issue) on the Revolution (rdware and Software/algorithms[/]) EA introduced using DFBW technology (for the first time in non military planes)? With itīs big implications. Why US didnīt introduce "in parallel"? But this is for another post or even another thread.
BTW, What is "wiring fault" (Hard) mentioned in some earlier posts regarding ACARS sent. I am curious to understand this.