Originally Posted by
ChristiaanJ
I knew some of the people who designed the "Airbus computer system algorithm(s)" (I worked in the next office...). They were not 'computer nerds', I can assure you. They knew what they were doing.
Whether the original design specifications, thought up by 'system engineers' (not 'computer nerds' as such), with totally new 'control laws', were equally well thought out, is a question I'm still asking myself to this day.
Glad to see a post of yours I can resonate to.
The computer algorithm(s), while may be done by very thorough/experienced professionals, and while being full proof, and allowing some elegant way of doing things, ultimately they need to follow entirely, and strictly the system architecture/design.
And it's that system architecture/design in which some of the shortcomings/deficiencies pointed out on these threads show designer/architect weakness/immaturity.
There IS too much confusion here between system design and it's physical implementation, which can be mechanical or electro-hydraulic-mechanical (as in the very olden days), with analog computers (as in 'my' Concorde days... but there were many other similar systems, from Trident to early 747 to VC10 to the F-104... I'll leave it to the oldies among us to expand the list), or with digital computers (as in the A320 for a start, and most present-day A&B flight control systems).
True, but that's true in general, for those that are off their domain of expertise.
The fact that the switch from analog to digital happened at the same time as the switch from 'steam gauges' to 'glass' tends to confuse the issue even further.
Digital gauges can have a maximum effectiveness in conveying information. Unfortunately, from what can be concluded, and as a personal opinion, it is NOT the case with the A330 ones.
Given the challenge, the A320 flight control system could probably have been implemented as an analog system, but it would have been heavier, more expensive, and more difficult to flight test and optimise. "Been there, done that"....
While I agree 100%, with what I would call a lot less flexibility, which has drawn ultimately the much more successful path of the use of digital computers/electronics, I think that analog systems, don't have to be a lot more expensive, or a lot heavier, as long as the used components would be of same generation technology, and of same type of mass production, i.e. similarly to the special digital components used in aviation - analog computers allow modular designs, with modules usable on a wide range of frames too. Certainly it would mean a completely different ratio of hardware to/versus software work.