Well, the safest aircraft is one that does not leave the ground, more so one that does not move.
and its not just 1 wire.
most have an auctioneering circuits where they use 2 3 or 4 components to generate the signal and require 3 of 4 or 2 of 3 to give the same result before its allowed to produce an output.
if 1 of the outputs fails or is out of range, its ignored. but if 2 of 3 or 4 fail or out of range, you get an alarm or warning and you can isolate the bad signals and rely on the remaining ones.
I like FBW.
It is lighter & maintenance friendly.
What I don’t like is the computer logic used by Airbus.
Boeing just replaces the cables with wires. The pilot can fly the plane inside or beyond the flight envelope as he/she likes. The Boeing fly by wire is also programed with conventional stability and is speed stable.
Airbus infringes on the pilot with the computer. The aircraft response to input is variable and dynamic & the programing is flight path stable. This variably responsive control has been a factor not the cause to an Airbus going into the ocean off the coast of Spain and the rudder/vert stab coming off in NY.
Falcon is working on a safety system in the FBW of the 7X that would prevent the pilot from maneuvering the aircraft in the direction of a TCAS or GPWS/TAWS warning. Maybe we’ll get to watch a Falcon go into the trees on a go around in the future due to false TA/RA 
Sorry, the Airbus 300 (AAL587) and 310 are not FBW, they use conventional, albeit sensitive, mechanical controls.
[quote=“jhwenger”]
Your correct. I forgot that the AA was a A300-B4 and conventional
The XL airways of the coast of Spain was an A320 and FBW.
So… FBW not that evil, but Computer Logic used in the FBW is the devil? 
Exactly!
And that’s how an Airbus A320 with a load of passengers aboard during an airshow ended up settling into the trees just beyond the runway. The computer logic was programmed as such to out think the pilot when the pilot new what HE wanted, but the computer THOUGHT that he was doing something else and disregarded the commands of the pilot.
Just another case of AB killing people. You know they’ve killed more people then Ted Bundy…
in either case, its 100000% safer than a housewife smoking a cigarette or using a cell phone while driving.
that wouldn’t cause hundreds of death nor a plane broke up mid-air… lets try to compare orange with orange, not orange with beef 8)
185Driver, could you explain the terms “speed stable” and “flight path stable”? I’ve never seen them before.
In a previous post, I wrote in favor of compartmentalizing the systems, to keep faults localized, so that a problem in one system can’t spread trouble into other systems. Variably responsive control, as you call it, sounds like an example of violating that design principle.
As a hypothetical example, we might imagine that AF447’s airspeed indicators indicated slower than true. Storm turbulence stirred up the altitude and heading, and the autopilot (or live pilot) responded normally, whatever that means. But because the computer uses a different control law at different speeds, the deflection of rudder, ailerons, elevators, etc. was inappropriate for Mach 0.8 at 35000 ft, and the surfaces were overstressed.
The point of that illustration was not to advance a theory for AF447, but to show that in a variable-response FBW system, a fault in one system (airspeed indicator) might lead to problems elsewhere (erroneous and dangerous control surface action). That’s a failure to compartmentalize the fault. That sounds like a risk category that needs to be thoroughly understood by Airbus, but might not be quite yet.
unsafe drivers kill thousands of people a year, nothing compared to competant pilots.
oh ok, i forgot what my point was, disreguard, my point is they are both super safe.
its like when a reporter asks a politician their stance on abortion in reguards to rape or incest, its such a insignificant number, who cares what their opinion is.
i think its the same thing here, 1 death per 100,000,000 million miles vs 1 death per 101,000,000 miles.
Speed stable Boeing FBW responds like a normal aircraft seeking the trim speed when power/thrust changed similar to a lil’ ol cessna.
Pitch stable Aibus FBW holds the aircraft attitude were you put it (or were the computer allows you to put it.)
I’ll post a bit from memory now but need to go research get the facts correct.
I saw a wonderful film of Airbus test pilot in cruise at high altitude and high mach. grab the side stick and shake it like a Pit Bull with rag doll. The computer did nothing because the inputs would have resulted in flight beyond the design envelope. He then put it in a steep climbing turn, let go of the controls, and the aircraft stayed in the turn and climb untill it hit the flight envelope limits. The computer then put he aircraft into straight & level flight on it’s own.
Sounds all warm and fuzzy until the box is fed bad info or in the case of the Geman XL Flight A320 the pilots find a shift in control law during a flight test procedure being performed outside of the test parameters by non-test pilots.
These odd regions of the envelope are never encountered when all is done according to SOPs and only engineers preplanned abnormalities happen.
Hmmmm, about as much as your’s is cared about.
And using an abortion analogy? Nice…
Take your ridiculous drivel with its bad spelling/grammar and troll somewhere else. 
That is cold, very cold.
Would you say that to someone’s face? I doubt it – easier to say nasty things anonymously. But if you would, you’re gonna be a miserable old man some day.
I keep hoping this’ll remain one of the more tolerant online communities. Nastygrams might drive off the person you dislike, but also a half-dozen others who read it – people from whom you might otherwise learn something helpful. And who appointed you anyway? So if you don’t like MeekRN’s posts, roll your own eyes and skip over them. Consider it your contribution.
squared.
oh, so people reckon fly-by-wire is here to stay and its safe and robust like a life jacket?
btw, im not anti-airbus or pro-boeing… i am not affiliate with any airplane manufacturers… i’m just an concerned citizen, concerning some manufacturer using unproven technology on something that might endanger other lives and use that as data/live trials to improve their technology… in this case ‘fly-by-wire’ as general direction… and someone mentioned more specifically the ‘computer logic’ which helps narrow down the topic (very good!)…
The truth only hurts when it should. You simply don’t understand the history. Either here or face to face…makes no difference to me.
Tolerance…now there’s a noble concept. But it works both ways. As there should be a balance with no tolerance for lies and blatant embellishments. Again, you do not know the history, so you are not in a position to judge.
Hmmm…why don’t you ask yourself that question? As I’ve suggested to you before…feel free to ignore me!
To you sir, I’m sorry that you feel that way. Given some of your postings and how some of your contributions have been treated, you probably have some understanding of why I get so fired up when someone trashes truth and reality in an effort of self aggrandizement.