Al,
I agree with you to a certain extent, but these
“fixes” can become worse than the problem. Look at Toyota. That
system is so complicated that even the guys who designed and built it don’t
understand what the failure mode is. Airplanes require more training to
fly safely than cars do and for damn good reason. If you are in the
pattern and decide to try a power off landing and inadvertently pull the
mixture instead of the throttle, what have the certified manufacturers done to
prevent the engine from stopping?
Can't argue with any of your statements above.
However, you're using "slippery slope" argument. Implying that ANY change will
be too complex. Since we can't stop the pilot from pulling mixture, then we
shouldn't take action on other risks?
In order to install a proper fix, you have to
consider every possible scenario.
Agree agree agree. Very important from my
experience. But we always want the real world failures to trump theory.
So I encourage taking action on the failure risk, but give thought to
unexpected effects. One option is to place a tiny button next to the "shut
down knobs" (my name for cold start and mixture knobs). Press button to enable
massive mixture changes. So if you touch the button, you now have 10 seconds
to make huge mixture changes. If you don't press the button, only small
mixture changes are enabled. This would dramatically reduce flight risk,
but would only affect users in distant future.
Encourage you to take a look at other applications
which successfully prevent these oop's. Some use spring loaded knobs, you have
to pull and turn to make change. Some use software or hardware to limit the
change. And then of course there are the hugely successful automobile
ECU's.
Regards
-al
wick