I would like to give you David and advise when posting if you want anyone to care for your oppinions and that is to be a bit more humble. To get anyway with your points you need to be able to express your meanings in a way so that people might consider what you are saying. Your post is just making people ignore everything you say as you are scolding on someone that is known to be one of the greatest guys in this hobby. He is a good flyer, yes, but from the little i know him he is even a much greater person.

My technical point here is that there is always a fine line between added complexity to make redundant solutions and simplicity. Usually the best solution is something in between. As complexity makes other problems that sometimes are hard to track or discover. To much simplicity might not be up for the task.

I know personally of two airplanes that crashed using weatronic that probably would not have crashed using a simple one battery one receiver solution. The case here was that with a previous version of their software they did not limit the scanning function to only be activated up to 15 seconds after power on. The motor on the aircraft got a loose bearing that caused a lot of radio interference, this did not cause the weatronic to failsafe as the ribbon cable picked up the noise and the weatronic did go in scanning mode. Now a normal single receiver would have gone into failsafe and idled or stopped the engine which would have stopped the radio interference and the plane could have landed safely (most probably).

So, how safe are you if you just plug two batteries to your receiver and one battery looses lets say two or three cells. The amount current that is going from the good battery to the bad could be substantial and it could also easily drain the good one. So then we need to apply more gadgets in order to isolate the bad battery from the good one. Like a regulator of some kind.

Then you add a powerbox. Which is a highly complicated box, and is perfect as long as it works. But the number of single point failure components you add to the aircraft when adding a powerbox is substantial. Yes, you have isolated dual redundant power supply AND you also have maybe 100 more single failure components and you need to thrust the compatabillity of the powerbox with your other components. Which was an issue discovered by customers when the new FASST 14ch receiver was out due to signal voltage.

My point is that it is not so easy always to make the right descission on what is the best and safest solution, Personally im not sure. Im having the smallest, simplest powerbox in some of my jets and some others i run a couple of A123 into a duralite regulator (one each). A another one i simply put two NiCd directly to the receiver. It has all worked great for me, but there is a ton of other variations that works great too. The most important thing i beleive is that you are familiar with the solutions in your aircraft cause misuse is a big factor in crashes. The one crashed i have had was a structual weakness from the factory that i did not understand before the jet was in the ground. From what i see with the number of new cheap ARF's coming that might be the biggest risk there is right now. And we dont want to run biplane jets for the sake of redundant wings do we??