Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

All Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft Grounded

184 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, French bean said:

We're in an ever faster rush to include software in just about everything whether it is actually of use or not.

Welcome to the XXI century

 

21 hours ago, French bean said:

So, they say it could be down to a software glitch and Boeing are working on a patch but was it really neccessary in the first place and why is there no pilot overide? Or was it developed by former Microsoft programmers?

Comment comes from ignorance, unsubstantiated and outdated hate towards Microsoft.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, razorsandroses said:

My contention is why risk human lives trying to enhance the aircraft by adding all kinds of new unused software prototypes that seasoned veteran airline pilots are clearly unfamiliar and inexperienced with, and it's done already knowing how software bugs have caused catastrophes such as space shuttle explosions?

WTF? Which space shuttle explosions???

 

15 hours ago, razorsandroses said:

Why not manufacture a plane with the basic ability to get the damn passengers from point A to point B? You wanna play with software and new age equipment, that's fine...so long as it's YOUR asses in the aircraft spending the minimum 5000 hours testing the prototypes rigorously through enough to confidently say that all bugs have been worked out.

That way, when there is an "oopsie" like there has already been twice, they can simply consider all the involved engineers and software developers on board automatically fired by default (hahaha :D I crack myself up) and they can find someone more qualified to design and build a more reliable aircraft.

 

They really need to quit experimenting with technology, and just stick to building an aircraft that gets you where you need to be. Period.

You are completely ignorant on how things work.

1) there is no software free of bugs. Will never be

2) Most modern machines are too complex to operate directly, without software. I can even use your stupid Space Shuttle example: it could not fly without software!

3) I am sure well more than 5000h were spent on testing.

4) Software development is not "experimenting with technology". Aircrafts have become much more reliable than decades ago, and most of it due to software. Software development is a mature technology. You are overreacting and making a storm out of a glass of water.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, French bean said:

The amount of times accidents have been attributed to software failures in all forms of transport makes you wonder why they are not more rigourously controlled.

 

My computer degree workplace (sandwich course AKA dual studium) and subsequent 

place of work for several years was a SW manufacturer for civil aircraft systems.

 

At one point I was sent to London to attend a training course for "software testing".

As a young student, I expected to learn lots about this topic and eagerly awaited the first session.

 

Well, I was disappointed in the quality of the course...

I approached the tutor in the first break and told him what we did in our company.

He nearly fell over.

 

His course was aimed at financial and application programmers who often let their customers

find the bugs first.

 

He agreed that with my half a degree and 3 months in the aeronautics business I could 

easily run this course and get the attendees crying due to the fact the knew nothing about testing.

The company already had a testing strategy years ahead of  financial / PC programming standards.

 

How we tested:

We would receive a requirements spec.

This would be converted to  detailed requirements documentation (DRD) and reviewed by a third party to see it it fits.

The DRD then given to teams not involved in its creation to be split into software specs.

They in turn would be reviewed by those who created the DRD and the original spec to see that it fits.

Programmers then create individual software tests for each specification. Yes, that is before  the code was written !

The tests reviewed by DRD team and the spec team.

 

Only then would a programmer team create code (which of course was subject to change management.

 

If you think this was slow,, then yes it was.

We even had floppy disks (as seen in museums these days).

When we checked these out of the change managers office, he'd stop us if we wanted the last copy of some module.

(There were always 3 copies)

We had to prove that the last two weren't eaten up by a bad drive and we'd already tried another.

 

In Germany I programmed user software - not the safety critical stuff from back then.

My employers here wanted quick results and the users would indeed find faults

for me to fix in the next build.

 

Software, and the design of it can be designed and built rigorously.

I am sure it still is. 

 

Until the relevant authorities come back with the results of the investigation

anything else is speculation.

 

Aircraft are still the safest form of transport - just when something goes wrong

the consequences are tragic for a large number of people. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HH_Sailor said:

Aircraft are still the safest form of transport

 

And the only form of transport in many cases.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

WTF? Which space shuttle explosions???

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to get into a technological battle of wits debate with you.

 

And it took me about 10 seconds to pull this up here:

 

See here

 

Not that you would have found it yourself because you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I mean, how could you have no heard about the lost spacecraft that occured due to a software conversion error?

 

I did not say aircraft should have zero software, and you know it. So don't start twisting my words. I said they need to quit experimenting with new ideas and technology, and simply stick with what has been working.

 

If anyone here is ignorant, it's you. So why don't you do yourself a favor and do your research before launching your attack. Then take your glass of water, sprinkle a teaspoon of "Shut the hell up" in it, stir until dissolved, and down it.

 

</antisocial>

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to argue. The expert of all things has weighed in -

 

Quote

 

A pair of fatal crashes of Boeing 737 Max 8 jets in about four months has punished the airplane maker’s stock and drawn criticism from President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

‘OLD AND SIMPLER IS FAR BETTER’

In a multipart tweet that didn’t specifically mention Boeing Co. BA, -1.24% or a Sunday crash of 737 Max 8 jet near Addis Ababa that left 157 people dead, the president said: “Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products.”

He continued: “Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger.”

Trump’s tweet comes as aviation regulators across the globe have taken the unusual step of grounding the 737 Max jets on the heels of the weekend Ethiopian Airlines crash, even after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration declared the planes airworthy.

 

 

(100% sure he didn't write that)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, razorsandroses said:

[..]how software bugs have caused catastrophes such as space shuttle explosions?

No Space Shuttle was lost due to a software bug.

 

Two Space Shuttles were lost, Challenger and Columbia. Neither of them was lost due to a software bug.

 

You're talking about stuff you know shit about.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, HEM said:

 

That the documentary they regularly repeat about the very early days of the B747 when the engines used to explode?

 

I had a boss who's wife was a pilot.  She was flying one of these from CA to Hawaii and had to deal with an engine in FLAMES during the second half of the flight with nowhere to land en route.  I am not sure if it exploded or what but thankfully they made it.

 

The challenger space shuttle (as cited in your link) crashed due to faulty o-rings, not at all software related.  It says exactly that in your link, @razorsandroses  I'm not sure what your point is.  This was so well known that shortly after the crash, there were loads of dark jokes floating around in the US about blowing an o-ring.  

 

I remember reading a discussion of the shuttle software and while it's true that no software is 100% faultless, the shuttle is very, very close.  There was even a story about the engineering teams having to remove some operations from first-line software control as it was too stressful for crew members to feel they had zero control, themselves.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh give me a break.  Mike responded to your false claim about the space shuttle for which you have NO supporting evidence because you were WRONG to say software caused space shuttle disaster(s).  He is right that no space shuttle has suffered a catastrophic software malfunction. 

 

"found other stuff in only 10 seconds"...let's just say maybe you shouldn't be throwing around the word "pitiful" quite so casually.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...durrr. :blink: Unless someone includes 5 different sources with his post cause I'm too lazy to use Google, I just automatically call BS on it. Durr...

 

</antisocial>

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one

 

Explosion due to software error. Again...took me about 10 seconds to pull up.

 

But yeah, I'm making it all up, don't know shit what I'm talking about, right?

 

Pathetic.

 

</antisocial>

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah, I know, mate... I don't have any other life outside of sparring on forums. I spent 40 mins doing crawling over Google so I can prove a bunch of strangers wrong and all that. Now I can feel so much better about myself! Hee hee! :D

 

</antisocial>

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye witnesses near the sean could hear a strange noise and could see smoke coming from the airplane while it was descending.

 

https://airlinerwatch.com/witnesses-report-strange-noise-from-the-crashed-ethiopian-boeing-737-max-8/

 

I am no aircraft crash investigator but it makes me think, the reason is connected to the engines of the airplane and not the flight control software. I thought the Engine manufacture normally writes the software for the engines not Boeing 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the software was written by a German and the Pilot didnt wait till the end of the Autopilots sentence to get the jist of things... :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

Welcome to the XXI century

 

Comment comes from ignorance, unsubstantiated and outdated hate towards Microsoft.

 

 

Ignorance? as a former aircraft techy, I'm not that ignorant.

Unbsubstantiated? maybe because we still have to wait for the official investigation to be finalised however, similar accidents with the same aircraft under similar circumstances within a few months of each other is more than a coincidence. The air regulation authorities around the world think so too.

Hatred of Microsoft? I own up to that one based on previous experience.

 

As for your point about aircraft reliability being improved by software I would add that software has made them more efficient, not neccessarily more reliable, that has come from improvements in design and materials unless of course you include the software used to develop the manufacturing and design technics. Now if you look at aircraft design, it actually hasn't changed that much in decades and aircraft are just a tool for getting things from A to B, it is what is inside them that has improved e.g the Avionics. Classic examples are the Boeing 737 first flew in the 1960's, B52 from the 1950's, Chinook from the 60's Their design is the same, they don't use fly by wire or other weird and wonderful things, the flying controls are still hydro mechanical but software has been incorporated to reduce crew workload and increase fuel efficiency. Take the 747, use to have a flight engineer, now with its Glass cockpit it doesn't need 3 crewman and I suspect if it wasn't for regulations, they'd be pushing for just 1 Pilot.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, razorsandroses said:

My contention is why risk human lives trying to enhance the aircraft by adding all kinds of new unused software prototypes that seasoned veteran airline pilots are clearly unfamiliar and inexperienced with, and it's done already knowing how software bugs have caused catastrophes such as space shuttle explosions? Why not manufacture a plane with the basic ability to get the damn passengers from point A to point B? You wanna play with software and new age equipment, that's fine...so long as it's YOUR asses in the aircraft spending the minimum 5000 hours testing the prototypes rigorously through enough to confidently say that all bugs have been worked out.

 

That way, when there is an "oopsie" like there has already been twice, they can simply consider all the involved engineers and software developers on board automatically fired by default (hahaha :D I crack myself up) and they can find someone more qualified to design and build a more reliable aircraft.

 

They really need to quit experimenting with technology, and just stick to building an aircraft that gets you where you need to be. Period.

 

</antisocial>

 

 

You can't even build a car that fulfill current European safety standards without any type of computer and software in the car.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yesterday said:

Eye witnesses near the sean could hear a strange noise and could see smoke coming from the airplane while it was descending

 

Air accident investigators (& any other sort of investigators) are well aware the eye witnesses are the least reliable of sources.

Thats why they really like to get their hands on the flight recorder data.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MikeMelga said:
5 hours ago, HH_Sailor said:

 

My computer degree workplace (sandwich course AKA dual studium) and subsequent 

place of work for several years was a SW manufacturer for civil aircraft systems.

 

At one point I was sent to London to attend a training course for "software testing".

As a young student, I expected to learn lots about this topic and eagerly awaited the first session.

 

Well, I was disappointed in the quality of the course...

I approached the tutor in the first break and told him what we did in our company.

He nearly fell over.

 

His course was aimed at financial and application programmers who often let their customers

find the bugs first.

 

He agreed that with my half a degree and 3 months in the aeronautics business I could 

easily run this course and get the attendees crying due to the fact the knew nothing about testing.

The company already had a testing strategy years ahead of  financial / PC programming standards.

 

How we tested:

We would receive a requirements spec.

This would be converted to  detailed requirements documentation (DRD) and reviewed by a third party to see it it fits.

The DRD then given to teams not involved in its creation to be split into software specs.

They in turn would be reviewed by those who created the DRD and the original spec to see that it fits.

Programmers then create individual software tests for each specification. Yes, that is before  the code was written !

The tests reviewed by DRD team and the spec team.

 

Only then would a programmer team create code (which of course was subject to change management.

 

If you think this was slow,, then yes it was.

We even had floppy disks (as seen in museums these days).

When we checked these out of the change managers office, he'd stop us if we wanted the last copy of some module.

(There were always 3 copies)

We had to prove that the last two weren't eaten up by a bad drive and we'd already tried another.

 

In Germany I programmed user software - not the safety critical stuff from back then.

My employers here wanted quick results and the users would indeed find faults

for me to fix in the next build.

 

Software, and the design of it can be designed and built rigorously.

I am sure it still is. 

 

Until the relevant authorities come back with the results of the investigation

anything else is speculation.

 

Aircraft are still the safest form of transport - just when something goes wrong

the consequences are tragic for a large number of people. 

WTF? Which space shuttle explosions???

 

You are completely ignorant on how things work.

1) there is no software free of bugs. Will never be

2) Most modern machines are too complex to operate directly, without software. I can even use your stupid Space Shuttle example: it could not fly without software!

3) I am sure well more than 5000h were spent on testing.

4) Software development is not "experimenting with technology". Aircrafts have become much more reliable than decades ago, and most of it due to software. Software development is a mature technology. You are overreacting and making a storm out of a glass of water.

 

 

 

Don't forget that the Software in planes etc. is also reliant on the external input.

 

I have watched many episodes of Air Crash Investigation, and I do recall one (but can't remember the name) when the aircraft software reacted due to input it received, but actually the input was false.  Normally, such sensors are duplicated so that this cannot occur, but in this case there was also another problem which meant that in this case it did not help.

So even when it "appears" to be a software problem, it might not be.

There have been other cases where the "software" has performed some unexpected manoeuvre, but it was basically down to the pilot(s) false engaging or not dis-engaging (or noticing) that the aircraft was still in a specific "mode".  So basically again, what appeared to be software initially was actually pilot error

 

 

 

Also worth pointing out is that the Apollo missions were flown by computer, back in the 60s,

 

 

And that software in planes in also extremely mature, so no point in comparing it to software in cars.

The first autopilot components where flown in 1912, just 9 years after the first powered flight!  Although of course it took until the 50s until these were what we would consider to be computer controlled.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0