Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#31

Post by CivBase »

Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? Airplane software does not deal with especially large amounts of data or intense computations. Faster hardware does not provide an inherent safety benefit.

There is a large degree of coupling between avionics hardware and software amd updating that software is prohibitively expensive. There's just no point in doing it unless you get a tangible benefit.

Furthermore, avionics systems take a long time to develop are not often rebuilt from scratch, so the hardware naturally lags far behind the computing power we're used to.

The recycling of avionics systems is definitely fueled by a desire to reduce costs. However, it's also important to note that older, mature systems with a history of service inherently offer a degree of safety compared to something which is untested.

The issue this article complains about can easily be seen as a safety feature.

To be fair, the author does spend most of the article talking about missing features and design issues rather than harping on "processing power". It is a poor title.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#32

Post by londons_explore »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27
exelius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tech is just now making it into military aircraft in the F-35 (it’s designed to compensate for failures or combat damage while keeping the plane’s handling relatively consistent), so I would guess it’ll be a while before we see a civilian version.

"Figure out a way to fly the thing in the new, crippled configuration" is hard. Figure out a way that's better than what the human pilot came up with may be even harder.

It's hard, but it's a very measurable problem.

You randomly deform the airframe in a physics simulator, then get a real pilot to try to fly the simulated damaged airframe to the nearest airport.

You then get an AI to try doing the same.

As soon as the AI manages to get to the airport more often than the human, the tech will save lives, on average.

My guess is a PhD student could come up with an AI passing the above test inside a year. Yet aviation standards are stringent enough AI will be decades away from production use, if ever.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#33

Post by jacquesm »

londons_explore wrote: post #18
pinewurst wrote: post #2

The "1990s Computing Power" comment is ignorantly harsh. The MAX (to the best of my knowledge) uses a similar AMD29050-based architecture as the 777 (where it was pioneered) and the 737-800/900. It's amply fast and very very reliable, hardware and software (setting MCAS aside which is new to MAX). Any sane person would prefer the solid well-proven choice over the bleeding edge. People used to make similar comments ab…

I'm not sure I agree here. There exist possibilities for far more safety with more compute. For example, when a mechanical failure occurs (for example an engine explodes and partially falls off) the flight characteristics of the plane change dramatically. Current systems fall back to human control, and hope that human will be able to figure out how to control a now very "unique" machine. Future systems could dynamica…

> For an example of this, did you know it's possible to fully control a quadcopter even with 3 out of 4 rotors broken and no working fins/flaps?

The linked article does not support your point, it shows a quadcopter losing one rotor which then goes into a kind of 'controlled fall', two (or even three) rotors is never mentioned and even the one rotor missing scenario involves the whole craft spinning (see video on the page).

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#34

Post by iliketosleep »

When it comes to flight computers it makes sense to be conservative when it comes to computing power - the goal should be simple, proven, and functional. But when it comes to diagnostics why not use more computing power? As the article states A second electronic system found on other Boeing jets also alerts pilots to unusual or hazardous situations during flight and lays out recommended steps to resolve them. Seems better than flipping through a paper manual when you've only a minute or two to save the plane.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#35

Post by dmix »

CivBase wrote: post #31

Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? Airplane software does not deal with especially large amounts of data or intense computations. Faster hardware does not provide an inherent safety benefit. There is a large degree of coupling between avionics hardware and software amd updating that software is prohibitively expensive. There's just no point in doing it unless you get a tang…

Wait until they finds out what software powers the nuclear weapons of 90%+ of the world, top-tier fighter jets, "critical" infrastructure like power (including nuclear), and countless financial/banking systems.

To be fair the article doesn't critique using 1990s (or earlier) hardware/software. It's merely a clickbait headline. The only reference is dismissed by the very next sentence as insignificant [Boeing could be replaced with any ~~expert~~ somewhat-knowledgable person on the subject]:

> The flight-control computers have roughly the processing power of 1990s home computers. A Boeing spokesman said the aircraft was designed with an appropriate level of technology to ensure safety.

This only adds to my lowered standards when approaching NYT articles over the years. They've long been abandoning being correct for being entertaining at a seemingly accelerating rate. Which is too bad considering plenty of people continue to hold them to a higher credibility over the typical clickbaiter sites. Considering they are a subscription service I'm not convinced this is justified.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#36

Post by Gibbon1 »

bcatanzaro wrote: post #28
tibbydudeza wrote: post #20

The Windows XP of passenger jets.

Windows XP was actually pretty modern for its time. Maybe you mean Windows ME. ;)

Thank you for reminding me of something I'd rather not remember.

One thing I remember is Microsoft tried repeatedly with Win95, 98 and ME to get USB support to work correctly. Failing each time and having to start over. Much to the horror of peripheral manufacturers. With Windows XP that finally mostly worked.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#37

Post by pinewurst »

wvenable wrote: post #29
pinewurst wrote: post #2

The "1990s Computing Power" comment is ignorantly harsh. The MAX (to the best of my knowledge) uses a similar AMD29050-based architecture as the 777 (where it was pioneered) and the 737-800/900. It's amply fast and very very reliable, hardware and software (setting MCAS aside which is new to MAX). Any sane person would prefer the solid well-proven choice over the bleeding edge. People used to make similar comments ab…

> The "1990s Computing Power" comment is ignorantly harsh. I don't think so. You build a plane that's expected to run for decades -- if you put a 2010 computer in there now, it'll be 20 years old in 2030. That 1990's computer was put there in the 90's, does that really make it more reliable?

That so-called 1990s computer is probably a year old, embedded in a Honeywell module that’ll be available new for the next 15 years.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#38

Post by CivBase »

dmix wrote: post #35
CivBase wrote: post #31

Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? Airplane software does not deal with especially large amounts of data or intense computations. Faster hardware does not provide an inherent safety benefit. There is a large degree of coupling between avionics hardware and software amd updating that software is prohibitively expensive. There's just no point in doing it unless you get a tang…

Wait until they finds out what software powers the nuclear weapons of 90%+ of the world, top-tier fighter jets, "critical" infrastructure like power (including nuclear), and countless financial/banking systems. To be fair the article doesn't critique using 1990s (or earlier) hardware/software. It's merely a clickbait headline. The only reference is dismissed by the very next sentence as insignificant [Boeing could be…

> To be fair the article doesn't critique using 1990s (or earlier) hardware/software.

I actually edited in an extra paragraph at the end of my original post because I wanted to at least credit the author for talking more about design issues than "processing power" in the body of the article. The title is very bad, though.

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#39

Post by wvenable »

pinewurst wrote: post #37
wvenable wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "1990s Computing Power" comment is ignorantly harsh. I don't think so. You build a plane that's expected to run for decades -- if you put a 2010 computer in there now, it'll be 20 years old in 2030. That 1990's computer was put there in the 90's, does that really make it more reliable?

That so-called 1990s computer is probably a year old, embedded in a Honeywell module that’ll be available new for the next 15 years.

Of course. It's not literally a 1990's computer. But the idea that it's just somehow superior because the design is 3 decades old doesn't make any sense. 30 years ago it would have been new technology; so where was that same argument then?

Re: 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

#40

Post by cryptonector »

da_chicken wrote: post #9
whoisjuan wrote: post #7

Kind of unfair. Do they really think that an aircraft should be powered by the same software or hardware that powers a modern computer or smartphone? An aircraft needs incredible reliability. You don’t get that with modern software/hardware architectures.

Yeah, the B-52, adopted in 1952, is planned to be is service through the 2050s. An airframe design expected to last for over 100 years. Keep in mind that flight itself is barely 100 years old. And paper manuals? Are they expecting to use iPads for in flight documents or something? Shall we compare failure states of paper vs tablets?

Actually, yes, lots of pilots prefer ipads. They are lighter, for one, and for many tasks faster than paging through paper.
Post reply on HN