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

101–110 of 133 posts

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

#101

Post by ec109685 »

huffmsa wrote: post #70
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A paper manual is always there for you. Then have the paper manual as a choice and/or backup. If the programmers working on aircraft are so incompetent that they can't get a the digital manual correct, than they have no business programming any of the other multitude of systems that are critical to fly-by-wire systems.

And the time it takes to realize your iPad has run out of battery or you accidentally open an advertisement before grabbing your paper manual is too long. The manuals have never been an issue. In fact, having a physical, rigorous checklist has been shown to improve the likely hood of a successful outcome.

It has to be physical for the checklist to work?

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

#102

Post by et2o »

iSnow wrote: post #100
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…

>Why exactly does this author think an airplane needs a lot of computing power? I think the way you criticize the article is about as faulty as the article itself. This piece is about detailing how the 737 is an outdated design that got patched and patched till it more or less broke. The processing power is just /one/ aspect and is given as a point of reference, like the 1968 photo. I am no expert in aviation, but I…

Thank you for taking the time to write this critique of the parent. You're totally correct.

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

#103

Post by et2o »

huffmsa wrote: post #68
dmix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The NYT fired basically their entire editorial staff in 2017. The accelerated degradation has been noticable.

This is a good and comprehensive article. You and the grandparent comment are focusing on one minor component and using it to raise FUD about the rest of the article and indeed the entire NYT now. It's a lazy form of debate. HN used to be better than this.

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

#104

Post by et2o »

myth2018 wrote: post #46

Mass media in general is stressing too much the fact that 737 MAX is allegedly based on dated designs. I think it's fair to say that MAX versions present some compromise solutions (like the now-infamous MCAS, which is there to compensate for the "unnatural" bigger engines). But I think that is not the main point. They would be good solutions it they worked as intended. There are some other more fundamental and more d…

They designed it precisely like this because it's a dated design. To use two sensors (or three) would have required new cockpit components and new pilot training, which is what they were trying to avoid by reusing the same Type certificate originally from 1968.

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

#105

Post by StreamBright »

andy_ppp wrote: post #83
StreamBright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there are a massive amount of developers out there who are at the same time avionics experts? I just don't see how being opensource would help. You wouldn't be able to even test these software projects because it requires and emulator or actual hardware to run on that you do not have. What would it chage if it was opensource?

I think the argument you're making is completely false. First Premise is that there re not many avionics expers - I agree so having more of those experts able to look at review and learn from different implementations would be a good thing. Second premise is that you need to be an avionics expert to review and improve avionics software, I'm not convinced, there are many clever people out there. Third premise you can'…

I see so basically it would mean no benefits at all. Thanks for confirming.

Now the other problem that I have this in this thread. The Boeing issue is not a software issue at all. Even if we chose the best case scenario for the software it would be still a physical design & lack of pilot education problem.

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

#106

Post by tyingq »

huffmsa wrote: post #70
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A paper manual is always there for you. Then have the paper manual as a choice and/or backup. If the programmers working on aircraft are so incompetent that they can't get a the digital manual correct, than they have no business programming any of the other multitude of systems that are critical to fly-by-wire systems.

And the time it takes to realize your iPad has run out of battery or you accidentally open an advertisement before grabbing your paper manual is too long. The manuals have never been an issue. In fact, having a physical, rigorous checklist has been shown to improve the likely hood of a successful outcome.

iPad (and others) based electronic flight bags are already in place on passenger airlines. Your points are valid, but the debate is pretty much over.

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

#107

Post by drinfinity »

StreamBright wrote: post #105
andy_ppp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument you're making is completely false. First Premise is that there re not many avionics expers - I agree so having more of those experts able to look at review and learn from different implementations would be a good thing. Second premise is that you need to be an avionics expert to review and improve avionics software, I'm not convinced, there are many clever people out there. Third premise you can'…

I see so basically it would mean no benefits at all. Thanks for confirming. Now the other problem that I have this in this thread. The Boeing issue is not a software issue at all. Even if we chose the best case scenario for the software it would be still a physical design & lack of pilot education problem.

Airbus agrees Boeing should make its software opensource.

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

#108

Post by kakwa_ »

jschwartzi wrote: post #54
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…

Yes, the 486 or 586 are far more powerful processors than what you would actually need for everything but the cockpit UI. You could probably get away with a Z80 or something similar. The flight control computers in our space probes frequently have a similar level of functionality simply because it's more than enough. The only thing a more modern processor buys you is more memory, a faster tick rate for your RTOS, pot…

IIRC, the Airbus A320 uses several older CPUs like that, but also Motorola 68k CPUs (sometimes as a mean to have 2 functionally identical systems with pieces from different manufacturers and different implementations).

I would not be surprised if they still use 68k in the A320 NEO.

Between specification, implementation, validation and testing, the cycles in the aircraft industry can be quite long. 5 to 10 years usually. And it's also quite costly to validate a brand new system. That being said, given the safety requirement, it's for the better.

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

#109

Post by huffmsa »

et2o wrote: post #103
huffmsa wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT fired basically their entire editorial staff in 2017. The accelerated degradation has been noticable.

This is a good and comprehensive article. You and the grandparent comment are focusing on one minor component and using it to raise FUD about the rest of the article and indeed the entire NYT now. It's a lazy form of debate. HN used to be better than this.

I'm just providing facts. NYT fired a ton of editors, because they're expensive.[1]

They've also hired younger, cheaper writers.

As a result, the overall quality of the product has fallen, noticeable.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-t...

Post reply on HN