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

Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

moonofalabama.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#31

Post by varjag »

pratap103 wrote: post #23
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, Airbus has stockpiled huge amounts of legacy CPUs in climate controlled conditions. Boeing must have done the same

Was really curious as to what Airbus was using, thanks for this! Why not just use the latest CPUs though? I can't imagine the cost would be relatively significant in the greater scheme of things. Are the legacy CPU's really better for this use-case?

The redesign and compliance costs are enormous. That said, these costs are something Boeing could afford many times over.

Manpower could also be a bottleneck. Design talent is not what it used to be in the first world after much of production moved overseas.

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#32

Post by raxxorrax »

dba7dba wrote: post #10

From the article ----------- Boeing says that it can again fix the software to avoid the problem the FAA just found. It is doubtful that this will be possible. The software load is already right at the border, if not above the physical capabilities of the current flight control computers. The optimization potential of the software is likely minimal. MCAS was a band aid. Due to the new engine position the 737 MAX vers…

I know military jets to have unstable flight characteristics to get advantages in maneuverability that need an operating flight computer.

But I have problems accepting this fact for civilian planes, especially if the manufacturer just wanted to save development costs. Because you could simply design a more stable plane. Not trivial, but also not impossible.

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#33

Post by laythea »

0815test wrote: post #20
bcaa7f3a8bbc wrote: post #3

Simple question: Why doesn't Boeing upgrade to i386 for their new planes? I heard it's available for aerospace applications.

Forget about upgrading - they could just press the Turbo button on that 286. That's what it's there for!

That's a great comment!

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#34

Post by varjag »

raxxorrax wrote: post #32
dba7dba wrote: post #10

From the article ----------- Boeing says that it can again fix the software to avoid the problem the FAA just found. It is doubtful that this will be possible. The software load is already right at the border, if not above the physical capabilities of the current flight control computers. The optimization potential of the software is likely minimal. MCAS was a band aid. Due to the new engine position the 737 MAX vers…

I know military jets to have unstable flight characteristics to get advantages in maneuverability that need an operating flight computer. But I have problems accepting this fact for civilian planes, especially if the manufacturer just wanted to save development costs. Because you could simply design a more stable plane. Not trivial, but also not impossible.

Yep. Military jets also crash a lot.

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#35

Post by usrusr »

kuzehanka wrote: post #27
tanakachen wrote: post #17

As has been discussed on HN, this whole 737 MAX flaw is not a software problem. Boeing wants you to believe it is. The flaw is actually a physical design problem of the aircraft. Even if the software were to work perfectly, the plane is still flawed. The only real fix is not to fly the 737 MAX.

This is entirely false. Stop spreading disinformation. Myth: the 737 MAX 8 is not inherently stable, has relaxed stability, etc. Fact: it's very much inherently stable. Myth: the 737 MAX 8 is easier to stall than other planes. Fact: no it isn't. The pitch-up characteristic of the MAX 8 is less strong than of e.g. the 757 and that plane flies just fine. The actual problem with the MAX 8 is that Boeing added MCAS to al…

> I am continuously astounded that even on HN people are focusing on news cycle bullshit about inherent instability instead of the actual issues with Boeing/FAA that caused this situation.

How is it surprising that people are sceptical of claimed native flight characteristics after the way Boeing has handled communications after the crashes? I don't think that there are any independent facts around, even airline pilots who had been flying MAX from day one would not have much (if any) experience at the edges of the flight envelope. One data point we do know is that some people at Boeing were apparently very concerned about MCAS ever being off.

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#36

Post by neuronic »

kuzehanka wrote: post #27
tanakachen wrote: post #17

As has been discussed on HN, this whole 737 MAX flaw is not a software problem. Boeing wants you to believe it is. The flaw is actually a physical design problem of the aircraft. Even if the software were to work perfectly, the plane is still flawed. The only real fix is not to fly the 737 MAX.

This is entirely false. Stop spreading disinformation. Myth: the 737 MAX 8 is not inherently stable, has relaxed stability, etc. Fact: it's very much inherently stable. Myth: the 737 MAX 8 is easier to stall than other planes. Fact: no it isn't. The pitch-up characteristic of the MAX 8 is less strong than of e.g. the 757 and that plane flies just fine. The actual problem with the MAX 8 is that Boeing added MCAS to al…

If a software system has to be designed to make up for aircraft design problems, namely the too large engines that break the limits for ground clearance in the normal 737NG config, then the mentioned issues are not "entirely false" and "disinformation".

Boeing needed to counter the A320neo and they needed to take shortcuts that ended up killing people. I wouldn't be surprised if this were management failure and the actual engineers at Boeing have always been throwing around copious WTFs when building the 737 MAX 8.

"Hey engineers, improve the 737 to be X% more fuel efficient and make sure it doesn't need to be reclassified as new type. Have fun!"

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#37

Post by klingonopera »

mbar84 wrote: post #8
zxcb1 wrote: post #2

Could this be considered unacknowledged technical debt?

Maybe we're just ignorant of the available chips for this use case. Otherwise just reads like they've been kicking the can of system redesign/refactoring down the road for decades. It appears that short term thinking abounds in every industry.

I think if Boeing (or Airbus - what do they use? Faster chips or better algorithms or ...?) really wanted that extra processing power, they would've pushed to get the next chip in line to be certified for aerospace applications.

The fact that they neglected to do this... I don't know, public perception and Boeing's own representation seemed to paint a picture of "computer" and "chip"-aversion up to the point when they no longer could ignore the issue by designing a plane that needed to have it in order to be certified they way they wanted it to. And by then it was of course already way too late to certify another chip...

Then again, on the other hand: Boeing designs a lot of military planes, too, aren't these almost always exclusively fly-by-wire? Shouldn't they have the know-how in these things as well? Or is there a no information-exchange policy in effect between their military and civilian teams?

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#38

Post by fit2rule »

mbar84 wrote: post #8
zxcb1 wrote: post #2

Could this be considered unacknowledged technical debt?

Maybe we're just ignorant of the available chips for this use case. Otherwise just reads like they've been kicking the can of system redesign/refactoring down the road for decades. It appears that short term thinking abounds in every industry.

I'm a developer with extensive experience in SIL-4 programming, specifically for life-critical systems (rail transport). I've built software subsystems that are used in 38 countries around the world to keep the trains safe.

The issue is the extensive costs of changing from one CPU type to another. Certification for these systems is a multi-year process and can cost millions of dollars even before any kind of success is guaranteed.

There are still very old CPU's out there, functioning just fine for decades. Safety programming doesn't just swap out parts like consumer computing does - it takes a lot of work to change CPU's.

I don't think Boeing has been kicking the can down the road on the upgrade. I do think they've been trying to cut costs and exploit their customers by offering extra safety features as upgrades, rather than making them standard. Its interesting to note that some of their customers don't require such stringent safety features in the regions they operate - i.e. this is as much of a legislative issue as anything else. It could very well be that Ethiopia doesn't have the same safety requirements encoded in its laws governing flight as France does, so Boeing offers different features not just according to budget but also legislation - although we are sure to see that change rapidly now.

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#39

Post by rbanffy »

neuronic wrote: post #36
kuzehanka wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is entirely false. Stop spreading disinformation. Myth: the 737 MAX 8 is not inherently stable, has relaxed stability, etc. Fact: it's very much inherently stable. Myth: the 737 MAX 8 is easier to stall than other planes. Fact: no it isn't. The pitch-up characteristic of the MAX 8 is less strong than of e.g. the 757 and that plane flies just fine. The actual problem with the MAX 8 is that Boeing added MCAS to al…

If a software system has to be designed to make up for aircraft design problems, namely the too large engines that break the limits for ground clearance in the normal 737NG config, then the mentioned issues are not "entirely false" and "disinformation". Boeing needed to counter the A320neo and they needed to take shortcuts that ended up killing people. I wouldn't be surprised if this were management failure and the a…

> they needed to take shortcuts that ended up killing people.

No. They chose to take shortcuts.

Re: Boeing's software fix for the 737 Max overwhelms the plane's computer

#40

Post by jiberwarrior »

pratap103 wrote: post #23
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, Airbus has stockpiled huge amounts of legacy CPUs in climate controlled conditions. Boeing must have done the same

Was really curious as to what Airbus was using, thanks for this! Why not just use the latest CPUs though? I can't imagine the cost would be relatively significant in the greater scheme of things. Are the legacy CPU's really better for this use-case?

Probably minuscule when stacked next to the costs of grounding all 737MAXs for half a year and the negative publicity of multiple planes catastrophically nosediving out of the sky
Post reply on HN