Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours • Hacker News Board

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#31

Post by danso » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:01 PM UTC

> The remedy for the A350-941 problem is straightforward according to the AD: install Airbus software updates for a permanent cure, or switch the aeroplane off and on again.

The subhed and the above graf say it's as straightforward to fix as installing Airbus software patches. But I assume this process is not as streamlined or convenient as iOS or Tesla OTA auto-updates. Anyone have insight to what installing patches on an airliner entails? I'm assuming it involves more downtime than powering down and restarting, if that's the current status quo.

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#32

Post by perlgeek » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #8

mangatmodi wrote: post #7

It is a very well know issue with every plane. Sometimes there are no solutions to a problem. You need these hacky solutions. The title is clearly catchy with everything that is going on with Boeing. But the point is, this reboot process is very well managed and known. So I won't call it scary.

I agree it's not scary and it's a good, known workaround. But it's software - we shouldn't say "there are no solutions". The solution is: fix this problem and add long runtime testing to the qa process. Especially if this is a known issue in other planes.

But according to the article, the bug has been fixed:

> The remedy for the A350-941 problem is straightforward according to the AD: install Airbus software updates for a permanent cure, or switch the aeroplane off and on again.

Maybe the update process isn't streamlined enough, or maybe there are other reasons not to upgrade, but in general, the airlines need to install the updates.

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#33

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

fluffything wrote: post #24

Software has a bug. Patch with a fix is released. Some users don't want to update for reasons and demand a workaround. The workaround sucks. How is this news?

The workaround doesn’t even suck, IMO.

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#34

Post by Zigurd » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

StreamBright wrote: post #6

Software engineering needs some significant improvements if we would like to keep using critical systems like aircrafts. It is getting to the point where serious software problems are impacting everyday life, not in a good sense.

That's a very broad statement. Focusing on specifics would be more helpful. For example, 149 hours isn't that long, especially for aircraft which have high duty cycle percentages. Why didn't the original test plan estimate how long it would take to find a certain percentage of [insert-bug-type-here], and find this issue? Would re-testing the code-base pro-actively find related latent issues?

But none of these kinds of observations are fundamental. There's no general conclusion regarding software engineering to be drawn.

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#35

Post by hoseja » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

That is 2^29 milliseconds. I dread to imagine the reasons leading to 28-bit millisecond time in an airplane.

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#36

Post by cm2187 » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #20

BrentOzar wrote: post #11

I think the comments here say more about us as an audience than they do about the Airbus. We're totally accustomed to hardware & software problems whose solution is, "just restart it," and we don't even find it all that disturbing - mostly just humorous. Our standards as developers & testers have gotten pretty low. I think the only way you'd see outrage here at HN is if the restart involved a real physical crash (as…

That's not necessarily a "low" standard. It's that the value of preventing a reboot every few days is much lower than other things we could spend our time on. Mandatory oftware perfection would be a huge drag on valuable new features.

Especially when you compare that to all the other maintenance that has to happen routinely on a plane for it to remain safe. Not a reason to not fix it though.

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#37

Post by StreamBright » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

greatpatton wrote: post #14

StreamBright wrote: post #6

Software engineering needs some significant improvements if we would like to keep using critical systems like aircrafts. It is getting to the point where serious software problems are impacting everyday life, not in a good sense.

Airbus is already using formal method for creation and validation of the code which are the ultimate version of testing.

Whatever method prevents buffer overflows.

AFAIK that is what happens here.

"The CPIOM is effectively a mini computer; in the A350 CPIOMs run discrete avionics "applications", in the sense of apps. CRDCs themselves do not host or run applications, suggesting that the failure condition detailed in the EASA AD may mean loss of a particular app on a CPIOM after a buffer overflow."

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#38

Post by briandear » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

BrentOzar wrote: post #11

I think the comments here say more about us as an audience than they do about the Airbus. We're totally accustomed to hardware & software problems whose solution is, "just restart it," and we don't even find it all that disturbing - mostly just humorous. Our standards as developers & testers have gotten pretty low. I think the only way you'd see outrage here at HN is if the restart involved a real physical crash (as…

> I think the only way you'd see outrage here at HN is if the restart involved a real physical crash

Or if it were an American company. There wasn’t any outrage when Germanwings’s lack of attention to their suicidal pilot’s mental health even though there were significant warning signs before he crashed a plane into the Alps. Little outrage over Malaysian Air despite their pilot practicing his suicidal crash in the simulator months before. But for an American company, out come the pitchforks.

The fact that Airbus hasn’t yet had a 350 crash is just happy luck, but the issues are still just as outrage worthy. Where is the rage against the EASA that allowed such a glitch to pass certification? Where are the complaints against EASA outsourcing certification tasks[1] as the FAA was criticized about?

If this were an American company, you’d see plenty of outrage here and it would be related to some flavor of the United States not being leftist enough. (i.e. having lower regulatory strictness, lower taxes and thus an “undersized” bureaucracy. There is an undeniable and distinct anti-American sentiment on HN when it comes to issues like this. From everything such as climate, economic policies, consumer issues, defense, and even food and housing choices of Americans, the US always seems to be held in a persistant, low-level contempt, while almost anything European or Japanese gets a positive initial reaction. This might be a controversial opinion around here, but it’s my perception after being around the HN community for almost 7 years and watching it change from a place that celebrates entrepreneurship, business and capitalism to little more than a better moderated subreddit for those that view American startups and technology with derision and contempt. Actual Marxism ideas get upvoted and free market ideas get downvoted. Which is ironic because Marxism didn’t create anything that keeps many of us highly compensated while working on cool technology. This forum itself wouldn’t even exist were it not for a venture capital firm. Most of the tech stack we all use comes from entrepreneurship and innovation from the free market.

Since Airbus is essentially a state-owned enterprise in the practical sense, of course it isn’t going to result in any outrage — or at least not more than one of those dirty, evil, profit-oriented American corporations.

[1] https://etendering.ted.europa.eu//cft/cft-display.html?cftId...

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#39

Post by StreamBright » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

tjr wrote: post #15

StreamBright wrote: post #6

Software engineering needs some significant improvements if we would like to keep using critical systems like aircrafts. It is getting to the point where serious software problems are impacting everyday life, not in a good sense.

What kind of improvements do you have in mind? Any specific examples?

Having systems that are not prone to buffer overflows? Having workarounds? Not sure. As far as specific examples:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091...

Re: Some models of Airbus A350 airliners need to be hard-rebooted after 149 hours

#40

Post by briandear » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #9

So this is already fixed: "The remedy for the A350-941 problem is straightforward according to the AD: install Airbus software updates for a permanent cure ..." And it has the known workaround. So this has almost nothing to do with Airbus at this point, the directive and the "sighs" uttered by the EU aviation agency are directed at the airlines that won't install the update. But good distraction from Boeing's woes as…

> So this has almost nothing to do with Airbus at this point, the directive and the "sighs" uttered by the EU aviation agency are directed at the airlines that won't install the update.

Why won’t EASA ground the un-updated airplanes?