5 ms·

How many easter eggs will emerge from Boeing. In last 2 months, we had similar incidents from Boeing where an undocumented software safety kicked in and causing

How many easter eggs will emerge from Boeing. In last 2 months, we had similar incidents from Boeing where an undocumented software safety kicked in and causing trouble for everyone

aaronbrethorst 8y ago
and causing trouble for everyone You mean killed 189 people, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610
- danielvf 8y ago
  That aircraft was being knowingly flown with [edit: a broken sensor]. It was unsafe on takeoff. The final problem that brought the aircraft down - the trim run-away - happens all the time in airliners you've flown in. When the run-away starts, the pilot is supposed to flip two switches to disable the trim system motors. In the Lion Air crash, it is indeed believed that a software bug from the misbehaving sensors started the run-away, but again, handling trim run-aways are something that pilots are supposed to train for and deal with. 737's are even safer here than many airliners, because after you disable the electric trim motors, you have manual wheels in the cockpit that you can rotate to set the trim back to what it should be. Some other airliners in common use don't have these manual trim controls - you have to disable a trim run-away in time, or it's game over.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > That aircraft was knowingly flown with multiple broken sensors. It was unsafe on takeoff. You'll need to cite that, since it contrary to any information I can find on the Lion Air accident e.g.: > The chief executive officer of Lion Air, Edward Sirait, said the aircraft had a "technical issue" on Sunday night, but this had been addressed in accordance with maintenance manuals issued by the manufacturer. Engineers had declared that the aircraft was ready for takeoff on the morning of the accident Your claim that it was "unsafe to takeoff" and had "multiple broken sensors" is pretty remarkable. So I'll definitely need to see a source backing up such remarkable claims.
    - teraflop 8y ago
      From the same Wikipedia article that was just linked: > "The aircraft suffered an airspeed indicator problem for its last four flights, including the flight to Denpasar. Thinking that it would fix the problem, the engineers in Bali then replaced one of the aircraft's AoA sensors, but the problem persisted on the penultimate flight [...] [the crew] recorded a twenty-degree difference between the readings of the left AoA sensor and the right sensor." > "On 28 November, Indonesia investigators said the Lion Air jet was not airworthy on flight before crash."
      - Someone1234 8y ago
        Those are prior flights. The aircraft was fully repaired: > The chief executive officer of Lion Air, Edward Sirait, said the aircraft had a "technical issue" on Sunday night, but this had been addressed in accordance with maintenance manuals issued by the manufacturer. Engineers had declared that the aircraft was ready for takeoff on the morning of the accident So you still haven't supported your extraordinary claim that the aircraft was: > unsafe on takeoff. In fact we know it was safe on takeoff.
        laken 8y ago
        Quoting from the same comment you just replied to: > "On 28 November, Indonesia investigators said the Lion Air jet was not airworthy on flight before crash." "not airworthy" means that it was unsafe.
        detaro 8y ago
        on flight before the crash. After which it was repaired, and sent on the fatal flight.
        DuskStar 8y ago
        It was also repaired before the previous flight. It goes like this: several flights report problem maintenance "fixes" the problem next flight reports that another, worse problem has appeared - bad enough that regulators have now said that the plane was "not airworthy" during this flight maintenance "fixes" the problem final flight impacts ocean at high speed Your assertion is that since maintenance cleared the plane after the second fix, the plane must have been fine. To that, I point to the previous time maintenance cleared the plane, when it was demonstrably not fine.
  - t0mas88 8y ago
    > the trim run-away - happens all the time in airliners you've flown in. It doesn't. A trim run-away is a very very serious incident for any pilot. There are procedures to deal with it, and we check trim override in pre-flight checks, but it's absolutely not an everyday thing. > 737's are even safer here than many airliners, because after you disable the electric trim motors, you have manual wheels in the cockpit that you can rotate to set the trim back to what it should be. Some other airliners in common use don't have these manual trim controls - you have to disable a trim run-away in time, or it's game over. This is not true at all either. There are no planes with a single electric trim that you cannot override. The FAA and EASA would refuse to certify those.
    - danielvf 8y ago
      Embraer 190? There are no non-electrical trim controls in the cockpit. http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Embraer_190-Flight_Controls.pdf http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Embraer_190-Flight_Controls... Whereas a 737 has physical cables connected from wheels in the cockpit to the stabilizer jackscrew.
      - t0mas88 8y ago
        I've never flown an E190, but if you Google the basic systems description you'll find that it has two sets of trim controls and on top of that separate override controls. Both circuits are electric, but they are separate systems on separate power busses to ensure you always have control.
        danielvf 8y ago
        Thanks!
- Mithorium 8y ago
  To save people the reading, the safety feature triggered was an automatic dive maneuver initiated by the flight computer as a result of an incorrect angle-of-attack sensor reading causing the plane to believe it was in a stall, when it actually wasn't I didn't look into it any further, but based on that alone I would agree that this seems like a shitty feature, perhaps a loud alarm or other warning would be more appropriate than putting the plane in a dive without human intervention
  - danielvf 8y ago
    The 737 is a short and stubby airliner with its center of thrust far below the rest of the aircraft. The 737MAX version added upgraded, powerful engines. It is theoretically possible for the engines to flip the aircraft up and out of control if power is applied too quickly in certain fight situations.
  - IshKebab 8y ago
    A big issue with that flash was that there was a way to disable the feature, but Boeing didn't tell anyone about it and it wasn't documented anywhere.
    - danielvf 8y ago
      You can still disable the stabilizer trim from switches in the cockpit, though. This was in the checklists that the pilots had, and done by other pilots in that aircraft in the days before the accident.
      - DuskStar 8y ago
        Yeah, it's hard to make the argument that a recovery procedure is so incredibly difficult and obscure when several previous flights of that plane experienced the same issue and successfully followed that procedure... And apparently without considering it extremely outside of the norm.
carimura 8y ago
brutal comment.
mtgx 8y ago
Probably more to come for the foreseeable future: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/29/cyber-attack-concerns-boeing-chip https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/29/cyber-att...
exabrial 8y ago
It's not just Boeing unfortunately. Every software driven aircraft seems to suffer from these bugs. The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  > The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land. From what I remember, the first time 4 USAF F22 were flying across international date line to deploy to Hawaii(?), they had software related issues. As they flew across the international date line (first time in a real flight), all computers on the jets crashed, including navigation/etc. Luckily they were flying in close formation with a tanker, signaled with flashlights, and were able to follow the tanker back to another base safely. I believe USAF requires a multi jet (usually tanker) to accompany small jets when they are flying across the ocean.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    You're correct, it was the F22, not the F35.
  - goodcanadian 8y ago
    Deploying to Guam. Hawaii is on the same side of the dateline as the continental United States. Also, as I recall, they simply rebooted the computers.

How many easter eggs will emerge from Boeing. In last 2 months, we had similar incidents from Boeing where an undocumented software safety kicked in and causing trouble for everyone

aaronbrethorst 8y ago

and causing trouble for everyone You mean killed 189 people, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610

danielvf 8y ago
That aircraft was being knowingly flown with [edit: a broken sensor]. It was unsafe on takeoff. The final problem that brought the aircraft down - the trim run-away - happens all the time in airliners you've flown in. When the run-away starts, the pilot is supposed to flip two switches to disable the trim system motors. In the Lion Air crash, it is indeed believed that a software bug from the misbehaving sensors started the run-away, but again, handling trim run-aways are something that pilots are supposed to train for and deal with. 737's are even safer here than many airliners, because after you disable the electric trim motors, you have manual wheels in the cockpit that you can rotate to set the trim back to what it should be. Some other airliners in common use don't have these manual trim controls - you have to disable a trim run-away in time, or it's game over.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > That aircraft was knowingly flown with multiple broken sensors. It was unsafe on takeoff. You'll need to cite that, since it contrary to any information I can find on the Lion Air accident e.g.: > The chief executive officer of Lion Air, Edward Sirait, said the aircraft had a "technical issue" on Sunday night, but this had been addressed in accordance with maintenance manuals issued by the manufacturer. Engineers had declared that the aircraft was ready for takeoff on the morning of the accident Your claim that it was "unsafe to takeoff" and had "multiple broken sensors" is pretty remarkable. So I'll definitely need to see a source backing up such remarkable claims.
  - teraflop 8y ago
    From the same Wikipedia article that was just linked: > "The aircraft suffered an airspeed indicator problem for its last four flights, including the flight to Denpasar. Thinking that it would fix the problem, the engineers in Bali then replaced one of the aircraft's AoA sensors, but the problem persisted on the penultimate flight [...] [the crew] recorded a twenty-degree difference between the readings of the left AoA sensor and the right sensor." > "On 28 November, Indonesia investigators said the Lion Air jet was not airworthy on flight before crash."
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Those are prior flights. The aircraft was fully repaired: > The chief executive officer of Lion Air, Edward Sirait, said the aircraft had a "technical issue" on Sunday night, but this had been addressed in accordance with maintenance manuals issued by the manufacturer. Engineers had declared that the aircraft was ready for takeoff on the morning of the accident So you still haven't supported your extraordinary claim that the aircraft was: > unsafe on takeoff. In fact we know it was safe on takeoff.
      - laken 8y ago
        Quoting from the same comment you just replied to: > "On 28 November, Indonesia investigators said the Lion Air jet was not airworthy on flight before crash." "not airworthy" means that it was unsafe.
        detaro 8y ago
        on flight before the crash. After which it was repaired, and sent on the fatal flight.
        DuskStar 8y ago
        It was also repaired before the previous flight. It goes like this: several flights report problem maintenance "fixes" the problem next flight reports that another, worse problem has appeared - bad enough that regulators have now said that the plane was "not airworthy" during this flight maintenance "fixes" the problem final flight impacts ocean at high speed Your assertion is that since maintenance cleared the plane after the second fix, the plane must have been fine. To that, I point to the previous time maintenance cleared the plane, when it was demonstrably not fine.
- t0mas88 8y ago
  > the trim run-away - happens all the time in airliners you've flown in. It doesn't. A trim run-away is a very very serious incident for any pilot. There are procedures to deal with it, and we check trim override in pre-flight checks, but it's absolutely not an everyday thing. > 737's are even safer here than many airliners, because after you disable the electric trim motors, you have manual wheels in the cockpit that you can rotate to set the trim back to what it should be. Some other airliners in common use don't have these manual trim controls - you have to disable a trim run-away in time, or it's game over. This is not true at all either. There are no planes with a single electric trim that you cannot override. The FAA and EASA would refuse to certify those.
  - danielvf 8y ago
    Embraer 190? There are no non-electrical trim controls in the cockpit. http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Embraer_190-Flight_Controls.pdf http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Embraer_190-Flight_Controls... Whereas a 737 has physical cables connected from wheels in the cockpit to the stabilizer jackscrew.
    - t0mas88 8y ago
      I've never flown an E190, but if you Google the basic systems description you'll find that it has two sets of trim controls and on top of that separate override controls. Both circuits are electric, but they are separate systems on separate power busses to ensure you always have control.
      - danielvf 8y ago
        Thanks!
Mithorium 8y ago
To save people the reading, the safety feature triggered was an automatic dive maneuver initiated by the flight computer as a result of an incorrect angle-of-attack sensor reading causing the plane to believe it was in a stall, when it actually wasn't I didn't look into it any further, but based on that alone I would agree that this seems like a shitty feature, perhaps a loud alarm or other warning would be more appropriate than putting the plane in a dive without human intervention
- danielvf 8y ago
  The 737 is a short and stubby airliner with its center of thrust far below the rest of the aircraft. The 737MAX version added upgraded, powerful engines. It is theoretically possible for the engines to flip the aircraft up and out of control if power is applied too quickly in certain fight situations.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  A big issue with that flash was that there was a way to disable the feature, but Boeing didn't tell anyone about it and it wasn't documented anywhere.
  - danielvf 8y ago
    You can still disable the stabilizer trim from switches in the cockpit, though. This was in the checklists that the pilots had, and done by other pilots in that aircraft in the days before the accident.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      Yeah, it's hard to make the argument that a recovery procedure is so incredibly difficult and obscure when several previous flights of that plane experienced the same issue and successfully followed that procedure... And apparently without considering it extremely outside of the norm.

carimura 8y ago

brutal comment.

mtgx 8y ago

Probably more to come for the foreseeable future: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/29/cyber-attack-concerns-boeing-chip https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/29/cyber-att...

exabrial 8y ago

It's not just Boeing unfortunately. Every software driven aircraft seems to suffer from these bugs. The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land.

dba7dba 8y ago
> The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land. From what I remember, the first time 4 USAF F22 were flying across international date line to deploy to Hawaii(?), they had software related issues. As they flew across the international date line (first time in a real flight), all computers on the jets crashed, including navigation/etc. Luckily they were flying in close formation with a tanker, signaled with flashlights, and were able to follow the tanker back to another base safely. I believe USAF requires a multi jet (usually tanker) to accompany small jets when they are flying across the ocean.
- exabrial 8y ago
  You're correct, it was the F22, not the F35.
- goodcanadian 8y ago
  Deploying to Guam. Hawaii is on the same side of the dateline as the continental United States. Also, as I recall, they simply rebooted the computers.