4 ms·

Does anyone here know how updates like this are delivered? Sadly the article doesn't answer this question. I suppose it's not as simple as downloading it over 4

by _1tan 8y ago

Does anyone here know how updates like this are delivered? Sadly the article doesn't answer this question. I suppose it's not as simple as downloading it over 4G or something like that.

gonesilent 8y ago
Techs will have to visit each aircraft. It not 100% software fix. Warning light will be added also for those that did not order the HUD.
- AnssiH 8y ago
  I was under the impression that the AoA disagree "light" is an on-screen item: http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737max/updates/AOA_VaneIndicator_AoA_Disagree_lg.jpg http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737m... Or does Boeing sell MAXes without that screen altogether? The Boeing update page (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-up...) says it is the "baseline primary flight display" , so sounds like it would be included in all MAXes already, so no physical change may be necessary.
  - zuppy 8y ago
    the physical light is a paid add-on. they’re adding it now through software for everyone.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Aren’t they also retrofitting a second AoA sensor to those planes that didn’t have that option?
    - erentz 8y ago
      So from what I’ve read (happy to be corrected) the very odd thing here is apparently all of the 737 MAXs do always have two sensors installed. This was purely a software difference as to whether the AoA disagree option was software enable. This feature cost more money but it seems it exists entirely in software. The indicator is even just drawn on the LCD displays, it’s not a special light on a panel. This blows my mind and reeks like other product management decisions I’ve faced in my particular industry where someone said “make that a feature we can enable so we can charge for it”. And they did charge more for it. Now everyone will get it free. Edit: here’s a source for the claim that there’s always two physical AoA sensors installed anyway: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/61109 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/61109
      - mikeash 8y ago
        What the fuck!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vrutberg 8y ago
Not sure it should be that simple either. You would probably want someone with physical access to the aircraft to deliver upgrades in order to avoid someone tampering with it.
- crocal 8y ago
  It’s not that simple and indeed. See my response above.
_trampeltier 8y ago
A few years ago, we had to wait one and a half hour before takeoff in a 787. After that time they said "Sorry, the we needed a bit more time for the software update on the plane" over the speaker ...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- joncrane 8y ago
  I wonder if it was the uploading of mapping/route information and not an actual update to the systems running the plane.
  - _trampeltier 8y ago
    I think not just mapping information, the 787 had some really really bad bugs when he was new, like shutdown the whole plane (even in the middle of a flight) if you didn't reboot for a month and such.
    - crocal 8y ago
      Usually the safety requirement will mention a mandatory reboot period that will be somehow related to a power of 2... Damn integer counters...
crocal 8y ago
Yes. I deliver such software. The downloading can be done over a network, however there should always be another mechanism in place to ensure only an authorized version runs. For example the vital computer compares a coded key compiled in the executable code with one read from a physical dongle. If it does not match, the system refuses to start. The dongle must be replaced separately by the person installing the software. It’s just an example. There are plenty of variants possible. There are usually also check lists, where the running version is displayed and verified on a safety related display to confirm the upgrade succeeded.
- crocal 8y ago
  Ah and yes of course the software is checksumed and you must verify the sum to make sure you load what has been certified and not some random piece of $£%# pretending to be it.

by _1tan 8y ago

Does anyone here know how updates like this are delivered? Sadly the article doesn't answer this question. I suppose it's not as simple as downloading it over 4G or something like that.

gonesilent 8y ago

Techs will have to visit each aircraft. It not 100% software fix. Warning light will be added also for those that did not order the HUD.

AnssiH 8y ago
I was under the impression that the AoA disagree "light" is an on-screen item: http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737max/updates/AOA_VaneIndicator_AoA_Disagree_lg.jpg http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/737m... Or does Boeing sell MAXes without that screen altogether? The Boeing update page (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-up...) says it is the "baseline primary flight display" , so sounds like it would be included in all MAXes already, so no physical change may be necessary.
- zuppy 8y ago
  the physical light is a paid add-on. they’re adding it now through software for everyone.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Aren’t they also retrofitting a second AoA sensor to those planes that didn’t have that option?
  - erentz 8y ago
    So from what I’ve read (happy to be corrected) the very odd thing here is apparently all of the 737 MAXs do always have two sensors installed. This was purely a software difference as to whether the AoA disagree option was software enable. This feature cost more money but it seems it exists entirely in software. The indicator is even just drawn on the LCD displays, it’s not a special light on a panel. This blows my mind and reeks like other product management decisions I’ve faced in my particular industry where someone said “make that a feature we can enable so we can charge for it”. And they did charge more for it. Now everyone will get it free. Edit: here’s a source for the claim that there’s always two physical AoA sensors installed anyway: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/61109 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/61109
    - mikeash 8y ago
      What the fuck!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vrutberg 8y ago

Not sure it should be that simple either. You would probably want someone with physical access to the aircraft to deliver upgrades in order to avoid someone tampering with it.

crocal 8y ago
It’s not that simple and indeed. See my response above.

_trampeltier 8y ago

A few years ago, we had to wait one and a half hour before takeoff in a 787. After that time they said "Sorry, the we needed a bit more time for the software update on the plane" over the speaker ...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
joncrane 8y ago
I wonder if it was the uploading of mapping/route information and not an actual update to the systems running the plane.
- _trampeltier 8y ago
  I think not just mapping information, the 787 had some really really bad bugs when he was new, like shutdown the whole plane (even in the middle of a flight) if you didn't reboot for a month and such.
  - crocal 8y ago
    Usually the safety requirement will mention a mandatory reboot period that will be somehow related to a power of 2... Damn integer counters...

crocal 8y ago

Yes. I deliver such software. The downloading can be done over a network, however there should always be another mechanism in place to ensure only an authorized version runs. For example the vital computer compares a coded key compiled in the executable code with one read from a physical dongle. If it does not match, the system refuses to start. The dongle must be replaced separately by the person installing the software. It’s just an example. There are plenty of variants possible. There are usually also check lists, where the running version is displayed and verified on a safety related display to confirm the upgrade succeeded.

crocal 8y ago
Ah and yes of course the software is checksumed and you must verify the sum to make sure you load what has been certified and not some random piece of $£%# pretending to be it.