6 ms·

Haha, that's surprising though, since these are important systems, if there is an update, doesn't it mean something really needs to fixed, i.e, gps rollover? An

• kijin 8y ago
  We're talking about the same manufacturer that's responsible for the 737 MAX fiasco. I'm not sure how much trust I would want to place in their software.
  • icebraining 8y ago
    You're putting trust in their software whether you upgrade it or not.
    • sslayer 8y ago
      You forget that Boeing doesn't own these planes. These aren't Tesla's. We are currently in an era were it seems to be expected that the manufacturer automatically update their software without the end user intervention, ie Tesla, Windows, Apple, etc... Thats not how it was done in the past, particularly when the bandwidth didn't exist.
      • icebraining 8y ago
        I don't see how this changes what I wrote.
  • throw0101a 8y ago
    Not necessarily. Different components could be made different companies. While flight controls and handling fly-by-wire could have been Boeing, the FMS could be (e.g.) Honeywell, GE. The FMS, AFCS ("autopilot"), and (primary) FCS are three distinct systems per ATA iSpec 2200: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA_Spec_100/iSpec_2200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA_Spec_100/iSpec_2200 Things can be more blurred with fly-by-wire, but can still be conceptually separate.
• knute 8y ago
  Sometimes, perversely, important systems are the _least_ likely to be updated. Operators require extensive testing before widespread application of the updates, which takes time.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]