4 ms·

> The "1990s Computing Power" comment is ignorantly harsh. I don't think so. You build a plane that's expected to run for decades -- if you put a 2010 compute

> The "1990s Computing Power" comment is ignorantly harsh. I don't think so. You build a plane that's expected to run for decades -- if you put a 2010 computer in there now, it'll be 20 years old in 2030. That 1990's computer was put there in the 90's, does that really make it more reliable?

pinewurst 8y ago
That so-called 1990s computer is probably a year old, embedded in a Honeywell module that’ll be available new for the next 15 years.
- wvenable 8y ago
  Of course. It's not literally a 1990's computer. But the idea that it's just somehow superior because the design is 3 decades old doesn't make any sense. 30 years ago it would have been new technology; so where was that same argument then?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bronson 8y ago
    It's had 3 decades of experience and bugfixes.
    - wvenable 8y ago
      If new developing is happening, as it was in this case, that doesn't really matter. This problem was amplified by maintaining old technology, not mitigated by it.
      - pinewurst 8y ago
        I don’t agree. The failure(s) weren’t in the old stuff, they were in the poor and ultimately unsafe cover-up (for lack of a better word) of the new. The CG change from the new engines specifically, being masked by new software, MCAS. The only old part culpable is the legacy 737 limit of 2 AoA sensors (with only 1 used for MCAS input (a new thing)).
        wvenable 8y ago
        If they had used the new technology available in other jets -- the pilots wouldn't have been sifting through paper manuals to find the problem. The would have an actual display. And if they weren't trying so hard to purposely avoid modernizing the cockpit, the issue would have been avoided altogether.
        bronson 8y ago
        The problem was the MCAS. That's new technology.
elteto 8y ago
The amount of processing that those computers do won’t increase over time, it stays the same. So why use something you won’t need? Also, planes are extremely expensive so they don’t get thrown away, they get constant upgrades. The U2 spy plane is a good example: a 1950/60s airframe running with more modern instruments. So if the need arise they will upgrade those CPUs on the 737s.
- wvenable 8y ago
  > So why use something you won’t need? The whole point of this issue that the technology and cockpit design is purposely 30 years old to prevent the need for re-certification not for safety issues. I'm not suggesting technology be used that isn't needed; I'm just suggesting using the technology to make air travel safer and easier for pilots.
- hyeonwho4 8y ago
  Sometimes even the instruments are maintained. I know a consultant whose job is to repair bespoke factory and laboratory microcontrollers in situ. When we hired him he spent two weeks covering our lab in blueprints, two weeks troubleshooting, and one week programming. 25K to fix the device, but much cheaper than a new one.

pinewurst 8y ago

That so-called 1990s computer is probably a year old, embedded in a Honeywell module that’ll be available new for the next 15 years.

wvenable 8y ago
Of course. It's not literally a 1990's computer. But the idea that it's just somehow superior because the design is 3 decades old doesn't make any sense. 30 years ago it would have been new technology; so where was that same argument then?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bronson 8y ago
  It's had 3 decades of experience and bugfixes.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    If new developing is happening, as it was in this case, that doesn't really matter. This problem was amplified by maintaining old technology, not mitigated by it.
    - pinewurst 8y ago
      I don’t agree. The failure(s) weren’t in the old stuff, they were in the poor and ultimately unsafe cover-up (for lack of a better word) of the new. The CG change from the new engines specifically, being masked by new software, MCAS. The only old part culpable is the legacy 737 limit of 2 AoA sensors (with only 1 used for MCAS input (a new thing)).
      - wvenable 8y ago
        If they had used the new technology available in other jets -- the pilots wouldn't have been sifting through paper manuals to find the problem. The would have an actual display. And if they weren't trying so hard to purposely avoid modernizing the cockpit, the issue would have been avoided altogether.
        bronson 8y ago
        The problem was the MCAS. That's new technology.

elteto 8y ago

The amount of processing that those computers do won’t increase over time, it stays the same. So why use something you won’t need? Also, planes are extremely expensive so they don’t get thrown away, they get constant upgrades. The U2 spy plane is a good example: a 1950/60s airframe running with more modern instruments. So if the need arise they will upgrade those CPUs on the 737s.

wvenable 8y ago
> So why use something you won’t need? The whole point of this issue that the technology and cockpit design is purposely 30 years old to prevent the need for re-certification not for safety issues. I'm not suggesting technology be used that isn't needed; I'm just suggesting using the technology to make air travel safer and easier for pilots.
hyeonwho4 8y ago
Sometimes even the instruments are maintained. I know a consultant whose job is to repair bespoke factory and laboratory microcontrollers in situ. When we hired him he spent two weeks covering our lab in blueprints, two weeks troubleshooting, and one week programming. 25K to fix the device, but much cheaper than a new one.