4 ms·

Could this be considered unacknowledged technical debt?

by zxcb1 7y ago

mbar84 7y ago
Maybe we're just ignorant of the available chips for this use case. Otherwise just reads like they've been kicking the can of system redesign/refactoring down the road for decades. It appears that short term thinking abounds in every industry.
- zxcb1 7y ago
  Something like that, thinking about it as a kind of senescence, arriving at a point where they realize that the system is depleted. It needs to be planned for.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  I think if Boeing (or Airbus - what do they use? Faster chips or better algorithms or ...?) really wanted that extra processing power, they would've pushed to get the next chip in line to be certified for aerospace applications. The fact that they neglected to do this... I don't know, public perception and Boeing's own representation seemed to paint a picture of "computer" and "chip"-aversion up to the point when they no longer could ignore the issue by designing a plane that needed to have it in order to be certified they way they wanted it to. And by then it was of course already way too late to certify another chip... Then again, on the other hand: Boeing designs a lot of military planes, too, aren't these almost always exclusively fly-by-wire? Shouldn't they have the know-how in these things as well? Or is there a no information-exchange policy in effect between their military and civilian teams?
- fit2rule 7y ago
  I'm a developer with extensive experience in SIL-4 programming, specifically for life-critical systems (rail transport). I've built software subsystems that are used in 38 countries around the world to keep the trains safe. The issue is the extensive costs of changing from one CPU type to another. Certification for these systems is a multi-year process and can cost millions of dollars even before any kind of success is guaranteed. There are still very old CPU's out there, functioning just fine for decades. Safety programming doesn't just swap out parts like consumer computing does - it takes a lot of work to change CPU's. I don't think Boeing has been kicking the can down the road on the upgrade. I do think they've been trying to cut costs and exploit their customers by offering extra safety features as upgrades, rather than making them standard. Its interesting to note that some of their customers don't require such stringent safety features in the regions they operate - i.e. this is as much of a legislative issue as anything else. It could very well be that Ethiopia doesn't have the same safety requirements encoded in its laws governing flight as France does, so Boeing offers different features not just according to budget but also legislation - although we are sure to see that change rapidly now.
rob74 7y ago
Definitely - it's important to keep in mind that from an engineering perspective, the 737 has probably already reached EOL, and Boeing has been considering to develop a replacement for years (Boeing Y1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project), but that was delayed until Airbus forced their hand with the A320 neo, so they decided to offer a (as it now looks) "quick & dirty" upgrade of the 737 to keep it competitive. So upgrading the flight computers was probably out of the question with the given development time.

Could this be considered unacknowledged technical debt?

by zxcb1 7y ago

Could this be considered unacknowledged technical debt?

Maybe we're just ignorant of the available chips for this use case. Otherwise just reads like they've been kicking the can of system redesign/refactoring down the road for decades. It appears that short term thinking abounds in every industry.

zxcb1 7y ago
Something like that, thinking about it as a kind of senescence, arriving at a point where they realize that the system is depleted. It needs to be planned for.
klingonopera 7y ago
I think if Boeing (or Airbus - what do they use? Faster chips or better algorithms or ...?) really wanted that extra processing power, they would've pushed to get the next chip in line to be certified for aerospace applications. The fact that they neglected to do this... I don't know, public perception and Boeing's own representation seemed to paint a picture of "computer" and "chip"-aversion up to the point when they no longer could ignore the issue by designing a plane that needed to have it in order to be certified they way they wanted it to. And by then it was of course already way too late to certify another chip... Then again, on the other hand: Boeing designs a lot of military planes, too, aren't these almost always exclusively fly-by-wire? Shouldn't they have the know-how in these things as well? Or is there a no information-exchange policy in effect between their military and civilian teams?
fit2rule 7y ago
I'm a developer with extensive experience in SIL-4 programming, specifically for life-critical systems (rail transport). I've built software subsystems that are used in 38 countries around the world to keep the trains safe. The issue is the extensive costs of changing from one CPU type to another. Certification for these systems is a multi-year process and can cost millions of dollars even before any kind of success is guaranteed. There are still very old CPU's out there, functioning just fine for decades. Safety programming doesn't just swap out parts like consumer computing does - it takes a lot of work to change CPU's. I don't think Boeing has been kicking the can down the road on the upgrade. I do think they've been trying to cut costs and exploit their customers by offering extra safety features as upgrades, rather than making them standard. Its interesting to note that some of their customers don't require such stringent safety features in the regions they operate - i.e. this is as much of a legislative issue as anything else. It could very well be that Ethiopia doesn't have the same safety requirements encoded in its laws governing flight as France does, so Boeing offers different features not just according to budget but also legislation - although we are sure to see that change rapidly now.

rob74 7y ago

Definitely - it's important to keep in mind that from an engineering perspective, the 737 has probably already reached EOL, and Boeing has been considering to develop a replacement for years (Boeing Y1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project), but that was delayed until Airbus forced their hand with the A320 neo, so they decided to offer a (as it now looks) "quick & dirty" upgrade of the 737 to keep it competitive. So upgrading the flight computers was probably out of the question with the given development time.