4 ms·
I think the main thing we are seeing here is hundreds of smaller fixes that usually form the steady stream of Airworthiness Directives that an aircraft currentl
by kayfox 7y ago
I think the main thing we are seeing here is hundreds of smaller fixes that usually form the steady stream of Airworthiness Directives that an aircraft currently supported by the manufacturer sees turning into a news event every single time one comes out.
So far only one "aircraft" has had perfect software, and that was the Space Shuttle, every single other aircraft out there has had software issues that are worked out over the life of the aircraft, just like every piece of software, even that which has very strict testing regimes, has had defects in it.
- blattimwind 7y ago> So far only one "aircraft" has had perfect software, and that was the Space Shuttle Actually it had 3+ known bugs.
- rootbear 7y agoAnd shortly after the code for the Apollo Guidance Computer was put up on Github, someone found a bug!
- kayfox 7y agoDrat, we have no known examples of perfect software.
- radiorental 7y ago10 goto 10
- glitchc 7y agoGreat for those cold winter nights! Will probably be optimized out by a modern compiler though. Sad.
- 0xffff2 7y agoTrue enough for modern commercial airliners; I can't help but point out that plenty of aircraft have "perfect" (read: non-existent) software. Those aircraft too generally have issues that are worked out over their lifetime. Software seems to be especially error prone, but maybe that's just because the mechanical engineers have a head start of several hundred years.
- kayfox 7y agoHonestly the mechanical engineering is also error prone, its just got margins that make it hard to mess up. There are instances where it does mess up, like the long list of cargo door issues through the 80s, the 737 rudder issue (as well as lots of other less famous hydraulic servo issues), and other issues.
- bronco21016 7y agoThat’s what I love about the older aircraft that are more mechanical. When it’s broke it’s obvious it’s broke. The mechanic comes out and can physically identify a part that’s broken and replace it. Problem solved and on you go. With all of these aircraft that are so computer reliant it becomes this magic box that is nearly impossible to diagnose and fix quickly. You do the circuit breaker reset, then reset the whole jet, then check the connectors of the components of the system, then change some of the computers/controllers, all the while checking for any fault code that might lead you down the right path. This process often takes 30-60 minutes by which time you’re boarded and ready to go and if it’s not fixed by then it turns into getting everyone off the aircraft and finding a different aircraft so the broken ship can be taken to the shop and a through investigation of the issue can be done. Meanwhile the customers riding in the MD88 already had their mechanical part replaced and they’re on their way, none the wiser because the mechanic got it diagnosed and replaced before boarding was even done.
- joncp 7y agoThat's just a scale issue. The Space Shuttle only flew 135 times, so those one-in-a-million corner cases never really had a chance to happen. If it were to fly millions of missions like the 737 fleet has, then bugs would surface for sure.
- kayfox 7y agoThe software quality of the space shuttle is much higher than commercial aircraft. https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff