4 ms·
Actually I was reading an article (I can't find it now) about that Qantas A380 engine explosion, and it said that this was a genuine problem in that situation.
by hugh3 15y ago
Actually I was reading an article (I can't find it now) about that Qantas A380 engine explosion, and it said that this was a genuine problem in that situation. Once the engine blew up, there were dozens and dozens of different errors popping up, and the first thing the pilots had to do was to page through all the error codes and prioritize them to figure out what the real problems were.
In many ways, better to have a single giant control panel which lights up a different light for each error that can occur.
- spitfire 15y agoThis is actually an artifact of the way planes are certified today (DO-178B). The verification process has to be done by hand - you can't verify automatically generated computer code. The result is that you can't build say, a prolog program which produces a huge switch statement to prioritize errors. As a result, there effectively is no prioritization of errors and warnings at all. They're all treated as the same severity. The new standard, DO-178C allows for computer models to be used in verification. So we may start seeing automated prioritization and management in the generation of planes after the A380/787.