Slashdot Mirror
Boeing To Make Key Change in 737 MAX Cockpit Software (wsj.com)
Boeing is making an extensive change to the flight-control system in the 737 MAX aircraft implicated in October's Lion Air crash in Indonesia, going beyond what many industry officials familiar with the discussions had anticipated. From a report: The change was in the works before a second plane of the same make crashed in Africa last weekend -- and comes as world-wide unease about the 737 MAX's safety grows. The change would mark a major shift from how Boeing originally designed a stall-prevention feature in the aircraft, which were first delivered to airlines in 2017. U.S. aviation regulators are expected to mandate the change by the end of April.
Boeing publicly released details about the planned 737 MAX software update late Monday [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. A company spokesman confirmed the update would use multiple sensors, or data feeds, in MAX's stall-prevention system -- instead of the current reliance on a single sensor. The change was prompted by preliminary results from the Indonesian crash investigation indicating that erroneous data from a single sensor, which measures the angle of the plane's nose, caused the stall-prevention system to misfire. Then, a series of events put the aircraft into a dangerous dive.
Boeing publicly released details about the planned 737 MAX software update late Monday [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. A company spokesman confirmed the update would use multiple sensors, or data feeds, in MAX's stall-prevention system -- instead of the current reliance on a single sensor. The change was prompted by preliminary results from the Indonesian crash investigation indicating that erroneous data from a single sensor, which measures the angle of the plane's nose, caused the stall-prevention system to misfire. Then, a series of events put the aircraft into a dangerous dive.
I assume they're talking about the sensor behind the pitot hole here. Making that the only sensor, and non-redundant, is particularly questionable. It's well known that pitot holes are very easily thrown off: an insect building a nest inside it (or ice forming, or etc) will throw off the sensor enough to crash a plane, if it's all you rely on.
I would assume you're correct here, but it still begs the question as to why this sensor was non-redundant, and how that SPOF design ultimately got approved.
It's funny how they point to aviation as nearly infallible when they talk about self-driving cars.
Well, it's a little less than one failure in four million flight hours, that's a pretty amazing safety record. If Tesla self-driving was one failure in four million driving hours, I'd call that very near infallible, compared to human drivers, anyway.
But when they do fail, it's spectacular, and makes news.
Source: http://planecrashinfo.com/caus...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
One would have to have a truly weak mind to believe that. Primitive peoples instinctively follow might makes right. Jesus Christ advocated personal charity. Having the government do your stealing for you is not charity.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I can tell you that the testing / verification process for their software is mind boggling. They've had decades to fine tune their processes for creating reliable computer software.
Haven't we had ample evidence by now that it's all too easy to make computer software that very reliably and very accurately does exactly the wrong thing?
Ezekiel 23:20