SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/787_software_bug_can_shut_down_planes_generators/
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a new airworthiness directive (PDF) for Boeing's 787 because a software bug shuts down the plane's electricity generators every 248 days.
“We have been advised by Boeing of an issue identified during laboratory testing,” the directive says. That issue sees “The software counter internal to the generator control units (GCUs) will overflow after 248 days of continuous power, causing that GCU to go into failsafe mode.”
When the GCU is in failsafe mode it isn't making any power. That'll be bad news if all four of the GCUs aboard a 787 were powered up at the same time, because all will then shut down, “resulting in a loss of all AC electrical power regardless of flight phase.”
And presumably also turning the 787 into a brick with no power for its fly-by-wire systems, lighting, climate control or in-flight movies. The fix outlined in the directive is pretty simple: make sure you turn the GCUs off before 248 days elapse. Boeing is working on a fix and the FAA says “Once this software is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.”
For now, before you board a 787 it's probably worth asking the pilot if he can turn it off and turn it on again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @02:53AM
That's fine in a regular consumer product.
But safety critical code has a much higher standard to meet, just as safety-critical hardware does.
Kind of like Toyota's problems. [edn.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:13AM
All I can say is shit happens... no matter what. You can be as careful as you can be, and if you are too meticulous about it, even get fired for taking too long and being a perfectionist.
One of my bosses put it this way: "There comes a time in the life of every project when you have to shoot the engineer and begin production."
One of the hardest things I had to do as an aerospace engineer was to release my prototypes to management the instant I get them working, as they are chomping at the bit for immediate release so they can terminate engineering time on the time sheets. Cutting costs meant an executive bonus.
Interesting link. Just smacked of what one of my Chevron bosses ( yes, the ones who gave me the bad habit of trying to make it as good as I could while it was still in the lab ) used to drill into me...
I never felt I could share that kind of determination to make it good instead of just fast when working in the aerospace sector. I think the problem I was not working high enough up the management ladder where that kind of agenda could be enforced. I was more like a house painter that was just expected to putty and paint over problems. Gave me fits. Just like those rage-fits I throw out on these forums over mixing code and data ( embedding executable scripts into viewables ) .
I have burned more bridges pontificating over security and resilience issues. By golly, if I build it, I want it to work until you no longer want it. That is how I expect things to be built for me, and likewise, that is how I am damned determined to build for others. Nearly everything I have ever gotten that broke was somebody cut corners somewhere, saved a trivial amount of money to do so, and left me with a pile of junk. Usually discovered when I needed to use the thing. Bummer!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:14AM
By golly, if I build it, I want it to work until you no longer want it. That is how I expect things to be built for me
You've never heard of 'Planned Obsolescence', have you? You should thank Edward Bernaise [wikipedia.org] for that.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:29AM
Yes, I have heard of planned obsolescence. Sounds just like suit-guy thinking.
Personally, I would like to take all that broken crap he fathered and ram it up his a**.
And that's putting it nicely.
I read that link you gave me and was convinced we would have all been better off if no-one would have paid any attention to him. Much less paid him. Suit-people actually paid him for spewing this kind of crap.
( Yes, I spew crap too, but no one pays me for it - what pisses me off is he spews destructive crap and people paid him for it. )
You really know how to push my buttons, don't you?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday May 03 2015, @01:49PM
bernays
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:33PM
All I can say is shit happens... no matter what. You can be as careful as you can be, and if you are too meticulous about it, even get fired for taking too long and being a perfectionist.
It has nothing to do with being a perfectionist. I submit that seeing it from that perspective is part of the problem.
The right perspective is good engineering. That's not an individual thing, it is a process thing. That process includes investigation of how the error made its way into the software in the first place and improving the engineering so that there will not be similar repeats. "Re-load and carry on" is the opposite of that.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday May 04 2015, @12:16AM
I did not say that.
I said:
Reloading the same buggy software did not fix anything.
It must be corrected.
Once its known how this happened, steps can be put in place to keep similar bugs from happening.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]