Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26526

Re: QF72 story - wow

Show all headers | View raw

On 15/05/17 17:34, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> AT Monday 15 May 2017 22:48, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> On 15/05/17 15:58, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
>>> AT Monday 15 May 2017 21:05, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14.5.2017 г. 15:03, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>> This story is a doozy.
>>>>> <http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-
>>> happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170510-
> gw26ae.html>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting reading, I read almost the whole article. If I start
>>>> commenting on the quality of the software they mut have on these planes
>>>> I'll go into a rant predictable to all seasoned group members so
>>>> I won't.
>>>>
>>>> But I am amazed that - as the article states - the board computer
>>>> on these planes has priority over the pilots. This is not a bug, it
>>>> is an error at the product concept level... If it is true of course,
>>>> I still have difficulties believing that. The fact they did manage
>>>> to gain some manual control hints towards "not quite true".
>>>
>>> I am doing airborne software myself.
>>> You are correct. It is not a bug, it is a serious error of the
>>> requirements. Software has to be written according to requirements and
>>> this is verified (DO-178). If the sys-reqs are erroneous the software is
>>> also incorrect.
>>>  
>>
>> What about that case of a plane crash because the pilot intentionally
>> crashed it (as far as they could figure out afterwards, anyway)?  He was
>> mentally unstable and drove the plane into a mountain.  If the onboard
>> computers had had priority over the pilot in that case, there would have
>> been no crash.
>>
>> It is far from easy to say who or what is most reliable in cases like
>> this, and who or what should have priority.  Automated systems can (if
>> designed properly) be safer and more stable than humans - but on the
>> other hand, humans are better at handling unexpected situations.
> 
> That was shown with the landing on the Potomac. 
> 
> That is a decision nobody can really make.
> 
> But some systems designers think their computers can be better. That makes 
> me afraid of self driving cars. I am not sure if there are really good 
> software development procedures in place. All that "self-learning" stuff and 
> we have "big-data" so we do not have to understand it is irresponsible to 
> me.

At least with self-driving cars, if the systems detect a problem they
can stop the car at the side of the road and call the AA.  That is not
so easy in a plane!

>  
>> However, I thought that critical flight systems were made in triplicate,
>> and if one goes bananas it gets outvoted, and the other two run the
>> plane?  Did that not happen here?
> 
> Well even if there were multiple system they behaved according to their 
> common specifications. If these are incorrect, all systems behave correctly 
> incorrect.

So you need multiple sensors too.

And multiple people writing specifications independently, before they
are combined (and then checked by multiple people).

I fully agree with you - it is often the specifications and system
requirements that are the issue.

> 
> Most problems  are really in the sys-reqs. The software development 
> processes in DO-78 are good and try to guaranty software that comply with 
> the sys-reqs.
> Also the most famous crash (Ariane-5) was not due to buggy software but  
> happened because the requirements for the module that lead to the crash were 
> not correctly reviewed - the original reqs were not fit for the new 
> environment.
>  
> From the report about the Quantas flight it seems to me that nobody did 
> think about what should happen if the sensors report invalid data or signal 
> errors.
> The Air France from Brazil to Europe that crashed over the Atlantic comes to 
> mind.  There the pitot tubes gave bad data because of icing. Seems they have 
> not learned from it.
> 

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

QF72 story - wow Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 22:03 +1000
  Re: QF72 story - wow BM2335 <BM265@DMM.com.au> - 2017-05-15 12:25 +0800
  Re: QF72 story - wow Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-15 16:05 +0300
    Re: QF72 story - wow Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-15 21:58 +0800
      Re: QF72 story - wow David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-15 16:48 +0200
        Re: QF72 story - wow Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-15 23:34 +0800
          Re: QF72 story - wow Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 18:00 +0100
          Re: QF72 story - wow Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 17:49 -0500
          Re: QF72 story - wow David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-16 09:06 +0200
            Re: QF72 story - wow upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-16 19:46 +0300
          Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:41 -0400
            Re: QF72 story - wow Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:13 +0800
              Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:54 -0400
                Re: QF72 story - wow Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-17 21:43 +0300
                Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:03 -0400
                Re: QF72 story - wow Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-18 00:27 +0300
                Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:56 -0400
          Re: QF72 story - wow upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-16 19:30 +0300
            Re: QF72 story - wow Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 23:05 -0500
            Re: QF72 story - wow Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:05 +0800
        Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:25 -0400
      Re: QF72 story - wow Przemek Klosowski <przemek@tux.dot.org> - 2017-05-18 12:45 +0000
    Re: QF72 story - wow upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-16 19:10 +0300
      Re: QF72 story - wow Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-16 19:48 +0300
      Re: QF72 story - wow lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com - 2017-05-19 17:40 -0700
  Re: QF72 story - wow Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-15 12:34 -0500
    Re: QF72 story - wow Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 17:21 -0500
    Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:47 -0400
      Re: QF72 story - wow Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-05-17 10:31 +0100
        Re: QF72 story - wow Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 22:20 +0800
          Re: QF72 story - wow rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:36 -0400
  Re: QF72 story - wow George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-05-15 17:28 -0400
    Re: QF72 story - wow Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 17:22 -0500
    Re: QF72 story - wow Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-16 10:51 +0300
      Re: QF72 story - wow Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 18:01 +1000
  Re: QF72 story - wow upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-16 18:54 +0300
    Re: QF72 story - wow Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 23:23 -0500

csiph-web