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

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26581

Re: QF72 story - wow

Show all headers | View raw

AT Wednesday 17 May 2017 00:30, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

> On Mon, 15 May 2017 23:34:21 +0800, Reinhardt Behm
> <rbehm@hushmail.com> 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 ?. 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.
>> 
>>> 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.
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> As far as I understand, they used Ariane-4 flight control software,
> which caused an integer overflow on Ariane-5 due to more dynamic
> movement.
> 
> I was happy that our satellite was not on the first launch of Ariane-5
> as originally planned :-).

Correct. But somebody should have checked the specs for this old module if 
it fits into he new environment.

-- 
Reinhardt

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