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

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26586

Re: QF72 story - wow

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/17/2017 11:13 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> AT Tuesday 16 May 2017 22:41, rickman wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2017 11:34 AM, 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.
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is a joke.  I believe you are thinking of the
>> "landing on the Hudson" in NY where everyone lived.  The landing on the
>> Potomac was Air Florida flight 90 where only four or five lived after
>> the plane struck the 14th street bridge (also killing some drivers) in
>> January, plunging everyone into icy waters.
>
> You are right. I meant the landing on the Hudson. I should not post just
> before midnight from memory alone.
>>
>> There were multiple causes of this accident and most of them were pilot
>> errors showing how poor humans are and keeping us safe.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Don't worry about the details, consider the statistics.  Computers only
>> need to be better than people and so far they have been for driving cars.
>>
>> If you have 1 in 1E6 chance of dying with a human pilot and a 1 in 1E7
>> chance of dying with a computer pilot, which will you choose?
>
> When sitting in that plane over NYC my preferences would be clear. Against
> all  statistics.

This is such a perfect example of emotion ruling over logic.  Thank you.


>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> These issues are not really "computer" issues, they are systems design
>> issues.  I find it funny that people get so excited about systems flying
>> planes and driving cars, but no one thinks twice about systems running
>> nuclear power plants.
>>
>> In the east coast earthquake a few years back the North Anna power plant
>> was about 10 miles from the epicenter.  The plant received twice the
>> seismic impact it was designed for.  The plant was taken offline and the
>> generators were fired up.  After a few minutes one generator failed.  A
>> subsequent analysis found the cause was faulty installation of a head
>> gasket which in turn was caused by an incorrect installation procedure,
>> an installation procedure that was common to *all* the generators!  This
>> was a single point of failure that could have resulted in a core
>> meltdown as a result of a bad system design.
>>
>> Why are people so unconcerned with nuclear power?  Because we have not
>> had enough accidents in the US... yet!
>
> I am concerned about it having some projects in nuclear plants I know how
> thoughtlessly people act there not even caring about defined procedures. The
> plants were not in Russia or some such, but in Germany. Some of the
> incidents never got reported. I am glad Germany is shutting down that stuff.

The problems with the nuclear industry that were revealed by the 
incident at the North Anna plant run deep.  Did you know Dominion Power 
*lied* on their application for the North Anna reactors, not reporting 
the known existence of a nearby fault?  They were caught and fined a 
mere $30,000 dollars.

-- 

Rick C

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