Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 . . . 30 · Next

AuthorMessage
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2002312 - Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 22:22:40 UTC - in response to Message 2002302.  
Last modified: 12 Jul 2019, 22:23:22 UTC

I hope you know it's not about new or old code.
It's about how well you have tested the code TOGETHER with the other systems. Pilots included!
To me it seems like Boeing have skipped many testing procedures in rush of competing with other airliners.
They also gave the impression to airline companies that the MCAS is nothing to bother about.
ID: 2002312 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2002372 - Posted: 13 Jul 2019, 5:09:43 UTC - in response to Message 2002312.  

I hope you know it's not about new or old code.
It's about how well you have tested the code TOGETHER with the other systems. Pilots included!
To me it seems like Boeing have skipped many testing procedures in rush of competing with other airliners.
They also gave the impression to airline companies that the MCAS is nothing to bother about.

moomin, you don't test it, you prove it. An important distinction.
You test to find human typos. You prove software to show it does what it is supposed to do. It isn't any different than a formal math proof.
You can test until the cows come home, but if you don't test the right thing(s) you still have no confidence in the product. You must prove the software to have confidence in it.

Let me point you and any other hackers out there to a small little publication you should read.
Validation Verification and Testing of Computer Software
W. Richards Adrion, Martha A. Branstad, John C. Cherniavsky
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-600199
National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 500-75
February 1981
"Programming is an exercise in problem solving. As with any problem solving activity, determination of the validity of the solution is part of the process. This survey discusses testing and analysis techniques that can be used to validate software and to instill confidence in the programming product. Verification throughout the development process is stressed. Specific tools and techniques are described."
Oh it is even online today https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-d8cbebacc4749b5c4284cce1ffb796d1/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-d8cbebacc4749b5c4284cce1ffb796d1.pdf
While some of the tools may be dated, the concepts are not.
ID: 2002372 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2002379 - Posted: 13 Jul 2019, 10:51:42 UTC - in response to Message 2002372.  

moomin, you don't test it, you prove it. An important distinction.
You test to find human typos. You prove software to show it does what it is supposed to do. It isn't any different than a formal math proof.
You can test until the cows come home, but if you don't test the right thing(s) you still have no confidence in the product. You must prove the software to have confidence in it.
LOL:) You can only prove something that you know about. Not things that you don't know about. Hence testing:)
Been there, done that:)
The problem is not typos (usually the parser take care of that) but setting up a testing scenario
Then do the actually testing!!!!
Sometimes the code doesn't behave like we system developers think it should do.
Don't you have "This cannot happen" in your code?
Let me present an example from mine experience.
I have developed a program that communicate with a database using SQL.
Worked like a charm until one day I got error messages that the date conversion was wrong...
WTF! It worked before and every customer that use my program had no problem either.
However later one customer called having the same problem. Not everyone.
So back to testing. I never find the cause of the error, still haven't.
Yes, I checked if we had different system setups and versions.
But it seems like there's a god after all:)
A week later it worked again without me doing anything or any changes in the setups!

From your link to the publication about testing. Still valid but many have forgotten about it or should I say the budget doesn't allow that.
At all stages of the lifecycle, software should be testable. To accomplish this it must be understandable. The desired product (the requirements and design) and the actual product (the code) should be represented in a structured, concise, and selfdescriptive manner so that they can be compared. The software must also be measurable, allowing means for actually instrumenting or inserting probes, testing,, and evaluating the product of each stage.
ID: 2002379 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2002380 - Posted: 13 Jul 2019, 11:15:32 UTC

For some reason I think that Boeing has this problem:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
ID: 2002380 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2002854 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 11:50:44 UTC

Ryanair to cut flights after 737 Max delays

Ryanair has said it will be forced to cut the number of summer flights it operates next year blaming further expected delays before the Boeing 737 Max is allowed to fly again.
The airline said it could be as late as December before regulators clear the aircraft to return to the skies after two fatal crashes.

Analysis:
By Theo Leggett , BBC international business correspondent

It's looking increasingly unlikely that the 737 Max will be flying again before late autumn - and quite possibly not before next year. So should we be surprised?
In a word, no. The stakes are too high, and this is one decision the regulators simply can't afford to get wrong.

The Federal Aviation Administration has already faced heavy criticism for allowing the aircraft into service in its original form, with flight control software that has been implicated in two separate accidents and the loss of 346 lives.
A repeat would be simply unthinkable - and for the sake of its own reputation the FAA not only needs to be thorough but to be seen to be thorough.

So its analysis appears to have gone well beyond the fresh software developed to solve the original problem - and is now addressing a range of other potential issues.

Boeing does desperately want to get the 737 Max flying again and resume deliveries to customers - it's running out of parking space at its Renton factory for a start. Airlines also need the new plane.

But the message from the FAA has been consistent: it will lift the ban on flying "when we deem it is safe to do so".
ID: 2002854 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2002886 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 18:42:20 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jul 2019, 18:42:50 UTC

Now here is a damning comparison, complete with some carefully forthright wording:


YouTube: Boeing Max 8 and the Cirrus Vision jet story - Prof Simon

The US aircraft builder 'Cirrus' had a problem with its Angle of Attack sensors... This is is the story of how the USA smallest Jet company, did the right thing and how Boeing did the wrong thing.

Thanks to Isabel Goyer - editor Plane and Pilot magazine for this fascinating investigation.




Damning indeed...

All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2002886 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2002888 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 19:12:18 UTC

And here is what it is like when you cannot trim a Boeing 737:


YouTube: Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight simulator)

... Why would a crew, potentially, come across problems with trimming the Boeing 737 at higher speeds? What kind of forces are acting on the jack-screw that might have grave implications and what is a "roller coaster manoeuvre"?...



Note the comment part way though to an outside operator to "Hit the red button"... (Only works for a flight simulator...)

Very hard work!

All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2002888 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2002889 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 19:18:13 UTC - in response to Message 2002886.  

Is Prof. Simon Holland some kind of authority or expert in aviation?
Well he however make sense. Those 737 Max engine changes doesn't work as thought.
Back to drawing board and test some more.
When fixed? Oh dear...
ID: 2002889 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2002890 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 19:25:50 UTC - in response to Message 2002886.  

Interesting. While watching the video, on the Up Next section on the right was this...
...The Boeing 787 - Broken dreams
Well worth a watch. This was 2014.
Scary.
ID: 2002890 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2002891 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 19:34:34 UTC - in response to Message 2002888.  
Last modified: 16 Jul 2019, 19:46:34 UTC

... Why would a crew, potentially, come across problems with trimming the Boeing 737 at higher speeds? What kind of forces are acting on the jack-screw that might have grave implications and what is a "roller coaster manoeuvre"?...
Very hard work!
It's very hard work to trim a 737 manually with the trim wheels. It was THREE people trying to do that in the Ethiopian or the Indonesian incident!
Boeing 737 Stall Escape manoeuvre, why MAX needs MCAS!!
https://youtu.be/aoNOVlxJmow?t=598
ID: 2002891 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2002902 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 20:59:36 UTC - in response to Message 2002886.  

Now here is a damning comparison, complete with some carefully forthright wording:


YouTube: Boeing Max 8 and the Cirrus Vision jet story - Prof Simon

The US aircraft builder 'Cirrus' had a problem with its Angle of Attack sensors... This is is the story of how the USA smallest Jet company, did the right thing and how Boeing did the wrong thing.
Well, since the video shows two entirely different designs for AoA sensors and does not in any way address why the sensors fail, about all this really says is Boeing is a big enough company to bully the FAA. The question remains, did Boeing also bully every other country's flight certification people?
ID: 2002902 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2002909 - Posted: 16 Jul 2019, 21:57:23 UTC - in response to Message 2002902.  

Now here is a damning comparison, complete with some carefully forthright wording:


YouTube: Boeing Max 8 and the Cirrus Vision jet story - Prof Simon

The US aircraft builder 'Cirrus' had a problem with its Angle of Attack sensors... This is is the story of how the USA smallest Jet company, did the right thing and how Boeing did the wrong thing.
Well, since the video shows two entirely different designs for AoA sensors and does not in any way address why the sensors fail, about all this really says is Boeing is a big enough company to bully the FAA. The question remains, did Boeing also bully every other country's flight certification people?

Up until the second 737Max crash, just about every country accepted the FAA's decisions and for Airbus they accept the EASA decisions. It's just too expensive and time consuming to do otherwise.

This time it looks, from here, that the FAA followed the rest of the world in grounding the 737Max, after being told to by Trump.
ID: 2002909 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2003014 - Posted: 17 Jul 2019, 15:29:00 UTC

Comments from the workers at Boeing's South Carolina plant says it all.
"They are built to sell not fly".
Of those asked the question: Will you fly on one?
2/3 said no.
ID: 2003014 · Report as offensive
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 2422
Credit: 12,323,733
RAC: 1
United States
Message 2003034 - Posted: 17 Jul 2019, 17:44:26 UTC - in response to Message 2003014.  

The workers just as guilty as management for criminal neglect with that post.
...
ID: 2003034 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2003956 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 14:27:02 UTC - in response to Message 2000726.  

A few years ago Boeing were using members of the 8x86 family supported by DSPs from various manufacturers with some particular functions being handled by a Motorola chip. I guess they may have moved away from these in recent years, but probably stick with the i86 family. In addition there are quite a number of FPGA type chips in use.

One small snippet on the web for what the Flight Control Computer CPU is... It is an Intel 80286.

That is mentioned in the Wikipedia list of what is being 'fixed' for the Boeing 737 Max.


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2003956 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2003958 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 14:32:59 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jul 2019, 14:33:48 UTC

Is this an indication of what I assume to be the callously cold cruel calculations of the 'Boeing Bean-counters'?


Families 'cheated of Boeing crash compensation'

Relatives of people killed in the Boeing 737 Max crash in Indonesia last year have been cheated out of compensation, their lawyers say.

... many families were persuaded to sign forms preventing them from taking legal action.

BBC Panorama has discovered that other relatives signed similar agreements after two other crashes, stopping them from suing Boeing in the US courts...

... Within weeks, relatives were offered compensation by insurance lawyers. To access the money, families had to sign agreements that would prevent them from taking legal action against Boeing or the airline, Lion Air...

... They will get compensation of just under £74,000 ($92,000) each...




How cheap is that?!

No wonder safety and good design was seen to be 'too expensive'?

Legalized murder?...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2003958 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14649
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 2003967 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 15:21:00 UTC

How convenient that Boeing had such forms readily available for them to sign.
ID: 2003967 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22158
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2003973 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 20:11:46 UTC - in response to Message 2003956.  

WOW - a 286. Little surprise then that it is getting overloaded....
Talk of input lags and the like makes me want to ask what the processor cycle(loop) time is (not the CPU clock frequency).

There is a lot of re-engineering required to increase the clock frequency and not upset the cycle loop timing which is going to be pretty critical on that processor- it's not just a case of twiddling the clock, tweaking the voltages, but the memory (RAM, ROM etc) will, at least need to be reviewed, and probably replaced - and that might mean a new board - which is what I guess Boeing were trying to avoid doing by sticking with the old FCC hardware.

There are a lot of lessons to be gained from this episode - not the least "think of the consequences before not after".
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2003973 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2003976 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 20:50:25 UTC - in response to Message 2003956.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2019, 21:00:44 UTC

One small snippet on the web for what the Flight Control Computer CPU is... It is an Intel 80286.
That is mentioned in the Wikipedia list of what is being 'fixed' for the Boeing 737 Max.
I can't see any mentioning of Intel 80286 in that link.
However I find this link.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/boeings-software-fix-for-the-737-max-problem-overwhelms-the-planes-computer.html
The 737 uses only one FCC at a time and the Speed Trim System (STS), of which MCAS is a part, runs only on one of that Flight Computer's two internal processors.
The processors in question are said to be Intel 80286 type CPUs. The original Intel version of that CPU, sold between 1982 and 1991, had a maximum clockrate of 4, 6 or 8 MHz. It was later manufactured by a number of other firms, including by AMD and aeronautics company Harris, with a clockrate of 20 and 25 MHz. It is likely that the Boeing 737 FCC uses these or similar types.
These old processors are very reliable and error free. But they have less than 1/1000nds of the computing capacity of a modern cell phone. According to Lemme one CPU in the flight computer runs up to 11 different processes. All need to receive the input of external sensors, run through their algorithms, and signal a command to the relevant actuators that control the moveable flight surfaces of the plane. That the FAA pilot "encountered delays in executing a crucial step" caused by the computer points to a capacity overload.
Computer overload... Sounds like Apollo 11 LEM program error "1202"...

Boeing's latest announced time frame for bringing the grounded 737 MAX planes back into the air is "mid December". In view of this new problem one is inclined to ask "which year?"
ID: 2003976 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22158
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2003980 - Posted: 23 Jul 2019, 21:09:55 UTC

I can't see any mentioning of Intel 80286 in that link.

About half way down, in the middle of the section titled "Flight control data processing issue"
Although the test pilot ultimately recovered control, the system was slow to respond to the proper runaway stabilizer checklist steps, due to an 80286[353] microprocessor being overwhelmed with data


Actually the next part of the same section is pretty damming:
The FAA characterized the slow responsiveness as "catastrophic", whereas Boeing initially classified it as "major". The solution appears to consist in rerouting data across multiple chips.

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2003980 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 . . . 30 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.