| ▲ | avazhi 3 days ago |
| “ The increasing reliance of computers in fly-by-wire systems in aircraft, which use electronics rather than mechanical systems to control the plane in the air, also mean the risk posed by bit flips when they do occur is higher.” Bit of an understatement. I don’t think there any active passenger airliners in the first world today that aren’t fly-by-wire. The MD-80 was the last of its kind and it’s been out of passenger operation for what, 10 years now? |
|
| ▲ | Stevvo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Any Boeing other than 777/787 does not use fly-by-wire. However, that doesn't illuminate the possibility of these errors. Whilst the flight-controls are mechanically linked, the autopilot/trim is electric, so is still suspectable to bit-flips. |
| |
| ▲ | drob518 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Still a lot of software involved in controlling the aircraft. The 737 Max incidents were eventually tracked to software quality issues, IIRC. All those old designs are being upgraded with modern avionics, so even if the airframe and linkages are old-school, the inputs are being driven by digital computers. At least that’s my understanding. I confess to not being a “plane guy,” though I have spent a lot of time traveling in planes, and I have stayed at a few Holiday Inn Express hotels. | | |
| ▲ | buckle8017 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The MAX issues are not software. The plane is fundamentally unstable because of the huge engines (which they have to improve fuel efficiency). The only way to correct that is software with an angle of attack sensor. They only installed one sensor though. Does that sound like a software error or a fundamental physical design flaw? | | |
| ▲ | xeonmc 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | From what I've read, the plane was not unstable, it just handles different, but stable; pilots just need to do the aircraft-specific retraining to as they usually do whenever you encounter different aircrafts with different handling characteristics. Boeing wanted to pretend there is difference at all, to skip on retraining. | |
| ▲ | dehrmann 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The plane is fundamentally unstable because of the huge engines I'll leave the googling to you, but this isn't true. The plane isn't fundamentally unstable, and certainly not like a modern fly-by-wire fighter. | | |
| ▲ | Stevvo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The 737 Max is unstable in the pitch axis. There is no debate about that. It might help to read what aerodynamic instability actually means before making such a claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_derivatives | |
| ▲ | buckle8017 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Outside of the typical flight envelope it absolutely is like a fly by wire fighter. That's why there's an angle of attack sensor, to keep the plane outside of that failure range. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Boeing 717 is still in service and it's essentially an MD-80. Many 737s are in service and flight controls are hydraulic-boosted cable-and-pulley operated; the type design dates to the 1960s. |
|
| ▲ | BurningFrog 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't passenger aircrafts have redundant systems, so if one computer flips, the backup takes over? |
|
| ▲ | RealityVoid 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not to mention, the system affected by the bit flips were designed in the 90's AND newer designed systems have EDAC so they are not susceptible to the same kind of issue. Honestly, if you look into the thing, the press coverage of the event is atrocious. |
| |
