new | show | ask | jobs Github

skylurk 2 days ago

I think you are being sarcastic, but just in case:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/business/boeing-737-max-w...

https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/mcas/

▲

serial_dev 2 days ago | parent [-]

The links are Boeing and this article and thread are about Airbus.

Two different companies.

Boeing had tons of failures recently, flight search services started adding filters for the airplane because people didn’t want to fly with them.

Airbus is doing better for now, hopefully it will stay that way.

▲

skylurk 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be taking shots at any airplane company. I just disagree that multi-module consensus is a reliable form of EDAC. I gave a human factor example, but there are technical reasons too.

▲

RealityVoid 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I just disagree that multi-module consensus is a reliable form of EDAC.

I wonder why you disagree about this? The only reason I can thing of is: - same sw with same hw with same lifecycle would probably have the same issue. (vendor diversity would fix this) - The consensus building unit is still a possible single point of failure.

Any other reasons you might doubt it as a methodology? It seems to have worked pretty well for Airbus and the failure rate is pretty low, so... It obviously is functional.

Modern units I'm sure have ECC, AND redundace as well.

▲

skylurk 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes exactly, birds of a feather fail together... an A380 has three primary flight control computers, but still carries another entirely dissimilar set of three flight control computers as backup.

	▲	RealityVoid a day ago \| parent [-]
		Well, the diversity would cover the issue with random HW failures, not the case your SW has a bug in it. As to the SW, they _sometimes_ have vendor diversity. Regardless, there are multiple fronts you need to tackle to have high reliability so you should use all techniques at your disposal.