A Lesson on Updates

[not2easy]

When you have something that works, it can be distressing to think of changing it. Particularly when it is the hardware system that makes your planes fly. It had worked spectacularly in managing that task since 1996, but seriously, would many of us like to rely on

.. a pair of single-core, 16-bit processors that run independently of each other

to handle automated in-flight changes?

Even by late-’90s consumer tech standards, the FCC-730s were behind the curve. By the time they went to market, Nintendo had already replaced its 16-bit SNES console with the Nintendo 64 (the first game console to use — you guessed it — a 64-bit CPU), and IBM had created the world’s first dual-core processor.

TheVerge [theverge.com] explains how/why updates can be important.

[tangor]

Always fun to play on the bleeding edge...

but some times the best thing out there is that 1957 Chevy. :)

CHANGE when it makes sense to do so.

Or ... if it ain't broke don't fix it, but if you want to CHANGE then do it by big time and move on.

[not2easy]

but some times the best thing out there is that 1957 Chevy.

Or not.

This is the reason the 737 Max planes are grounded. Rushing a product through while ignoring its requirements to meet a calendar spec can have deadly consequences. "The perils of fixing a hardware problem with software".

[engine]

but some times the best thing out there is that 1957 Chevy.

I doubt that: A 1957 Chevy would not be sold today as it doesn't meet modern standards, and pollutes terribly.

737 Max planes are grounded

I suspect the Max was a significant dev error and will become a major example of corner cutting by management development.

[iamlost]

Boeing 787s must be turned off then on again at least every 51 days to prevent 'several potentially catastrophic failure scenarios'.

Boeing may have bought out McDonnell Douglas but McD-D took over Boeing at the executive level and replaced engineering first with marketing first and the excrement has been piling ever higher since.

[lammert]

"The perils of fixing a hardware problem with software"

Yes, but it is a hardware problem that cannot be solved without a complete redesign of the aircraft.

The main problem with the MAX is in the landing gear. The Boeing 737 was developed in the sixties to be used on smaller airports and needed to be low to the ground to be reached easily by stair trucks. The competitor Airbus A320 was developed in the eighties for airports with jet bridges and has, therefore, a higher landing gear.

When Airbus developed the energy-efficient A320 Neo model, they could easily fit the larger engines at the same location as on previous A320 models. But due to the lower landing gear, Boeing had to develop a new engine mount for the MAX, that places the engine in front of the wings, instead of half under the wings. This alters the flight balance so much, that they had to fix it in software, by adding the MCAS system. But software will never be able to fully stabilize an airplane in all circumstances if the airplane is unstable by design.

[not2easy]

But software will never be able to fully stabilize an airplane in all circumstances if the airplane is unstable by design.

Especially not software limited by a pair of single-core, 16-bit processors :(

[tangor]

Guess the comment missed the mark.

1957 Chevy is still perfectly legal, meets all requirements for current HIGHWAY SPEEDS, and performs the same function as the new stuff. After all HIGHWAY SPEEDS are limited to what the 1957 can do, and will continue to do with ordinary maintenance for as long as the hardware continues to function.

Upgrade when it makes sense, and real value can be achieved.

On the other hand, if one just wants to ding Boeing for the 737 Max, have at it. My bet is on Boeing for great hardware afflicted with a SOFTWARE FLAW.

The 737 Max is an example of geeks getting it wrong by not allowing HUMANS to show their own skills.

[tbear]

We live in a 'because we can' world, instead of a 'because we should' world.....