Disobeying jet engines - why?

Didi wrote in news:f121757f-1671-4ebe-892d-625ea1c236b6 @h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Windoze is NOT qualified for critical applications like this. It's something pretty specialized and focused for the application. I suspect the investigation will either find a hardware fault or operator error (misconfigured autopilot). Airbus has had something similiar happen, resulting in a crash and loss of life.

--Damon Real life doesn't have a 'reset' button

I know some of the guys who do the engine control computer firmware for the Pratt&Whitney engines. They use our gear to simulate engine sensor signals to the control computer, and run weeks/months of scripts to verify the firmware in all sorts of situations.

Their ECC's use no OS at all, just basic bare-metal state machines.

John

Damon Hill wrote: Didi wrote

or operator error (misconfigured autopilot).

With BOTH engines shutting down, that's not my intuition.

John

Are you with ADI?

Ron

That's what one would expect, most people are sane after all.

I do wonder whether all involved have been sane enough to keep office good only (well, almost good) systems completely out of the cockpit. If the user (pilot) interface goes through even one such system things are hopeless...

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

b6

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:35:27 -0800 (PST)) it happened Didi wrote in :

What, no Packman?

On a 7 hour flight on auto-pilot?

Give the guys a break :-)

But the thing is that most people don't consider that a joke: Windows not being qualified is... reality.

Some Navy ships have used Windows, and had to be towed back into port. You can't tow a dead airplane home.

John

JeffM wrote:

An>But the thing is that most people don't consider that a joke:

I think in the 21th Century everybody knows that Microsoft products are not acceptable for mission-critical situations.

*+Microsoft.certified.professional+Flip+crashing-the-*-network+dead.in.the.water+Technically-*-*-NT-*-*-is-no-match-for-*-Unix-*-*+USS.Yorktown+*-buffer-overrun-occurred+YM+For-*-two-*-a-half-hours&strip=1 't-depend-upon-NT+Good.software.libraries+Good-programs+zz-zz+Good.networking.processes+if.NT.*.protected.itself.properly+Good.OS's+*-complete-collapse-*-*-ship's-systems-was-an-NT-problem+only.one . . BTW, it is good NOT to strip out all the attribution in a Usenet post.

People who use a real news reader can see the entire thread and know who said what. If you're using Google Groups, well... 'nuff said.

An>People who use a real news reader can see the entire thread

...if *you* are INCONSIDERATE and think *others* should do extra work.

Is you ignorance truly that boundless? ...or is it just your nature to be inconsiderate? I repeat: IT IS GOOD *NOT* TO STRIP OUT ALL THE ATTRIBUTION IN A USENET POST.

Now 'nuff said.

According to an NTSB advisory, "the autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both engines". It doesn't say how far the signal got, or if it was merely logged by the sender but not sent.

Ten years ago the US Navy Smart Ship had to be towed back to port when Windows NT 4 crashed, because they couldn't save the state of the computers unless everything stayed shut down. There are multiple stupid things going on in that explanation, but in the first place why would people building a system like that not use a RTOS or a standard UNIX? If the decision maker didn't even know Windows' reputation it seems probable he never heard of an RTOS either.

--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

The rumor mill has it that both engine control boxes failed at the same time.

Cheers

Hmm... it says that there are two identical channels running for the sake of safety. What happens when they disagree? It seems to me that they'd run three identical channels and vote on the outcome, like the space shuttle does.

Windows is used by lots of banks. That alone makes me worry a hell of a lot.

Do a Google (or Wiki?) search on FADEC

The risk posed by a Windows desktop inside a bank (as opposed to in an ATM or public server scenario) is several orders of magnitude less than the risk posed by the *people* who use that computer. There's a much higher percentage of crooks inside banks than outside :-)... and the banks know that. Some try to control it, some don't. I've seen inside both kinds.

Just look at the recent rogue who lost $8.2 billion.

My personal account debit card was compromised this morning... two (obviously test) charges appeared from France for ?1 each ;-)

I had the card blocked immediately.

But that's scary :-(

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

Windows runs on lots of ATM's these days! I've seen a number of BSOD's on ATM's owned my big banks lately.