slvr_phoenix
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 6,223
- 1
- 25,780
slvr_phoenix
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 6,223
- 1
- 25,780
sepuko
Distinguished
- Dec 13, 2005
- 224
- 32
- 18,710
Just what's the reason for you to ask such a question?
Most(if not all) of the circuits in every of the planes you would fly with are backed up 2(or more) times. Don't worry. You should read more and see that most of the times it's pilot's mistake that has chrashed the plane.
And. The airplanes have some demands about the electronic components. To be reliable(simple, also easy to test and maintain). To be vibration resistant. And maybe some other that i'm not aware of. Why would someone put a Prescott in an Airbus?
Like if you give your child a hairdryer for a bathtub-toy+)))
Most(if not all) of the circuits in every of the planes you would fly with are backed up 2(or more) times. Don't worry. You should read more and see that most of the times it's pilot's mistake that has chrashed the plane.
And. The airplanes have some demands about the electronic components. To be reliable(simple, also easy to test and maintain). To be vibration resistant. And maybe some other that i'm not aware of. Why would someone put a Prescott in an Airbus?
Like if you give your child a hairdryer for a bathtub-toy+)))
jokersgrin
Distinguished
- Sep 22, 2005
- 172
- 0
- 18,680
I've been working aircraft for the U.S. military for 15 years now. Been with the NTSB on several crash sites with-in the U.S. and 1 in the U.K.
everything that i have seen and inspected has started with maintenance practice. Simply put airlines are running the piss out of the planes and rushing maintenance to get the aircraft back in the air, while puting the customer in harms way! Most if not all crashes are caused by maintenance not following to proper procedures, and sometimes its a combo with the manufacture's design and the airline in charge of the maintenance result in the inpending failures that cause the crash! Not to be-little the maintenance personel but rather the pressure that is place on them to turn an aircraft by the airline!
So the pilots can only do with what they have to save the aircraft and people onboard! Most crashes happen on takeoff and landing which leaves only seconds to find the problem and soultion :!:
So I find your comment an insult SEPUKO. Its the details KNUB!
everything that i have seen and inspected has started with maintenance practice. Simply put airlines are running the piss out of the planes and rushing maintenance to get the aircraft back in the air, while puting the customer in harms way! Most if not all crashes are caused by maintenance not following to proper procedures, and sometimes its a combo with the manufacture's design and the airline in charge of the maintenance result in the inpending failures that cause the crash! Not to be-little the maintenance personel but rather the pressure that is place on them to turn an aircraft by the airline!
So the pilots can only do with what they have to save the aircraft and people onboard! Most crashes happen on takeoff and landing which leaves only seconds to find the problem and soultion :!:
So I find your comment an insult SEPUKO. Its the details KNUB!
I have to agree with you totally.
For every time you see a pilot error in a crash, you see a bunch of instances where a pilot has somehow managed to land a damaged product.
Not only are the maintenanc crews pushed to get the plane out of the barn, but they are sometimes saddled with "used" parts and may not be given all the updates for particular craft.
Tough job for bothe
For every time you see a pilot error in a crash, you see a bunch of instances where a pilot has somehow managed to land a damaged product.
Not only are the maintenanc crews pushed to get the plane out of the barn, but they are sometimes saddled with "used" parts and may not be given all the updates for particular craft.
Tough job for bothe
Ned_Flanders
Splendid
- Jan 30, 2004
- 7,502
- 0
- 30,780
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
Hehe, the dudes don't realize you're speaking of the entertainment console crashing!
Low power, low heat, low current draw, I bet their using VIA processors. Which would explain why the console runs slow even though Linux is supposed to put a light load on the CPU. A C3 1000 is after all slower in some respects than a K6-III 450.
As for system crashes, well, VIA would explain that too.
Low power, low heat, low current draw, I bet their using VIA processors. Which would explain why the console runs slow even though Linux is supposed to put a light load on the CPU. A C3 1000 is after all slower in some respects than a K6-III 450.
As for system crashes, well, VIA would explain that too.
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
Linux is not slow and it does not normally crash.
If you run Linux on crappy hardware you are guaranteed to get crappy results no matter how good Linux is.
They may be running the entertainment system on 386, 486 or 586 SBCs or worse yet on 100 or 200MHz ARMs for all we know.
Please do not make any derogatory comments about Linux without knowing the hardware specs and how the Airbus entertainment system works.
Is Linux perfect? NO!
Is Windows perfect? HELL NO!
Is any OS perfect? Absolutely NOT!
Most modern RedHat and other distributions do not run very well on older hardware any more - but they DO run. This is what older versions of Linux and embedded Linux are for!
Live long and prosper!
If you run Linux on crappy hardware you are guaranteed to get crappy results no matter how good Linux is.
They may be running the entertainment system on 386, 486 or 586 SBCs or worse yet on 100 or 200MHz ARMs for all we know.
Please do not make any derogatory comments about Linux without knowing the hardware specs and how the Airbus entertainment system works.
Is Linux perfect? NO!
Is Windows perfect? HELL NO!
Is any OS perfect? Absolutely NOT!
Most modern RedHat and other distributions do not run very well on older hardware any more - but they DO run. This is what older versions of Linux and embedded Linux are for!
Live long and prosper!
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
Here here! I agree.
PS IIRC the flight management system of the Boeing 767-xxx runs on an Intel 386. This is has nothing to do with the Airbus in-flight entertainment system however. I do not KNOW what they are using for their in-flight entertainment system or for their flight management system.
I agree.PS IIRC the flight management system of the Boeing 767-xxx runs on an Intel 386. This is has nothing to do with the Airbus in-flight entertainment system however. I do not KNOW what they are using for their in-flight entertainment system or for their flight management system.
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
Yeah it could very well be C3. The French prefer not to buy from US companies. They buy domestic whenever possible. If that's not an option they like to buy from EU countries or from one of their friends or allies.
My guess is they may be running on something manufactured under license by SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics / STMicroelectronics, Alcatel or some other French or Franco-European company.
My guess is they may be running on something manufactured under license by SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics / STMicroelectronics, Alcatel or some other French or Franco-European company.
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
True!
Although I have to point out that sometimes airlines do not opt for the inflight-entertainment system, the default avionics or the engines the aircraft normally comes with.
Generally, there is usually an engine, avionics and other systems "bundle" the aircraft comes with by default and that is the one Airbus Industrie has control over. Then again, there are usually other such "bundles" besides the normal factory one.
It is not entirely uncommon to see Airbus aircraft with GE, PW or RR engines and even US avionics and secondary systems.
I know at least some airlines have ordered their airbus A-3xx aircraft with inflight-entertainment systems from Rockwell Collins [ US ], a huge name in avionics and aircraft systems.
Also there are 3rd party companies which will take any aircraft from any manufacturer and outfit it with systems from manufacturers based on the client's wishes. Provided you own the aircraft you can modify it any way you want with any systems you want as long as those systems are FAA certified or certified by the national and international aviation authorities under which your aircraft operates.
Although I have to point out that sometimes airlines do not opt for the inflight-entertainment system, the default avionics or the engines the aircraft normally comes with.
Generally, there is usually an engine, avionics and other systems "bundle" the aircraft comes with by default and that is the one Airbus Industrie has control over. Then again, there are usually other such "bundles" besides the normal factory one.
It is not entirely uncommon to see Airbus aircraft with GE, PW or RR engines and even US avionics and secondary systems.
I know at least some airlines have ordered their airbus A-3xx aircraft with inflight-entertainment systems from Rockwell Collins [ US ], a huge name in avionics and aircraft systems.
Also there are 3rd party companies which will take any aircraft from any manufacturer and outfit it with systems from manufacturers based on the client's wishes. Provided you own the aircraft you can modify it any way you want with any systems you want as long as those systems are FAA certified or certified by the national and international aviation authorities under which your aircraft operates.
HerrOber
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2006
- 27
- 0
- 18,530
Actually, when I was going by JAL to Japan last time I noticed that their entertainment system is Linux based.
When browsing the movies and going back and forth between menus the system crashed and the message one got was "Your chair is being restarted".
This affected everyone pretty much but not at the same time. Was quite a laugh to see people's worried expressions.
Happenend a fair few times. My wife went few weeks ago on her own and then the system didn't even start. So she had to spend 11 hours without a film. Flight was delayed also because the system crashed severely and noone could bring it back up.
So much for stability I suppose...
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
A badly implemented system using ANY operating system is guaranteed to experience issues of varying severity!
A well built and well implemented system based on Linux is normally very fast, reliable, relatively very secure and does NOT crash.
I am not certain what is causing all these problems however using computers in passenger aircraft is much more complicated that you may realize.
Aircraft and worse yet spacecraft are actually a rather hostile environment for most computers and computer parts.
If you take a look at most computer specifications you will see that most computers are not normally certified to operate above 10,000 ft or 3,048 meters.
Aircraft are operating in high vibration environments with constantly changing environmental factors such as temperature, pressure and humidity and are exposed to much more cosmic and solar radiation than we are on earth because the atmosphere is much thinner and thus provides less protection at high altitude. They are also exposed to RF radiation which may cause interference or undesired operation.
On top of all that they are used and abused by the flying public and are probably operated in a high cycle environment since I'm sure the systems are powered up and down several times a day depending on the flight schedule.
In such an environment normal rules do not necessarily apply.
You cannot attribute the quality or lack thereof of a system such as this to Linux.
Just because this particular implementation of a Linux system appears to suck that does not mean all Linux systems suck!
You cannot make that association or that generalization. That is unwarranted and unfair.
I will reiterate once again that:
A badly implemented system using ANY operating system is guaranteed to experience issues of varying severity!
A well built and well implemented system based on Linux is normally very fast, reliable, relatively very secure and does NOT crash.
I am not certain what is causing all these problems however using computers in passenger aircraft is much more complicated that you may realize.
Aircraft and worse yet spacecraft are actually a rather hostile environment for most computers and computer parts.
If you take a look at most computer specifications you will see that most computers are not normally certified to operate above 10,000 ft or 3,048 meters.
Aircraft are operating in high vibration environments with constantly changing environmental factors such as temperature, pressure and humidity and are exposed to much more cosmic and solar radiation than we are on earth because the atmosphere is much thinner and thus provides less protection at high altitude. They are also exposed to RF radiation which may cause interference or undesired operation.
On top of all that they are used and abused by the flying public and are probably operated in a high cycle environment since I'm sure the systems are powered up and down several times a day depending on the flight schedule.
In such an environment normal rules do not necessarily apply.
You cannot attribute the quality or lack thereof of a system such as this to Linux.
Just because this particular implementation of a Linux system appears to suck that does not mean all Linux systems suck!
You cannot make that association or that generalization. That is unwarranted and unfair.
I will reiterate once again that:
A badly implemented system using ANY operating system is guaranteed to experience issues of varying severity!
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
That is hilarious
I wasn't saying you did but it is easy for some people to get the wrong impression about something so I wanted to clarify things a bit.
Given that a lot of aircraft are having maintenance problems, I am wondering if the problem was a lot more serious than just the entertainment system not operating properly.
The flight might have been delayed due to a more serious maintenance problem perhaps the power distribution system, APU or other similar trouble.
Live long and prosper
I wasn't saying you did but it is easy for some people to get the wrong impression about something so I wanted to clarify things a bit.
Given that a lot of aircraft are having maintenance problems, I am wondering if the problem was a lot more serious than just the entertainment system not operating properly.
The flight might have been delayed due to a more serious maintenance problem perhaps the power distribution system, APU or other similar trouble.
Live long and prosper
This is for the A350 & A380 - Taken from the book 'Civil Avionics Systems' Published by Wiley ISBN: 978-1-118-34180-3
Image of A380 avionics architecture
http://postimg.org/image/d5ehmgd1p/
image of A380 CPIOM architecture (including CPU)
http://postimg.org/image/7xtehzwgd/
Image of A380 CPIOM physical layout
http://postimg.org/image/g759weq6l/
Image of A380 CPIOM responsibilities.
http://postimg.org/image/5zrsh4aa5/
Networking was 100 Base T using a ARINC 664-P7 including the port that gives access to the system. Areas that can be read or read/write require context switches. I would suggest that the engineers could access debug-mode making EVERYTHING accessible which is how someone could delete a file and thus kill 4 people. It speaks volumes about the insecurity of the system. When the computer is powered up, checking that all required files are valid.
At the other end of the system, there is no physical link between the pilot & co-pilot's yokes nor any warning if they are vastly different. Hence Air France 447. If you take a look at the transcript, you can see how this killed 227 people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJND9CE7Euc
Image of A380 avionics architecture
http://postimg.org/image/d5ehmgd1p/
image of A380 CPIOM architecture (including CPU)
http://postimg.org/image/7xtehzwgd/
Image of A380 CPIOM physical layout
http://postimg.org/image/g759weq6l/
Image of A380 CPIOM responsibilities.
http://postimg.org/image/5zrsh4aa5/
Networking was 100 Base T using a ARINC 664-P7 including the port that gives access to the system. Areas that can be read or read/write require context switches. I would suggest that the engineers could access debug-mode making EVERYTHING accessible which is how someone could delete a file and thus kill 4 people. It speaks volumes about the insecurity of the system. When the computer is powered up, checking that all required files are valid.
At the other end of the system, there is no physical link between the pilot & co-pilot's yokes nor any warning if they are vastly different. Hence Air France 447. If you take a look at the transcript, you can see how this killed 227 people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJND9CE7Euc
Do you know the most scary thing? http://www.satcom-airbusds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/skyfile-antivirus_installation-guide_v3_20150115.pdf
I think I'm going to stick with the good old 747 - the more I read, the more I'm horrified by the lack of foresight in the fly-by-wire software. Vital files should be checked to see that they contain valid data. The programmers bleat on about a 'fault tolerant system'
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.106.6736&rep=rep1&type=pdf
And then one drops out of the sky because someone deleted vital files!
It looks like engineers who are used to the traditional arts of fixing physical objects. A programmer should be the only one allowed to mess with the software. The engineers just get sent on a course and are 'certified'... but this isn't a solid object - it's a program; something intangible to someone whose spent maybe 30 years mending hydraulics, engines and similar PHYSICAL things. Programming requires a totally different mindset.
Airbus DS Communications (formerly Cassidian Communications) deal with the software but they were only founded in 2000 and the first Airbus flew in 1987. As far as I can tell, the first flights had less technology and was cobbled together with Honeywell kit. As of 2013, Project Magenta is a TOTAL rewrite of the software.
I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist but I do think that some major computer problem could have doomed AirAsia QZ8501. It looks like the classic 'switch it of and then back on' but for a pilot to do such a thing would be the LAST thing to try. In fact, it sounds ominously like the Air France 447.
I'm interested in what someone more qualified makes of the information here.
I think I'm going to stick with the good old 747 - the more I read, the more I'm horrified by the lack of foresight in the fly-by-wire software. Vital files should be checked to see that they contain valid data. The programmers bleat on about a 'fault tolerant system'
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.106.6736&rep=rep1&type=pdf
And then one drops out of the sky because someone deleted vital files!
It looks like engineers who are used to the traditional arts of fixing physical objects. A programmer should be the only one allowed to mess with the software. The engineers just get sent on a course and are 'certified'... but this isn't a solid object - it's a program; something intangible to someone whose spent maybe 30 years mending hydraulics, engines and similar PHYSICAL things. Programming requires a totally different mindset.
Airbus DS Communications (formerly Cassidian Communications) deal with the software but they were only founded in 2000 and the first Airbus flew in 1987. As far as I can tell, the first flights had less technology and was cobbled together with Honeywell kit. As of 2013, Project Magenta is a TOTAL rewrite of the software.
I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist but I do think that some major computer problem could have doomed AirAsia QZ8501. It looks like the classic 'switch it of and then back on' but for a pilot to do such a thing would be the LAST thing to try. In fact, it sounds ominously like the Air France 447.
I'm interested in what someone more qualified makes of the information here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
Question Can I plug a docking station to a USB-C 2.0 port to have video output?- Started by jameli
- Replies: 2
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram