undefined | Better HN

0 pointsggm3y ago0 comments

It can come with exposure of hidden costs. So a pc which can only be assured to be correct by reboot cannot continuously monitor a flow process which cannot be interrupted for that reboot window. It has to be designed to work with two, or some kind of data buffering has to be designed in, or the specification changed to redefine to continuous(*)

Which btw is what should be done but.. it can cause rage

[*] may not be continuous or complete in all circumstances

0 comments

hef198983y ago

But a 787 works fine with those reboots being part of scheduled maintenance. So the issue is what exactly again?

p_l3y ago

Essentially changes in typical operation procedures at airlines broke previous assumptions about regular full aircraft power downs, which triggered both the 248 day bug and the current 51 day bug.

It used to be that an aircraft would get a full power down as often as daily, but as individual components got more reliable and external power easily available, it became common for aircraft to not be shut down fully between flight days.

ggmOP3y ago

Nothing. I respond to a question posing why it might be a problem. It didn't say "in a 787" it was "in general" I suggest a class of problem which it might surface in. The wider question.

All aircraft have schedules of maintenance. Requirements to reboot a computer periodically isn't onerous. It's not onerous but the insane costs of recertification are. Fixing this problem to not require reboot would be very expensive. Not just the FAA process burdens but the wider costs. 787 battery problems probably wrecked the entire profit of the model for years.

The Max flight safety issue on another Boeing aircraft may mean its never profitable. The industry is wierd.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse