Verifying software in the brake control system of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner is the latest problem holding back the new plane’s first test flight, the troubled program’s chief said.

The first of the 787s, originally meant to fly last summer, has been held back by three major production delays due to parts shortages and incomplete work from suppliers arriving at its assembly plant near Seattle.

The plane is still on track for a first flight in the fourth quarter — in line with the last schedule announced in April — but the newest “air bubble” in the timetable is in the brake systems, Pat Shanahan said at a briefing at Farnborough Airshow…

It’s not that the brakes don’t work, it’s the traceability of the software,” Shanahan said, explaining that Crane Company, the provider, had to go back and rewrite certain parts of the brake control software to verify it for the certification process.

“I’m confident it will be done. It’s General Electric,” Shanahan said.

Uh. Anyone else here ever work for General Electric?




  1. moss says:

    What’s happened? Boeing used to be capable of cranking out some terrific code on their own. Their CAD stuff was tops.

    Who talked them out of writing their own software?

  2. Thinker says:

    This is a big complex project. Rather have it right than ‘on time’

  3. Ron Larson says:

    Control-C! Control-C!

    (ok… that’s really old. If I have to explain it, you’re too young).

  4. Don says:

    Boeing will be fine. I mean come on, their biggest competition is Airbus.

    Don

  5. Jägermeister says:

    #1 – moss – Who talked them out of writing their own software?

    Obviously GE, who in turn do the dirty work of outsourcing it to countries such as India.

  6. MikeR says:

    Lemme help, lemme help….

    CASE
    WHEN COMMAND = ‘WHOA’
    SET BRAKES ON
    WHEN COMMAND = ‘GO’
    SET BRAKES OFF
    OTHERWISE
    ! Remember to add some code here
    END CASE

  7. Jägermeister says:

    #4 – Don

    Yeah, Airbus is not even a competitor

    #5 – MikeR – ! Remember to add some code here

    Let me insert the missing code:

    BLINK RANDOM LIGHTS

  8. Ron Larson says:

    Brakes? Brakes! We don’t need no stinking brakes!

  9. dg says:

    FAA Certification… that’s the problem. You can’t certify software for flight, you can only certify the software development PROCESS used to write it.

    If you failed to follow the proper software development process — management, documentation, etc. — you can’t use the software for flight critical systems. No matter how good it is.

    That means you must throw out *everything* you have written and start over completely from scratch.

  10. Mac Guy says:

    #3 – What about…

    :!q

  11. Smartalix says:

    GE is a good company, one of the few we have with the depth of tech and breadth of market needed to compete with the other big mltinationals.

  12. Judge Jewdy says:

    They should let Microsoft write the code, they are very good at breaking.

  13. Jägermeister says:

    #12 – Judge Judy

    Touché!

  14. BubbaRay says:

    From BNet:

    So how does the regulator ensure that the software is of the same sort of quality attained with the original certification? According to numerous software experts, it can’t. Logically, one should go through the same rigmarole all over again, but that is problematic. Result: occasionally, parts of the system that used to work no longer do, as seems to have happened in the Malaysian Airlines plane.

    An easy read about software certification from the FAA (well, except for the rules).

    That’s one nice thing about a wood and fabric airplane, the only software is in the mp3 player you bring on board.

  15. programmer123 says:

    I imagine that this will be come a more common delay on these fly by wire systems. As they push the limit on what the software will do more unexpected delays will come up. This will especially be true if the programmers are great programmers and dedicated to the project. I certainly hope GE isn’t using a group in India more interested in the prestige of working for a fortune 100 than actually doing a good job, saidly GE does so much of their technical work over there with people who either don’t understand or don’t care to.

  16. Angel H. Wong says:

    # 5
    But if Apple made the sofware you would have to replace the entire airplane every time a tire would wear down.

  17. Rick Cain says:

    The A380 all of a sudden looks like a good deal.

    Come on, Boeing can’t do anything on time. Remember the “Sonic Cruiser”. Talk about a big swindle and the ultimate aircraft vaporware.

  18. Uncle Patso says:

    People look at Moore’s Law and say computers will be as smart as humans within 50 years, but this ignores the problem of the software. As the machines get faster and faster, the software development time has become the bottleneck, and some systems have been so complex (and so poorly thought out) that they have had to be completely abandoned.

    In short, Captain Kirk will always be able to out-talk the machine.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5319 access attempts in the last 7 days.