Software Bug In Bombardier Airliner Made Planes Turn the Wrong Way (theregister.co.uk) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: A very specific software bug made airliners turn the wrong way if their pilots adjusted a pre-set altitude limit. The bug, discovered on Bombardier CRJ-200 aircraft fitted with Rockwell Collins Aerospace-made flight management systems (FMSes), led to airliners trying to follow certain missed approaches turning right instead of left -- or vice versa.
First discovered in 2017, the flaw was only apparent when pilots manually edited a pre-set "climb to" altitude programmed into a "missed approach" procedure following an Instrument Landing System approach. It also arose if pilots used the FMS's temperature compensation function in extremely cold weather. In theory the bug could have led to airliners crashing into the ground, though the presence of two trained and alert humans in the cockpit monitoring what the aircraft was doing made this a remote possibility. "The bug was first uncovered when a CRJ-200 crew flying into Canada's Fort St John airport used the FMS's temperature correction function," the report adds. "They discovered that the software turned their aeroplane in the wrong direction while it was following the published missed approach, something that generally does not happen. The fault was swiftly reported to the authorities and the relevant manufacturers."
Full details, including the maths, are available here. The U.S. Federal Aviation Authorities also published a Powerpoint presentation (PDF) about the bug.
First discovered in 2017, the flaw was only apparent when pilots manually edited a pre-set "climb to" altitude programmed into a "missed approach" procedure following an Instrument Landing System approach. It also arose if pilots used the FMS's temperature compensation function in extremely cold weather. In theory the bug could have led to airliners crashing into the ground, though the presence of two trained and alert humans in the cockpit monitoring what the aircraft was doing made this a remote possibility. "The bug was first uncovered when a CRJ-200 crew flying into Canada's Fort St John airport used the FMS's temperature correction function," the report adds. "They discovered that the software turned their aeroplane in the wrong direction while it was following the published missed approach, something that generally does not happen. The fault was swiftly reported to the authorities and the relevant manufacturers."
Full details, including the maths, are available here. The U.S. Federal Aviation Authorities also published a Powerpoint presentation (PDF) about the bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hearing the Garmin say "Turn around when possible" and wishing for the John Cleese version that adds "you stupid git".
Re: (Score:1)
They hired these guys as engineers... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scares me from flying (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for KITT from Knight Industries. I don't trust Tesla and others.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit confused here. It sounds like you're being sarcastic or trying to parody someone. I'm not sure why. If an entire model of plan won't respond correctly to the pilot, even under limited circumstances, then they should definitely be grounded. Imagine a model of car where the steering gets reversed if you put the car in first gear. There would be an immediate recall and they would be taken off the road.
737 Max issue is much deeper (Score:4, Insightful)
> Although mitigations and workarounds for the bug were published relatively
> quickly, Bombardier and Rockwell Collins disagreed with the FAA on the formal
> steps to be taken about it; a mandatory airworthiness directive ordering operators
> of CRJ-200 aircraft to disable the automatic temperature compensation was
> published in Europe this week and goes into force in mid-June.
The mitigation is to disable that faulty auto-pilot setting, just like with Teslas, you're not supposed to let them do auto-pilot in real life... yet. And if the guys in the cockpit can't land manually, then What The F*** are they doing in the (co)piltot seats? The basic problem is to not depend on certain auto-pilot functionality.
737 max is different. With turbofan engines, bigger fans mean quieter, more fuel-efficient operation. The latest-and-greatest engines are too large to fit under the wings of an airframe that made its first test flights in 1967 and entered service with Lufthansa in 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In response, the engines were moved forward and up to allow sufficient ground clearance. Compare the 737-200 https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org] to the 737 Max https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Pilots must be "type-rated" to fly an aircraft type other than the one they got their licence on. From the 737-100 to the 737-200 ... up to the 737-800, pilots could get uprated with a short period of "difference training" to familiarize themselves with different instrument layouts, etc. The airplanes handled pretty much the same.
Along comes the 737 Max with shifted engines. *IT HANDLES DIFFERENTLY* in that when more throttle is applied, the nose tends to pitch up a bit, and can stall if you let it get away from you. It's still perfectly safe and flyable; the pilots simply need to know what to expect. *BUT BECAUSE IT HANDLES DIFFERENTLY, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO SQUARE 1 FOR TYPE-RATING A PILOT*. This is a much more detailed and longer *AND MORE EXPENSIVE* process than "difference training". There were no 737-Max type-rated pilots on the planet, except a few Boeing test pilots. Boeing faced a choice...
A) Tell airlines that they'd have to spend months, and millions of dollars to retrain their pilots.
B) Put in software designed to work behind the pilots' backs to make the 737 Max mimic prevvious 737 versions. It would bring the nose down when it "detected too much upward pitch". False negatives were deadly.
Boeing went with Plan B, and the rest is history..
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Too much reliance on semi-smart automation. The take off and landing should be manual. Autothrottle has also resulted in serious crashes due to pilots not knowing how to actually fly an airplane,
But I do not get this "Type Rating" noise. So it pulls up a bit, warning required, May need an hour in the simulator just to be really safe. But that should hardly be a big deal. It is made to sound like they need to go back to flying school.
Re: (Score:2)
Aviation authorities are anal about safety; that's their job. You're talking millions of passengers' safety, as well as people on the ground.
https://aviationvoice.com/cost... [aviationvoice.com]
How Could it Affect Boeing and Airlines?
It is a well-known fact that no additional simulator training for pilots with type rating for an older type of Boeing 737 was one of the primary reasons for airlines to consider purchase of this plane. Newer, more efficient, and not so costly in terms of flight crew training.
Now, in turn, this cou
At least the wrong direction wasn't "down" like (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadians always have, "Yeah, we weren't last, you know, eh?" They always have that. You can't take that away from them.
Bankruptcy... (Score:2, Insightful)
When Boeing CEO David Calhoun was asked by NBC News if “there might be a major U.S. carrier that just has to go out of business,” he responded quickly and strongly, “Yes, most likely.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/w... [forbes.com]
Maybe he should worry about his own business.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the US and European countries (Germany w/ Lufthansa I believe) making a point to bail out airlines. And in the US at least, that means the airlines are getting preferential treatment over most other businesses except banks/finance and auto manufacturers. Is there a particular reason for this? It's hard to believe it could simply be the size of the business, when others are allowed to fail. Does anyone know?
What's the use of Auto Pilot, then? (Score:1)
In theory the bug could have led to airliners crashing into the ground, though the presence of two trained and alert humans in the cockpit monitoring what the aircraft was doing made this a remote possibility.
You need two trained humans watching what the aircraft is actually doing all the time? What the hell? I was given to understand "auto pilot" means one thing and one thing only. "You set it and forget it. It should do the right thing all the time, without any kind of monitoring by any one".
Are you telling me Rei [slashdot.org] was right and that binary username with monomania is wrong? Whats the world coming to now a days! I mean if I can not randomly conjure up some different meaning that to terms used by professional
Re: What's the use of Auto Pilot, then? (Score:2)
During takeoff and landing ues, you need 2 pilots watching. But ILS isn't really autopilot, and real autopilot really just keeps the aircraft at a set altitude and airspeed and follows a preprogrammed set of waypoints. And there is always a pilot watching everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the use of Auto Pilot, then? (Score:2)
Yep. Commercial aviation autopilot is essentially nothing more than cruise control coupled with point to point navigation (basically just changes headings)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty fancy autopilot. Up until quite recently (and possibly still) autopilot would hold your altitude and heading, and possibly speed.
Auto pilot vs Telsa (Score:2)
The sky is big, and mostly empty. So airline autopilot is more like boat auto pilot that keep a steady course. Convenient for long flights.
Telsa autopilots would be easy to write if roads were thousands of meters wide, had no obstructions, very few other cars about, and no car-like things that could confuse it.
It is curious that for a computer, flying an aeroplane is much, much easier than driving a car, yet for a human the reverse is true. Although flying an aeroplane is not as difficult as is often mad
Re: (Score:2)
Pilots are required by law to continually monitor the autopilot. Just like Tesla drivers are. It's really quite a good name for the system.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if driving a Tesla would require a licence as difficult to obtain as a pilot licence and a type rating for the particular Tesla model which includes an autopilot training. Do you get my point or shall I continue?
Re: (Score:2)
"Autopilot Included:
Enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically for other vehicles and pedestrians within its lane."
This is followed by the following optional feature:
"Full Self-Driving Capability:
Navigate on Autopilot: automatic driving from highway on-ramp to off-ramp including interchanges and overtaking slower cars."
So notice the "Full Self-Driving Capability" which implies much more.
When it comes to the Bombardier CRJ-200... (Score:2)
... the customer is always right.
Re: (Score:2)
... the customer is always right.
...I meant left!
Could be serious - Look at KMRY (Score:3)
if you look at the Monterey approach plate https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/... [faa.gov] the missed approach is shown by the dotted line, and a right rather that left turn would take the plane toward high terrain.
The problem is that missed approaches are uncommon in airliners, and and one cause is that some other problem develops on approach. This could be as simple as an aircraft that failed to exit the runway in time, or something very more like low level wind shear or a landing gear problem. Those could result in the crew being extremely busy and not noticing the incorrect auto-pilot behavior in time.
Just fly the aeroplane, like a pilot! (Score:2)
Missed approach guidence. Autothrottle. All these semi-automated half smart tools are dangerous, and Autothrottle has been responsible for a number of disastrous crashes when pilots misconfigure them.
Any competent pilot should be able to manually fly an approach, missed or otherwise. Control airspeed, altitude, note ILS etc. Provided, of course, that they practice on every flight and do not rely on Auto* tools.
It is like manipulating cruise control to drive through inner city streets instead of just bra
Re: (Score:2)
> ... that they practice on every flight and do not rely on Auto* tools.
As a bug fix, they are changing their build system to cmake.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy fix (Score:2)
Just fly upside-down. Problem solved.