Originally Posted by
Peter H
Non-aviation lurker & retired software engineer.
I'm finding it hard to understand why no attempt was made to continue with the the offending flight-plan handled by the manual system. For arguments sake, say after a cold restart of the system in case there had been any corruption.
Presumably some sort of fix or all-clear was eventually issued issued (I assume "continue but handle the offending flight-plan by hand"). I'm having difficulty imaging what type of issue(s) would require 4 hours to find or exclude.
PS I'm in some of the outer circles of confusion shown in the latest New Scientist cartoon.
The expectation would seem to have been that the would do exactly that. Identify the errant data, isolate it and move on. They seem to have struggled to identify the errant data and possibly then struggled to remove it, exactly why isn't really covered in the prelim report, hopefully it will come later.
If you can't isolate that data then it's going to fail every time. If you take all the data out then your system is equally ineffective.