787 ELECTRICAL ISSUE
 

GEEZE- IMO any software that allows all systems to fail at the same time- even under extreme unlikely events is fubar !
FAA orders new 787 electrical fix to prevent power failure - 4/30/2015 - Flight Global

ll Boeing 787 operators will be required to periodically deactivate the electrical system to avoid a problem with a newly-discovered software bug that could cause the aircraft to lose alternating current (AC) power, the US Federal Aviation Administration says in a new airworthiness directive.

The agency adopted the final rule after Boeing reported the results of a laboratory test showing a total loss of power is possible if the generator control units run continuously for eight months, says the FAA’s 30 April notice in the Federal Register. :eek:

The binding airworthiness directive is being published less than two weeks after Boeing privately alerted operators about the problem, the company says in a statement to Flightglobal.

It is rare for a commercial aircraft to remain powered on for eight months with no interruptions.

Goes on !

...

Yeah, that would be a hell of a long-distance flight, probably the blue-screen-of-death app. for toilet overflow would happen before that though!!!.
:E

and from WSJ
 

Yikes !

from WSJ extract

787 software problem?
 

Just hope you're not flying on the 248th day! (Although admittedly the fix isn't difficult...)

787 software bug can shut down planes' generators ? The Register

Back in the real world, when was the last time an aircraft was continuously powered for 248 days?


The Ejets had a similar problem when first introduced but for them it was an commanded RAT deployment on the ground after 40 hours.

Quick software update and all was well.

Indeed, in the real world it's never going to happen. Nevertheless, the FAA clearly thought it was significant enough to issue a directive about it.

Also I suspect that software updates are far from trivial where the software is safety-critical with multiple redundancies and parallel processing.

Did that a couple of times when the B747-400 first entered service.

As the probability of generators being kept running for that long is zero, it may not even need a fix. Yes it is poor programming practice but it is not an issue that will affect the aircraft. It's like saying the aircraft can run out of fuel if it flies for more than 16 hours!! :eek:

A relatively common Airbus fix!

about power on issues 787
 

actually, its not just the generators on , its also ground power

from WSJ extract
Quote:
A Federal Aviation Administration safety directive that became public on Thursday reveals that Boeing’s laboratory tests discovered that under certain circumstances, all of the 787’s power systems can suddenly shut down entirely during a flight.

Such a problem, —which the FAA said risks “loss of control of the airplane,” can occur after a jetliner remains connected to onboard or ground-based electric power without a break for a stretch of 248 consecutive days, the agency said. The FAA is ordering airlines to shut down power systems periodically to alleviate the hazard.

Boeing said such shutdowns are part of regular maintenance, and it would be rare for a jet to have power uninterrupted for so long. The plane maker roughly a week ago recommended that airlines voluntarily turn off power systems at least every four months.

During the early stages of the plane’s introduction, Boeing drafted an internal report concluding that Dreamliners experienced most of their reliability problems just after being powered up. The company recommended adding additional time before flights to deal with erroneous “nuisance” messages.

Turning electrical equipment off then on is known as a Ferranti reset.

I've written software like that. Just try to get your boss to let you fix it!


"But I've got to fix it, else it'll crash after 248 days."


"Who cares? - there's no chance of it staying up for that long anyway, it'll have crashed for some other reason long before then. Go and do something actually useful instead."

So what's the bet then?
32bit signed value used as a counter running at 100Hz?
Pretty damn close to exactly 248 days (21427200 secs), 2^31 = 2147483648

Boeing 787 integer overflow bug
 

Please don't leave your 787 powered on for 248 days straight...

New FAA AD:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-10066.pdf

OK, so based on the articles it looks to me that this issue was discovered through some kind of regression testing (for non-software folks, this is essentially a form of testing which continually runs scenarios against the software throughout the life of the product, in particular checking that fixes and updates don't break existing code). The reason this is important is because testing of this kind is and always has been mandatory for aviation/safety-critical systems - in fact many of the methods were invented and perfected by the aviation software pioneers. It doesn't matter that a real-world occurrence of this scenario is very unlikely, for this software specialty that's not good enough. By the sound of things, it seems this scenario was encountered in testing by Boeing's software team/contractors, and the FAA was immediately notified. In short, this is what's supposed to happen and - if anything - only serves to prove that the system for finding and resolving this kind of issue is working as it should.

@Gertrude the Wombat - As a more mundane software engineer myself, I can only repeat that your hypothetical management dismissal simply won't fly in the aviation software world.

@ion_berkley - Your analysis sounds about right, but from what I've been told real-time aviation software isn't usually hand-coded in the manner most other software is. I know that Airbus's development environment is essentially a graphical system with discrete blocks of tested and approved code underpinning the graphical logic structure. That said, I don't have any info on how this specific system on the B787 was put together.

[EDIT : As far as finding the issue now goes - one aspect of this kind of testing in terms of scientific software reliability is that the engineers will continue adding scenarios to the suite of tests, and if the scenario is considered unlikely in the field it is usually called an "edge case" in software terminology. I suspect that this particular edge case was added to the suite fairly recently.]

Boeing must be using Windows programmers these days.

Pilot: "Hello Help desk - the aircraft has lost power"
Indian "have you rebooted?"

Boeing 787 integer overflow bug
 

.............

Now I'm definitely going to buy a "If It's Not Boeing, I'm Not Going" T-Shirt :rolleyes:

And the Time?
 

OK; have seen this notice a couple of times. Using normal procedures, how log does it take to do a FULL electrical shut down on a 787. And once 'cold' how long to reboot from the cold state?
Is there any reason that this cannot become a scheduled, monthly or even A-level Mx procedure? So, How long to "Cold-Boot" a 787?"
I cannot imagine the a 787 in commercial service could go 248 days without some reason to de-power the works. More likely might be the rarely used 787-BBJ (what, two of them currently?) [[and my only concern there is protecting the crew. The world already has enough yokels that own/ride their own 787BBJs]]
Any ideas about the cold-boot time? Thanks.

I know the 777 takes a few minutes to wake up, nothing that you can't fit into a normal daily cycle somewhere, I doubt the 787 will be any slower. Lets see, this will just make it into a Bulletin probably, Boeing doesn't have the best track record in fixing software bugs unfortunately (especially when existing airframes are to be rid of the problem)...