This is sort of an update to previous posting
Posted on 02/26/2008 3:35:45 PM PST by Tank-FL
Last month, technology news sites and blogs breathlessly reported on a Federal Aviation Administration document suggesting that Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may be vulnerable to computer hackers.
Boeing now says that the problem was fixed even before the FAA issued its warning. But there may be yet another way bad guys could get into the plane's control system, one that neither the company nor the FAA may have noticed.
The FAA was specifically concerned that a passenger could use the on-board entertainment network, which personal laptops can plug into, to access the plane's navigation system and disable or take over the plane.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is sort of an update to previous posting
Not to worry - the onboard version of Microsoft Vista isn’t that capable...and the 787 crews will be trained to troubleshoot memory leaks and reboot the plane as many as five times without needing to land if it locks up in flight. ;)
LOL
So is it going to called a 787 / SP2 ?
Blue Screen of Death Hijacking
Time to de-link them.
Talked to a Delta 747/777 Captain about the new 787.
Very nervous about it. No mechanical backups - all electronic stem to stern to save weight.
There are questions about how to certify it.
It’ll be interesting. The fact that somebody thought linking the entertainment system to the navigation system was a good idea, either at BCS or somewhere else, tells me the guy may be nervous for a reason.
Do the 777 and all of the Airbus fly-by-wire systems have mechanical backups? I don’t think airplanes without mechanical backups are anything new........but I could be wrong.
Planes have been fly by wire for almost 30 years, starting with the A300 and 757/767.
The original fly-by-wire system had actual...wires going to the control surfaces. Can't hack it.
I believe that there has been only one mishap caused by faulty FBW computers and that was with a prototype A320 (or maybe it as an A340) that crashed at an air show in Europe somewhere.
2600 is now 10,000
Very likely that the Aircraft Systems Network is completely separate from the Aircraft Entertainment Network. Cross connecting the Aircraft Systems Network with the public would be negligent. Perhaps a struggling competitor is propagating this redherring.
I was surprised to hear him say this too.
His point was it was all hydraulic and all electronic. No mechanical back ups for anything.
Fly-by-wire is something else.
Does Fox News not recognize that maybe, if this is actually possible, they shouldn’t do a story on it and give some Mecca minded geek ideas?
Let's not have the Dreamliner become synonymous with RIP Boeing. If the security measures aren't changed and there ever is a terrorist attack, Boeing will be litigated out of existence.
“I’m sure they are very sophisticated but if the computer system goes down, there needs to be direct hydraulic control of the plane.”
No way. Hydraulics can fail too. I don’t trust it. There needs to be direct cable and pulley control of all aerodynamic surfaces.
Oh, and those jet turbine things.....Those are bad news. I don’t trust them. Hand-made wooden props attached to piston engines - that are hand started is the only sure way to go. How else can you trust what you are flying in?
I can't believe that Boeing would be so incompetent as to connect a passenger entertainment network with a flight control system.
If this is true, then somebody screwed the pooch big time.
Seriously, I still don't trust them. Not without a backup.
Each 787 will be equipped with two of these new babies, just in case the first one, goes down...
“Seriously, I still don’t trust them. Not without a backup.”
THey have backup....and backups to the backup, and backups to that....
Interesting, but no activism or chapters related.
Yeah, there’s a video of it out on the net. I’ve even got a copy...
Why? A pilot was able to land a DC10 with zero functional control surfaces, despite not having practiced such a scenario. True, it wasn't a great landing, but if he'd prepared for such a scenario he probably could have done better.
Of course, if the engines had used a processor-controlled throttle system, who knows whether it would have allowed the necessary adjustments to control the plane.
I guess my philosophy would be that if planes are going to go fly-by-wire, there should be a backup "mode" in which, with the flip of a switch, the pilot can lock out all processor-controlled systems that use rewritable code storage. The plane's systems should have code in ROM that will allow the pilot to fly the plane. Perhaps not fly it as smoothly or elegantly as fancier code would allow, but at least fly it.
LOL, run MS Flight Simulator and enjoy the ride!
Sounds like speculative BS to me.
I always thought they had triple redundancies. I agree too much reliance on technology is dangerous. And I find it hard to believe that my laptop could ever be capable of taking over the cockpit of the plane, either by ethernet or whatever. I can’t believe the entertainment features would actually have a connection to the cockpit controls in any way, shape or form. What, are the planes being piloted with WiFi?
Now you're talking -love those Hemingway starters!
Oh my gosh, you bring back such memories. Is it just my imagination or did the disk drive grind more than it produced data?
TRSDOS anyone?
This plane cannot be hijacked electronically, flown remotely from another location yes but in the event the pilots lose control it will drop out and lockout any inputs from the cabin.
An unsubstantiated rumor of course.
We’ve come a looong way, though I hear Vista is still a nightmare of sorts.
No, no, we’re not talking about the space shuttle, this is Boeing. They’d have back up Sony Playstations.
This is the problem with the usage of Systems Processors which centralize the management of every component. The system should be a set of parallel systems that the Display processor should show the pilot for monitoring, providing a direct “look and feel” through itself.
They aren’t connected. I am familiar with the IFE (inflight entertainment) system. I am also a software developer, and I don’t see how there’s any risk of hacking flight critical systems here.
Most modern journalists completely lack basic subject matter knowledge, and in a technical arena, are generally so innumerate they are unable to acquire it.
Ha! Just wait till the copilot starts surfing the pR0n sites and clicks on the “200 free teen X rated cheerleaders” ad...
LOLOL Are you volunteering to crawl out on a wing to give the prop a spin in case of failure ?
I wonder if crank instructions will become part of pre-flight safety procedures ?
ROFLMBO
It was a long way from the TRS80 (RadioShack early computer) to the perfection of a computer system simple enough to for all levels of household users to operate. That was accomplished with XP. Vista is an attempt to milk acheived perfection for additonal profits.
In other words, Vista was not necessary.
You should have read his entire comment ... the sarcasm would have been obvious to you....
“Are you volunteering to crawl out on a wing to give the prop a spin in case of failure ?”
Wing? sheesh....you trust the WING to hold the engine? no, the engines should be mounted directly on the fuselage, that’s the only place I would trust it.
And NO I wouldn’t crawl out on a wing, they are made of aluminum and can corrode. I’m for cloth wings, they don’t corrode - and frankly I think it’s a good idea to have two sets of wings, for redundancy, just in case one fails.
“The plane’s systems should have code in ROM that will allow the pilot to fly the plane. Perhaps not fly it as smoothly or elegantly as fancier code would allow, but at least fly it.”
Actually, I’ve seen aircraft in test do exactly this, but really, you’re opening yourself up to more trouble here than the problems it would potentially solve.
Fly-by-wire works, it’s reliable, and it’s here to stay. We haven’t had stick-and-rudder guys for decades on commercial flights.
Your safety is more in the hands of the geeks than the golden-arms these days.
So, you might grab a stick of beemans before you board your next flight.....because you want to be ready when the entertainment center says it’s your turn to fly.
Fly-by-wire-only is potentially, not in all cases, but could be MORE redundant than hydraulic/mechanical backup.
Adding ‘backups’ to control surfaces doesn’t necessarily improve all situations.
The DC-10 in Soiux City had all sorts of backups, in the wrong place, and they didn’t work.
The MD-80 Alaska Air trim-screwjack was ‘redundant’ with the hydraulic control ram...except the nut on the screwjack was stripped and thus the system turned into a single point of failure.
If the single-redundancy FBW system has a 0.9999 failure rate, it’s probably safer than dual hydro+mechanical systems with 0.9999 and 0.997 respective failure rates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.