harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Sept 11, 2014 10:24:54 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 13, 2014 0:00:28 GMT 1
This move is part of a much larger cost-cutting effort, which seems to have been triggered by the CSeries trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Sept 23, 2014 21:15:17 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 23, 2014 21:37:45 GMT 1
For clarity, the talks do not seem to be about a new order, they seem to be about accepting to be the launch operator.
The most important information is that the CSeries now flies in "normal" mode. This is a major programme milestone.
|
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Sept 23, 2014 22:10:53 GMT 1
What is the 'normal' flying mode?... weren't the frames already flying in normal mode before the engine incident?...
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Sept 23, 2014 22:15:52 GMT 1
Apparently not, the software was not yet ready until now.
Like Airbus, Bombardier had a iron bird to test the software prior to first flight. But I heard the iron bird completely failed, forcing Bombardier to test and debug the software on the real hardware (the test beds).
|
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Sept 23, 2014 23:01:39 GMT 1
What is the 'normal' flying mode?... weren't the frames already flying in normal mode before the engine incident?... There had a issue with the software so they were working it in the lab before. It was resolved and updated during the grounding. From the article |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 24, 2014 0:45:19 GMT 1
What is the 'normal' flying mode?... weren't the frames already flying in normal mode before the engine incident?... The CSeries had been flying in 'direct mode', not in 'normal mode'. In 'direct mode', some functions of the fly-by-wire system are not active (all pilot inputs are executed, without any computer interference), whereas in 'normal mode' the system is fully active and protects the aircraft flight enveloppe (a pilot input might be overruled). For instance, in the AF447 flight, the pitot tubes failure deprived the computer of any information about airspeed, and the system self-downgraded to Airbus' 'alternate law' which is the same as BBD's 'direct mode'. This context denied the pilots any computer monitoring. In normal law, the computer would not have allowed the pilot inputs that led to a stall. Not flying in 'normal mode' pointed to serious software issues. Hopefully, they have now overcome their problems. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Sept 24, 2014 4:43:50 GMT 1
But I heard the iron bird completely failed, forcing Bombardier to test and debug the software on the real hardware (the test beds). Whoa...what. How did they manage to bungle the iron bird test???  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 24, 2014 9:32:03 GMT 1
BBD has been tight-lipped on these software or simulation issues. One possibility is that they did not stop to solve all the problems they detected at early stages, and went on. In that case, the proverbial chickens (the early issues) came back home to roost at a later stage. For comparison, remember how Airbus pledged to do just the opposite in the A350 programme, and accepted an early schedule slip that probably helped to keep the programme under control.
|
|
