Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Fly By Wire And Viruses  
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11940 times:

Ok, we all know Airbus aircraft are fly by wire. I also know they have protection programs consisting of certain levels that can ignore a pilots input if it is deamed to cause the plane to crash. My question is since every control input the pilot makes is run through computers, what is the chance that someone could put a virus or viruses into the flight control programs and cause a crash. What if a terrorist deep in Airbuses manufacturing business put a virus in the program that would crash the computers on all Airbus models at a certain date. Is this possible? If you lost all the flight control computers on an Airbus could you still fly the plane?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11939 times:

Not too great, you are talking a highly-embedded system that is not programmed using off the shelf software and is probably running a highly proprietary architecture.

What this means is 1) your virus writer would have to be able to program a virus that could run within the confines of Airbus's operating environment (highly unlikely) 2) he would probably have to know how to program assembly language on some obscure, mid to late 1980's processors (once again, very unlikely) and 3) the virus writer would probably require source code access to Airbus's FBW system (how likely do you think that is!).

So, I wouldn't worry about it too much...

 twocents  Brent



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4407 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have two remarks to add to KELPkid's :
- On Airbus aircraft , the flight control computers - 2 ELACs, 3 SECs and 2 FACs are made by different manufacturers with softwares designed by different companies, which should prevent a pollution occuring in one to propagate.
- In this respect, Boeing has elected to keep a single supplier on redundant computers, which means that Boeing 777s are more vulnerable to an attack. But I agree with Kelpkid, the success of that kind of sabotage is remote.

Regards



Contrail designer
User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1565 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11866 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Thread starter):
If you lost all the flight control computers on an Airbus could you still fly the plane?

You can fly this airplane as long as the wings stay in their places.


The flight controls computers

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
2 ELACs, 3 SECs and 2 FACs

back each other incase of a failure and control surfaces are still accessible via the other one.Having learned that they are made by manufacturars its more than "unlikely" to have a bug in the computers.

Incase of the (unlikely worst case senerio) , A320 severely handicaps and loses all its flight protections,it becomes a BOEING on a normal day  Smile



Widen your world
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11858 times:

Quoting Wing (Reply 3):
ncase of the (unlikely worst case senerio) , A320 severely handicaps and loses all its flight protections,it becomes a BOEING on a normal day

Would this be the dreaded (by French philosophers turned FBW system architects) "direct law" mode Doesn't there still have to be some minimal computer functionality for this to work?

[Edited 2006-10-18 20:52:16]


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9943 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11846 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wing (Reply 3):
Incase of the (unlikely worst case senerio) , A320 severely handicaps and loses all its flight protections,it becomes a BOEING on a normal day

Transferring to the A320 from teh 737 has gone to your head, huh Wing?  Wink

I was wondering if someone can expand the following acronyms:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
2 ELACs, 3 SECs and 2 FACs



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
Would this be the dreaded (by French philosophers turned FBW system architects) "direct law" mode

I would have thought that "direct law" still went through the flight control computers....Maybe not though. Does it just bypass the computers, and the electrical signals from the controls go straight to hydraulic actuators at the control surfaces? Or some such thing?

Thanks...

~Vik



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11834 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 5):
I was wondering if someone can expand the following acronyms

Google can:

ELAC ELevator Aileron Computer
SEC Spoiler & Elevator Computer
FAC Flight Augmentation Computer


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11761 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
Boeing has elected to keep a single supplier on redundant computers, which means that Boeing 777s are more vulnerable to an attack.

You sure? According to a book on the 777 buy guy norris I have the T7 has one Intel, one Motorola and one AMD processor. Dunno if it has changed for later variants.


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2689 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11737 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
On Airbus aircraft , the flight control computers - 2 ELACs, 3 SECs and 2 FACs

I seem to remember vaguely that Airbus aircraft (A330/A340) have 3 FCPC's (Flight Control Primary Computers) and 2 FCSC's (Flight Control Secondary Computers), are these distinct from the ELAC's, SEC's and FAC's  Confused.



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineKalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11725 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
Would this be the dreaded (by French philosophers turned FBW system architects) "direct law" mode Doesn't there still have to be some minimal computer functionality for this to work?

there was a thread some time ago on Airbus control in case of total power loss.
Bottom line was that there is still enough control capabilities to land in such a case, without any electrical circuit whatsoever.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17029 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11716 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Thread starter):
I also know they have protection programs consisting of certain levels that can ignore a pilots input if it is deamed to cause the plane to crash.



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
1) your virus writer would have to be able to program a virus that could run within the confines of Airbus's operating environment (highly unlikely) 2) he would probably have to know how to program assembly language on some obscure, mid to late 1980's processors (once again, very unlikely) and 3) the virus writer would probably require source code access to Airbus's FBW system (how likely do you think that is!).



Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
- On Airbus aircraft , the flight control computers - 2 ELACs, 3 SECs and 2 FACs are made by different manufacturers with softwares designed by different companies, which should prevent a pollution occuring in one to propagate.
- In this respect, Boeing has elected to keep a single supplier on redundant computers, which means that Boeing 777s are more vulnerable to an attack. But I agree with Kelpkid, the success of that kind of sabotage is remote.

Let's add to this that the operating system architecture is quite specific and particular. Most flight control computers run each process in an individual virtual machine, thus effectively isolating a process in an operating system instance. Thus if a process "misbehaves", the entire virtual machine can be shut down and a new "clean" one can be brought up.

I'm also assuming there's quite a bit of tamper proofing. In any case a non-approved "update" will most likely lead to the computer simply refusing to start at all.

Having said all that, of course creating a virus to hack an Airbus is possible. But the effort involved makes it likely that a would be terrorist would choose an easier avenue of attack.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
Doesn't there still have to be some minimal computer functionality for this to work?

I believe a little. However I don't think any Airbus has been reduced to this leve in flight. So many redundant systems have to break down at the same time pigs will fly past the windows of the aircraft first.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJben From Australia, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 77 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11699 times:

It would be extremely improbable that this could occur... software is distributed from the manufacturer to the customer to install.

Also, I can only speak to one kind of flight control system on this (but I think most work the same) is that the flight computers vote on things. Say you have 3 primary flight control computers, all running identical software (written in ADA). All 3 are ordinarily running all the time, receiving the same data from the main A1/A2 and B buses. All 3 should produce the same result for virtually all inputs. What can, and does happen from time to time is that one of the three computers will produce an erroneous result. In this circumstance, there are 2 computers that agree, with one disagreeing. The value which the 2 computers agreed on, will be the value used. If a computer consistently produces bad results, then there are numerous options for dealing with that, including resetting the machine or isolating the machine (that it is it won't be able to send or receive anything from the bus until it is reset on the ground, this is what usually happens) or with the remaining two, one becomes the primary (and is in complete control) and the other is a backup (and remains this way for the remainder of the flight).

All 3 are fitted with hard limits in software to ensure that each of the flight computers is running all the time, and isn't bogged down. Each computer must send a heartbeat signal to each of the other 2, to let them know that they're still alive and working. Another thing is timing, there are limits set on how long a particular part of a program can run for and limits on the maximum time an instruction is allowed to wait before it's actioned on.

So, if you did manage this feat of installing a virus, it just wouldn't work... there are just too many interlocks and safety features in the code. There are also features in the hardware that require the programs to do certain things at certain times to verify that the code running is the correct code and hasn't been corrupted. I can't say much more really.

[Edited 2006-10-19 04:11:28]

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11686 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 8):
I seem to remember vaguely that Airbus aircraft (A330/A340) have 3 FCPC's (Flight Control Primary Computers) and 2 FCSC's (Flight Control Secondary Computers), are these distinct from the ELAC's, SEC's and FAC's .

Yes and no, the 330/340 use slighty different terms for doing flight control. The 330/340 SEC is not the same as a 320 series SEC.

The 330/340 as you said has PRIM and SECs:
• three flight control primary computers (PRIM) which can process all three types of control laws (Normal, Alternate, Direct)
• two flight control secondary computers (SEC) which can process the Direct Control Law.
These computers perform additional functions including :
• speebrakes and ground spoiler command
• characteristic speed computation (PRIM only). High-lift devices are commanded by two Slat/Flap Control Computers (SFCC). The SFCCs also command the aileron droop via the primary or secondary computers.

In order to provide all required monitoring information to the crew and to the Central Maintenance System (CMS), two Flight Control Data Concentrators (FCDC) acquire the outputs from the various computers to be sent to the ECAM and Flight Data Interface Unit (FDIU). These two FCDCs ensure the electrical isolation of the flight control computers from the other systems.

As far as the design goes, the two types of flight control computers :
• PRIM (two channels with different software forcontrol/monitoring). SEC (two channels with different software for control/monitoring).
• Each one of these computers can perform two tasks :
- process orders to be sent to other computers as a function of various inputs (sidestick, autopilot…)
- execute orders received from other computers so as to control their own servo-loop.
The three primary or main computers (PRIM) :
• process all control laws (Normal, Alternate, Direct) as the flight control orders.
• One of the three PRIM is selected to be the master ;
it processes the orders and outputs them to the other computers PRIM 1, 2 and 3, SEC 1 and 2) which will then execute them on their related servo-loop.
• The master checks that its orders are fulfilled by comparing them with feedback received ; this allows self-monitoring of the master which can detect a malfunction and cascade control to the next computer.
• Each PRIM is able to control up to eight servo-loops simultaneously ; each can provide complete aircraft control under normal laws.

The two secondary computers (SEC) :
• are able to process direct laws only
• either SEC can be the master in case of loss of all primary computers
• each SEC can control up to 10 servo-loops simultaneously ; each can provide complete aircraft control.

Electrically controlled hydraulic servo-jacks can operate in one of three control modes depending upon computer status and type of control surface :
• Active : the servo-jack position is electrically controlled
• Damping : the servo-jack position follows the surface movement
• Centering : the servo-jack position is maintained neutral.

In the A340-200/300, the pilot’s rudder commands are transmitted through mechanical linkages to the hydraulically-actuated rudder. The rudder is also used to provide roll control, in the event of a total flight control computer failure (mechanical back up mode).

The A340-500/600 has an “electric rudder”, meaning that the mechanical links between the pedals and hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical signalling of pilot yaw commands. However, the rudder will still be hydraulically-actuated as for the A340-200/300. This modification produces many benefits, including the removal of several mechanical components such as the Yaw Damper, the Back up Yaw Damper (BYDU), the Rudder Travel Limiter (RTLU), and the Pedal Travel Limiter (PTLU). It will also allow easier and more effective incorporation of the rudder into the turbulence damping modes of the flight control system. Although electricallysignalled, the rudder will retain its function as a back up flight control by virtue of a back up electrical power supply (powered by either the blue or yellow hydraulic
system), and an autonomous back up control module, independent of the flight control computers.

The 320 series is slightly different:

Flight control is achieved by three types of computer :
Two ELACs (Elevator Aileron Computer) to ensure commands of :
- normal elevator and stabilizer
- aileron
Three SECs (Spoiler Elevator Computer)
- three computers achieve spoiler control
- two of them are devoted to standby elevator and stabilizer control
Two FACs (Flight Augmentation Computer)
Two computers which achieve electrical rudder control and characteristics speeds calculation for displays on PFD
.
In addition
- two SFCCs (Slats Flaps Control Computer)
- two FCDCs (Flight Control Data Concentrator) acquire data from ELACs and SECs and send them to ECAM and CFDS.

Use of dissimilar redundancy
Two types of computer - two ELACs to achieve aileron control and normal pitch control
- three SECs to achieve spoiler control and standby pitch control
No single type of microprocessor : ELAC - Motorola 68000, SEC - INTEL 80186
Each ELAC and SEC is divided into two units :
- one Control Unit (COM)
- one Monitoring unit (MON)
Four different softwares : ELAC COM + MON, SEC COM + MON.
Physical separation of hardware for COM and MON units.
In addition, mechanical back-up (through rudder and stabilizer control) will ensure adequate control in case of temporary loss of all electrical power sources including batteries.

Self tests
Each computer is able to detect its own failures :
- processor test (check sum, watchdog…)
- electrical supply monitoring
- input and output test
- wrap around of output to input.

Inputs are monitored :
- by comparison of signals of the same type but sent by different sources
- by checking the signal coherence.

Other protections
Specific routes are dedicated to :
-control signals
-monitoring signals
Signals are linked :
-ELAC 1 and SEC 1 computers on one side
-ELAC 2, SEC 2 and SEC 3 computers on the other side.
ELAC and SEC computers are qualified in convenience with DO 160 for electrical susceptibility test, the most severe category (Z) being applied.
- Wires are installed in metal shields in the exposed areas.
- For each signal, wires are twisted.
- No signal grounding in the exposed areas.
- Computer inputs and outputs connected to exposed wires are protected against the most severe spikes.
This protection, combined with the precautions taken in the software, ensure good protection against lightning strikes and electromagnetic disturbances.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline320tech From Turks and Caicos Islands, joined May 2004, 491 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11656 times:

Each ELAC and SEC is divided into two units :
- one Control Unit (COM)
- one Monitoring unit (MON)


Essentially each is actually two computers. The control unit and the monitoring unit receive identical inputs. The monitoring unit compares the outputs. If they're different, that computer takes itself out of the system and provides an error message to the pilot. The airplane carries on just fine with one less computer.

What if a terrorist deep in Airbuses manufacturing business put a virus in the program that would crash the computers on all Airbus models at a certain date.

I doubt that the flight control computers know or care what date it is.



The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the manufacturer and impossible for the AME.
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

It's not windows based computer right? so.. you don't have to worry  Wink

Seriously though, I think there are much easier ways to cause harm to an airplane than going into the computer and destroy the computer. It's gonna be hard to time it, as if there's a virus failure it's probably gonna happen on the ground.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

Nice....questions and answers...but you guys are giving someone ideas that might take this information, that probbaly didnt know much before this thread....but now has something to go on.....
You know what they say....

"Loose Lips Sink Ships."

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17029 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11574 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 15):
Nice....questions and answers...but you guys are giving someone ideas that might take this information, that probbaly didnt know much before this thread....but now has something to go on.....
You know what they say....

"Loose Lips Sink Ships."

1. This information is hardly specific in any way and so is rather useless for an actual attack.
2. Didn't we pretty much conclude that the risk is minimal?
3. While we're at it, let's shut down the board and let the terrorists win.

Quoting 320tech (Reply 13):

What if a terrorist deep in Airbuses manufacturing business put a virus in the program that would crash the computers on all Airbus models at a certain date.

I doubt that the flight control computers know or care what date it is.

Indeed. This sort of "on this date" scenario is relevant only on much more vulnerable systems.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 14):
It's not windows based computer right? so.. you don't have to worry

I know that was a joke. Still, Windows CAN be stable. In fact if you ran Windows in the same way as these computers run their OSs, it would be very stable.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTmatt95 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 489 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11558 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
Didn't we pretty much conclude that the risk is minimal?

Does the average system require many updates during its lifetime?

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 15):

"Loose Lips Sink Ships."

 spit  rotfl 
For some currently unknown reason, I found that saying hilarious banghead 


User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11546 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 15):
"Loose Lips Sink Ships."

Not really, in order for a successful attack on any target you need at least 4 things.
1 Access
2. Intent
3. Knowledge
4. Support

This web site only supplies the knowledge, and only a small part of it. The people who work at Airbus have the Access and I am willing to bet that nobody has complete access. The terrorists have the intent and a little support, but no or very little access and very little knowledge. I don't for see my above scenario ever taking place. I was just wondering what the possibilities were of it happening. There are far easier targets for terrorist to attack that don't require high levels of the above 4 things for a successful attack.
We also have to remember that we are far from the days of our enemy only needing to know a ships departure date and possible future location for it to be able to perform a successful attack. We have to remember that we are at war with a week enemy that uses small, cheap, and sneaky attack methods. Not a nation state that uses brut force massive coordinated firepower.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17029 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11532 times:

Quoting Tmatt95 (Reply 17):
Does the average system require many updates during its lifetime?

Windows system, yes. Aicraft system, I really have no idea. But I remember my friend talking about a conversation he had with a 737NG pilot (very hearsay in other words). Apparently updates are rather frequent.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11424 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 15):
but you guys are giving someone ideas that might take this information, that probbaly didnt know much before this thread....but now has something to go on.....

That's not really true. First of all, none of the information in this conversation has been secret or confidential. Anyone who wants to find out this kind of high-level information would easily be able to do so. Finally, the information in this thread is NOWHERE near sufficient to even give anybody the faintest idea how to insert malicious code into one of these systems.

-DrDeke

EDIT: When I say "high-level" information, I mean superficial as in at a high level of abstraction, not high-level as in important or detailed.

[Edited 2006-10-19 22:19:26]


If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11396 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 14):
It's not windows based computer right? so.. you don't have to worry

This is of course a joke, but probably much less so than you think.

Control computers for FBW planes, military or civil, Boeing or Airbus, have very little in common with your PC. They should rather be compared to things like the robots which assembled your car.

They run one program. And that program has been compiled to fixed memory addresses.

A Windows PC is totally different. It runs by swapping in and out thousands of "drivers" or programs for every little function, be it a hardware or software function. Try Ctrl-Alt-Delete and then click on "Processes" and you will see fifty or a hundred processes interacting depending on what you are doing on the PC right now. And they may be loaded on any random RAM memory address.

A virus is adding one more process which communicates with one or more of your active processes and alters their function.

I don't know anything about any Boeing or Airbus FBW computer. But in case I had to design such a thing, then I would first of all keep the operating system and the program in ROM, not in RAM. That would make it less flexible to update, since that would mean soldering in new chips. But it would exclude an enormous range of failure possibilities. Often software in such an environment is called "firmware".

Also your PC holds a lot of such stuff. We take it for granted that the PC starts and loads Windows when we press the start bottom. Or that the harddisk reacts according to a read request from Windows. There is lots and lots of firmware on any PC - really advanced and complicated things which can only be changed when you with your soldering iron exchange a ROM on the mother board, in the hard disk controller, or whatever.

I would assume that (close to) 100% of the control software on a FBW plane is in fact firmware. Only the variables should be present in RAM on fixed addresses under total control of the firmware. That would make perfect sense.

In such an environment a "virus", or rather "software sabotage" would have to be a teamwork among probably fifty engineers at Boeing or Airbus.

BTW, reading a.net forums, it often puzzles me that some people still find FBW to be something new and exceptional. When was it that an all new large airliner was designed NOT using FBW? It must have been the B-757/767 25+ years ago. That is almost as long time as from the Wright Brothers to routine DC-3 service.

And even 25 years ago FBW was nothing very new. The Concorde was crossing the pond every day. The last moon lander had retired almost ten years ago. The Space Shuttle would fly "tomorrow". All FBW stuff. In the mid to late 60'es - forty years ago - FBW wasn't considered a fancy gimmick, but rather the natural way to go since the electronic microprocessor had in fact been invented.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17029 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11327 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 21):

BTW, reading a.net forums, it often puzzles me that some people still find FBW to be something new and exceptional. When was it that an all new large airliner was designed NOT using FBW? It must have been the B-757/767 25+ years ago. That is almost as long time as from the Wright Brothers to routine DC-3 service.

And even 25 years ago FBW was nothing very new. The Concorde was crossing the pond every day. The last moon lander had retired almost ten years ago. The Space Shuttle would fly "tomorrow". All FBW stuff. In the mid to late 60'es - forty years ago - FBW wasn't considered a fancy gimmick, but rather the natural way to go since the electronic microprocessor had in fact been invented.

Agree completely. The first implementation of FBW is debated. The two main candidates are Canadian Arrow and the Apollo CSM and Lunar Modules (same computer for the two latter). Still, we're talking technology from the 60s! The concepts are decades old and very well proven. Hardly revolutionary any more.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus Fly By Wire And Viruses
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dual Engine Failure On Twins And Fly-by-wire posted Sat Oct 25 2003 09:46:01 by Artsyman
Is The Airbus 300B4-605R Fly By Wire? posted Sat Jan 12 2002 21:13:14 by Cmsgop
Concorde's Fly-by-wire posted Wed Jun 21 2006 14:22:34 by Keta
Fly By Wire Actuator Replacement posted Mon Jun 12 2006 09:53:30 by Jafa39
Is Fly By Wire Safer Than Hydraulic Systems? posted Sat May 20 2006 17:29:55 by A320ajm
Boeing Fly-by-wire System posted Fri Nov 25 2005 17:09:31 by KrisYYZ
Fly-by-wire. Also On A300? posted Mon Sep 26 2005 16:06:31 by PipoA380
MD-11 Fly-By-Wire posted Sat Dec 11 2004 05:20:21 by Haraelm
737 NG: Fly By Wire? posted Thu Dec 2 2004 10:24:16 by AirxLiban
7E7 Fly-by-Wire System posted Sat Nov 27 2004 00:31:37 by 2H4

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format