User avatar
ManuCH
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:53 pm

The previous thread was becoming too long and has been locked. Please continue discussion in this one.

The link to part 5 can be found here:
A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 5 (by mffoda Aug 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:11 pm

Lets start this part of the thread with some stunning stills from the cockpit animation on the new A350 Airbus home page.

I must say I am impressed by the animation quality they have achieved, take a tour yourselves: http://www.a350xwb.com/#x-tra/360-cockpit-view/

First an overview of what is rendered using planet view  Wow!  (click on the pictures to see them in full size) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitplanetview.jpg

Then the classical forward:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitforwardview.jpg

What the captain sees when he turns around:
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitrear.jpg

and to the right (FO is taking a leak  ) :
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cockpitrightside.jpg


As said, put yourselves in the drivers seat and enjoy a very well made animation, just push the mouse in the direction you want to go and right click to check out the views available, enjoy, I did.

[Edited 2012-11-08 14:24:36]
Non French in France
 
maxter
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 2:23 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:13 am

Wow, sensational, thanks for the heads up.

Cheers,
maxter
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:32 am

And this is my favorite still from the design movie (click on it to see it in full size) : http://www.a350xwb.com/#intelligent/design/

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350internals.jpg

One can really see the very forward stowing position of the nose landing gear, the avionics/equipment bay above and behind it and then the freight compartment. The gear goes that far forward in order to utilize the the lower part of the fuselage as efficiently as possible . Also watch where the floor goes for the cockpit, those pilots only occupy the top part of the nose, the aircraft is really big but those ultra large cockpit windows makes one think the pilots uses half of the diameter or more.

[Edited 2012-11-08 23:35:39]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
HA_DC9
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 1999 3:16 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:52 am

Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived? Is there any data out there that compares the size of the flight deck of the A350 with the A330/A340, 767, 777 or 787?

I'm liking it though. The A350 is coming along to being a very beautiful aircraft.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:57 am

Huge cockpit windows, I like it. I never realized that they are that big.

Quote:
Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived?

It's an optical illusion I think. The cockpit looks smaller in this screenshot:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2qa0e47.png

[Edited 2012-11-09 03:58:52]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
petera380
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:35 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:23 pm

Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button? 
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:27 pm

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

Sssttt, not so loud. Nobody should know that those computers are running on Windows.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:40 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 1):

Lets start this part of the thread with some stunning stills from the cockpit animation on the new A350 Airbus home page.

These pictures are stunning indeed.   This is going to be a beautiful airliner.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:22 pm

Quoting HA_DC9 (Reply 4):
Looking at the 360 view, it looks like the A350 will have a pretty roomy flight deck or are my eyes being deceived?

Although the photos overdo it, it's still going to be a really roomy flight deck. That nose profile, coupled with what's basically the A380 window layout, and a wide fuselage will give them something very comfy indeed.

Tom.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
That nose profile, coupled with what's basically the A380 window layout, and a wide fuselage will give them something very comfy indeed.

It also helps of course that they do not have to accommodate a yoke.  
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

I know you were joking, but the airplane does have it. It is included in the "COMPUTER RESET" panels on the overhead.



Here is the full layout of the A350 overhead panel:



The 787 has a similar reset function for its IMA "brains" (called the Common Computing Resource or "CCR"), also located on the overhead panel.

 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:36 pm

Is the Flight Deck going to be blue? I'm assuming the colors shown here are not representative of production, but could be wrong. I'd be surprised to see them step away from the blue.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:10 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
COMPUTER RESET" panels on the overhead.

How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:42 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):
How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

Because A350 uses Windows as operating system  ....
Non French in France
 
kl911
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:41 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Because A350 uses Windows as operating system ....

Funny as it might sound, but does the A350 gets touch screens?
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:47 pm

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 12):
I'd be surprised to see them step away from the blue.

Well, a lot of people were surprised to see Boeing step away from the "scientifically" chosen brown in the 787 flight deck. Personally, I think grey is ideal both for aesthetics and for hiding dirt (which was the real reason for Boeing using brown on the 747, 757, 767 & 777). I never liked the Boeing brown, or the Airbus' "blue". Brown just looks "low-tech" to me, and the blue is too close to the Russian manufacturers fixation with bright blue flight decks. If we all settle on grey, it would be great with me!

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):
How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

I think those 24 "switches" on each A350 COMPUTER RESET panel are actually circuit breakers. This would be a traditional means to reset a "box". Airbus may have chosen this method for resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types. (the A330 has clusters of circuit breakers in the exact same locations). The CCR in the 787 is two full cabinets which represent almost every significant computing function on the airplane (flight controls being the one exception). The CCR reset function is a very controlled reboot of one full CCR cabinet or the other. This is a measure which would only be undertaken in a truly extrordinary circumsatance. I can't be certain, but I'm guessing the A350 computer reset functions and the 787 CCR reset function are quite different in terms of what they accomplish.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:14 am

If you look closely, it's not 24 switches but 48 as the two panels have different markings...
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:56 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):

Indeed, it is not likely there are any duplicated controls on the overhead. Maybe there's a Bus pilot out there who can tell us more about what these CBs control. For many years now, Boeing models have not had any pilot procedures which would instruct the pilot to touch a circuit breaker. Airbus may have a different philosophy.

One thing that is intriguing... I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers (electronic circuit breakers), like the A380 and 787. If it does, it's even more curious why this set of breakers remains as push/pull thermal breakers.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:49 am

there's probably a sequence to them as well.. a1, c6, e4, d1, h2, h6, a5 , b2 and b3 simultaneously
Audio warning: "log in password incorrect!!!"      
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:49 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
Because A350 uses Windows as operating system  ....

....and the 787 runs on Mac/OS  
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:05 am

Libya's Afriqiyah to convert its A350-800 order into -900s and increase the order by four.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/lib...iyah-airways-buys-4-105737573.html
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:04 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 18):
I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers

It does, aswell the A380 does feature that. On the A380 you can control them via the OIM.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
Brown just looks "low-tech"

Agree, the brown was just ugly as hell and looked indeed low tech The Airbus blue wasn't so close to Russian Flightdecks and was brighter more modern.

Still the new dark Gray on the 787 is not so pleasant for the eyes.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types.

That would make sense,
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:58 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 20):
....and the 787 runs on Mac/OS

Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) with applications running on a well defined API (ARINC 653) which creates the interface to an underlying real time operating systems (RTOS). Seems to be the usual RTOS players which are active:

- Green Hills INTEGRITY

- Wind River WxWorks 653

Then for networking they use a airborne version of Ethernet, AFDX. In essence this means the times of one system has it's own box with own OS etc is gone and the vendors have to supply and qualify their applications in the aircrafts IMA computer network, just like we all add applications to our computers on our home network. The testing and qualification is a little more rigorous I gather .... Wow!

There should be those who knows more about this...

[Edited 2012-11-12 05:07:02]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:19 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Libya's Afriqiyah to convert its A350-800 order into -900s and increase the order by four.

According to Airbus, this happened on 1st October!

http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:43 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA

Interesting comparision between 787CCore and A350XWB

Quote:

An obvious question is how Airbus's implementation of IMA compares with the 787's "common-core" approach? While both incarnations use an Ethernet network and adopt the general concept of "shared resources"--i.e., both aircraft have applications for specific LRUs and individual computers for affiliated systems--the 787's "central nervous system" houses the core processors that communicate with local data concentrators distributed throughout the aircraft. The A350's system is similar but uses multiple computers of a common design with function-specific input/output interfaces. These computers are referred to as "core processing input/output modules" and are allied to particular systems via the AFDX network.
http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...nts/article/raising-power-bar-0309
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:51 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module in a layered approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics)

IMA is actually a concept.
Up to the A330/A340 and the 777, every system on the aircraft (pressurisation, fuel management, hydraulics and so on) each used its own hardware (basically : processor, CPU, I/O board, power supply). So you'd have a computer to control the OFV valves, one for the pumps and valves of the fuel system, one for hydraulics...It's just as if you used a PC to run office applications, one to browse the internet, and another one to play games.
So for N systems you'd have N computers, each taking weight and space, each requiring network wiring, power wiring, each requiring the corresponding spare parts to be stored for maintenance.

The idea of IMA is to share hardware for several functions, so that only the software and as little hardware as possible is specific to each aircraft function. So a same hardware set can host the control applications for pressurisation, hydraulics and fuel.
As a result, you reduce the number of physical components, the required wiring and power, network addresses, required parts to be stored, and all that. Additonnally, as you have standardized the hardware, and in particular the interface between hardware and software (OS and API), it is automatically easier to change an entire sofware app without impacting the hardware. Or vice-versa, upgrade the hardware while running the same apps. Hence the "modular"

Now one might say "duh !! that what we've been doing for 25 years with general public computers !". Indeed, you can play games, write a post on a-net and run Excel on a same machine at the same time. Obviously here there are much tighter constraints for securtiy, in particular for system segregation. And the manufacturer now has to coordinate several system design teams, for example to negociate who can use which connectors, CPU time...And as they have to share a standard design, there will always be unhappy people  

That's the overall theory. In practice, Airbus implements this by running several applications for various aircraft functions on all-in-one modules called CPIOMs. Each CPIOM is a single computer (contains I/O boards, processor(s), memory..) with an OS, running a few applications for different functions. Each application is segregated from the others by running on seperate partitions. So in the end, only the software is specific to each function (well that's the idea anyway ; there were 7 different sub-types of CPIOMs on the A380, 2 on the A350). Consequently it's a more flexible solution, but more difficult to design.
I'm less familiar with the Boeing choice, so I'll rely on CM or Tom to correct me. But from the above I'm guessing they use a "cabinet" with a single power supply (hence only one reset button) and a single network interface, probably some shared computing and memory resources. Then you come and plug in some kind of memory drive containing the stuff specific to each aircraft function.

Also, both use devices called "remote data concentrators", which basically are small electronic packages disctributed around the airplane, and which gather most "local" wiring (analog and discrete signals from sensors, for example) to convert and launch it on the main network. Both A and B use the AFDX architecture for that (Avionics Full DupleX switched Ethernet, more or less your basic Ethernet with lots of switches to reduce the collision domain and avoid losing signals)
As the RDCs are hardware used by several systems, they also fall under the IMA category.
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:59 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 22):
Quoting CM (Reply 16):
resetting certain functions for reasons of procedural commonality wtih other Airbus types.

That would make sense,

Could be.
The A380 also has CBs in the cockpit, and both A380 and A350 have other physical CBs in the avionics compartments. The ones in the cockpit being referred to as "Reset" switches, I'm guessing they are low power connections to calcualtors, and that a tradeoff study showed that it was better for these to remain mechanical rather than solid-state. From there, I guess the most used ones (for maintenance purposes more than in-flight purposes) are stacked in the cockpit for easier access. Especially as most of the time a miantenance guy will be using the on-board maintenance system from the cockpit. A bit more wiring, but it makes life easier.
But I'm not too familiar with electric aspects, so this is a WAG, as they say...  
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:55 pm

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
ach CPIOM is a single computer (contains I/O boards, processor(s),

A note i find interesting regarding CPIOM's regarding the A350.

Quote:

The number of functions hosted by the CPIOM has been increased by more than 50% compared to the A380. For example, the 'doors and slides control' function which was previously handled by a specific computer is now hosted by the standard CPIOM. In addition, the processing power of the CPIOM has been doubled, its reliability increased and weight reduced."
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:41 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 18):
One thing that is intriguing... I expect the A350 has solid state power controllers (electronic circuit breakers), like the A380 and 787. If it does, it's even more curious why this set of breakers remains as push/pull thermal breakers.

You need to have at least the basic CB's to supply the computers as conventional thermals (or other mechanical breakers) so that you can power up the computer to command the solid state power controllers. The 787 does this (at least on one CCR cabinet), but the physical breakers are down in the avionics bay rather than on the overhead. I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CB's or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 26):
I'm less familiar with the Boeing choice, so I'll rely on CM or Tom to correct me. But from the above I'm guessing they use a "cabinet" with a single power supply (hence only one reset button) and a single network interface, probably some shared computing and memory resources. Then you come and plug in some kind of memory drive containing the stuff specific to each aircraft function.

That's basically it. Each CCR cabinet has an (internally redundant) power supply module and cooling system that feeds a common backplane for what's basically a cardfile. There are two major modules: general processing modules (GPMs) and graphics generator modules (GGMs). The various applications are hosted on one or more GPMs while the GGMs provide the displays to the flight deck based on information coming from the GPMs. If you want more redundancy in an application you just run it on an addition GPM. The cabinets are connected to each other and out to the airplane by redundant copper and fiber optic AFDX lines.

When you hit "reset" you don't actually interupt power (i.e. it's not a circuit breaker) but you trigger a highly structured reboot of the system. It's like hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del (pre Windows NT), rather than pulling the power cord.

Tom.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:37 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
Then for networking they use a airborne version of Ethernet, AFDX.

The main difference between Ethernet (as we know it) and AFDX is the "deterministic" nature of the network and it's hosted devices. On a conventional Ethernet network, as you add more users, each device has access to a smaller and smaller portion of the bandwidth, as everyone shares this resource equally. When everyone gets on the network at once, things slow down. If one device malfunctions (or has malicious intent), a "network storm" can freeze out all other traffic. In AFDX, every device on the network has its own dedicated position in the packet flow on the network. No device can place packets into someone else's real estate on the network. AFDX also has send and receive protocols which check each packet and reject anything unexpected (wrong source, wrong format, etc). This is a protection against malfunctioning devices or malicious code on the network.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
You need to have at least the basic CB's to supply the computers as conventional thermals (or other mechanical breakers) so that you can power up the computer to command the solid state power controllers.

Yes. Powering-up o a 787 from a truly dead state (batts disconnected) is an art form. A few physical breakers are a necessary evil.

Of roughly 1400 circuits on the 787, 1100 are solid state and controlled in CBIC (circuit braker indication and control - an electronic function available through the forward multi-function displays), with the remainder being physical breakers. Even most of the ~300 physical breakers have indication in CBIC, but no control. None of the physical breakers are in the flight deck.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CBs, or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers

That would make sense, particularly if they remain in the flight deck for reasons of common procedures.

I should add a follow up to my comment above about Boeing procedures not calling for use of CBs; although there are no published Boeing crew procedures which call for use of a circuit breaker, and although there are no physical circuit breakers in the 787 flight deck, there are a subset of circuit breakers available to the flight crew through CBIC, which essentially provide the same ability to cut power to certain circuits, just like you would have in any other Boeing aircraft with a large circuit breaker panel behind the overhead.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:37 am

Quoting CM (Reply 30):

Of roughly 1400 circuits on the 787, 1100 are solid state and controlled in CBIC

On the A380 it's called Secondary Electric Power Distribution
System (SEPDS)

Quote:

Incorporates advanced programmable Solid State
Power Control (SSPC) devices in place of mechanical
circuit breaker and relay technology, the SEPDS
architecture was specially designed for the A380
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...TR_Brochures-documents/A380_LO.pdf

[Edited 2012-11-12 23:40:05]
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
User avatar
Laddie
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:57 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:26 pm

Thanks for all excellent IMA info and explanations, tdscanuck, CM, and airmagnac.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9762
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:09 am

Quoting petera380 (Reply 6):
Where is the Ctrl Alt Del button?

The only way to fully reset the aircraft is to power it down completely, this is with every aircraft.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 13):

How does it come the A350 need all this switches for computer reset while the 787 just two buttons?

The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers on the aircraft. If for example the lights in the cabin are playing up, they crew can reset the CIDS computer, it will go through the normal start up, and return the lighting to normal. The most common reset that is done is for ACARS, that is normally done on the ground before flight by an mechanic.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):

I think those 24 "switches" on each A350 COMPUTER RESET panel are actually circuit breakers.

No they are not circuit breakers, the last design Airbus had circuit breakers in the cockpit was the A320.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):

Actually it seems the A380, 787 and A350 all use a common module approach called IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) with applications running on a well defined API (ARINC 653) which creates the interface to an underlying real time operating systems (RTOS). Seems to be the usual RTOS players which are active:

Airbus also have an independent ARINC 429 network that allow full control of the aircraft in the event of the ADFX networks fall over, wires get severed, fire etc. The networks are have different physical paths through the aircraft.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 27):
The A380 also has CBs in the cockpit, and both A380 and A350 have other physical CBs in the avionics compartments. The ones in the cockpit being referred to as "Reset" switches, I'm guessing they are low power connections to calcualtors, and that a tradeoff study showed that it was better for these to remain mechanical rather than solid-state.

A330/A340/A380/A350 only have computer resets, the circuit breakers are elsewhere, they are not all in the avionics compartment.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
I'm curious if the A350 ones are actually physical CB's or only form/fit/function identical and actually commanding solid state power controllers.

The are effectively just switches commanding solid state power controllers.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:06 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers

I'ts more a flexiblily thing over simplicity? (compared to the 787)
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:16 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 34):
Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
The computer resets reset individual computers, in many cases there are duplicate or triplicate computers

I'ts more a flexiblily thing over simplicity? (compared to the 787)

I think it's an architecture difference...the 787 has, effectively, only two reset-able computers. Almost all the stuff that would have been its own LRU under older architectures is now just a software function running within the common-computing resource cabinets. If you reset the CCR's you reset nearly everything.

Tom.
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:39 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
If for example the lights in the cabin are playing up, they crew can reset the CIDS computer, it will go through the normal start up, and return the lighting to normal.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
If you reset the CCR's you reset nearly everything.

Being somewhat involved in IT my first impression would be that the in the case of the 787 you would be doing it a bit inefficiently. For example in the case of the cabin lighting, resetting the whole system while only a subsystem is playing up.

Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

Also what about risk, I can imagine the robustness of the CCR's should be on par with critical flight systems? Speaking of flight systems; are the 787 flight control systems located in the CCR's or are these still dependant on dedicated hardware?

I really get the idea of the virtualization in flight software, it feels like common sense to use standard hardware on the lower levels and elevate a lot of functionality to the software level. But the same common sense tells me you increase the amount of possible failure modes (memory leaks, other bugs, etc). Is my gut-feeling correct? And if so; how does this affect certification?
Live From Amsterdam!
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:53 pm

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

Individual "hosted functions" within 787 CCS can be reset without resetting a full CCR cabinet. The former is very much a software based reboot. The latter is a full hardware boot of one CCR cabinet or the other.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:12 am

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Or am I missing something and is it for example possible to reset that particular subsystem through the software?

You can reset particular "hosted functions", as CM said. However, I'm about 99% sure there is no flight crew procedure to do that and that you can't do it in flight...it would only be a maintenance action on the ground.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Also what about risk, I can imagine the robustness of the CCR's should be on par with critical flight systems?

It is. The CCRs are critical flight systems. If they go down, among other things, you lose all the flight deck displays except the ISFD.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
Speaking of flight systems; are the 787 flight control systems located in the CCR's or are these still dependant on dedicated hardware?

They're separate hardware. The 787 has three flight control computers, although there are four physical boxes (the center system needs two boxes). The flight controls are very much like EEC's...almost totally independent hardware/software that will continue doing their thing until they have their power forcibly removed.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
I really get the idea of the virtualization in flight software, it feels like common sense to use standard hardware on the lower levels and elevate a lot of functionality to the software level. But the same common sense tells me you increase the amount of possible failure modes (memory leaks, other bugs, etc). Is my gut-feeling correct?

You're trading hardware failure modes against software failure modes. I'm not sure the total number goes up, although there are certainly more software failure modes as you virtualize everything. Modern realtime OS's are essentially bulletproof and are very very very good at keeping issues isolated so even if one application or function goes bananas it will never take down the whole system.

The important thing to keep in mind that aircraft computing is a lot closer to something like an IBM Z/OS mainframe (basically capable of running indefinitely with extremely robust fault monitoring and recovery) than to a conventional virtualized server.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 36):
And if so; how does this affect certification?

Flight critical software is certified to DO-178B today (soon to be -178C). This is a rather complex topic but, basically, it's certification by process. Your processes and tools are all certified to produce compliant (i.e. safe) software, then you prove that you followed your processes and used your tools, then you actually test the software (in labs and in flight). When that's all complete, it's certified.

Tom.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:43 pm

From Airbus Facebook:

Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!
http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486244_560971050585850_109816185_n.jpg
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!

Excellent catch, now how long does it take before she will enter the real interesting load scenarios?
Non French in France
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19562
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:03 pm

This is what Airbus said during the A350 FAL ceremony:

Quote:
The static aircraft, which will be used solely for ground tests, has nearly completed assembly, with a full fuselage, two wings and the vertical tail plane joined. The aircraft will be transferred to the static test hangar at the Toulouse Jean-Luc Lagardère site to be prepared for static tests to start in spring 2013.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:05 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 40):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Quote:
Today the A350XWB Static Test Specimen was transferred from our Roger Béteille Final Assembly Line to the Lagardère site!

Excellent catch

Great catch! Thanks from my side as well!
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:51 pm

Good catch - and we now see what a beautifull bird she is gona be.
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:26 pm

It's fantastically interesting to see these pics of a new widebody coming together! I could grumble about this and that concerning the plane, but there has to be some space for straight upward (of course!) enthusiasm when it comes to flying machines! So here's to many more great, informative posts by the usual suspects!   
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:20 pm

Some more pictures from the move of the ES frame earlier this week:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_test_night_shot2.jpg

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350_XWB_static_test.jpg

Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

[Edited 2012-11-23 11:23:45]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Heavierthanair
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:20 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:15 pm

G'day

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Likely to make sure noone installs them on the real thing. 2 wheel main gear bogies and likely without brakes installed may make meeting performance targets difficult  

Cheers

Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955)
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:18 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

Thanks for the update. They don't swing the gear during static testing, do they? They look like bare-bone stand-in units without the wiring, etc... ie the bare essentials for moving the frame. No point in installing costly full production units, I suppose. Just a guess... I'm sure someone will chime in with the answer.

Nice to see they updated their gallery on their website to also include a high resolution version of the head-on photo posted by Karel. Would've been nice to see the nose cone on the static frame though.

CX's Slosar recently had some praise to offer:

"We are very heavily invested in the success of the A350. I will give Airbus a hat tip - they are doing a very good job with that. They say that they are going to be flying in 2013, and it looks to me like they will. And we are really looking forward to the airplane getting in the sky as a step towards delivery," says Slosar. "From what I see, they are managing the programme well, and managing the risks and making pretty good progress."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rican-points-with-a350-900-379290/
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:53 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
Now why those red covers on the MLG and part of the NLG?

The red gear (as well as the red fittings where the H-stab should be) are not aircarft structure. They are load fittings (essentially tools) with all the proper interfaces for loading the structure the gear attaches to (gear beam, spar, etc) in the same way the actual gear would. The gear structure is a safe-life component and will be undergoing testing separate from the main static and fatigue test articles. I'm not sure why the H-stab is also tested separately, but Boeing took the exact same approach on the 787.

Ferpe, do you know when actual static testing will begin?

[Edited 2012-11-23 13:57:10]
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 6

Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:43 am

Airbus gives no direct info on that in the text that goes with the pictures. Here is what they say on the A350 minisite www.a350xwb.com and their main site :

"This (move) clears the way for the A350 XWB airframe to be integrated into a test rig for a campaign that will submit it to nearly a year of evaluations, including limit load and ultimate load validations, along with residual strength and margin research.

The L34 static test hall (the same as where the A380 was tested) covers an area of 10,000 square meters, and is supported by 200 workers during peak testing activity. It houses a rig that incorporates 2,500 tons of steel and 240 jacks/loading lines, which are used to induce structural loads. The testing is recorded by some 12,000 sensors. "

As KarelXWB stated above A only sais "during spring 2013". In the July discussions around the timeline you gave some fine insights into what is ahead for ES and MSN001, would be nice if you, Tom and others could chip in and update that discussion with what we know now, ES starting the hook-up now and MSN001 being complete and powered on just around Christmas.

Evrard seems confident they will be flying in the summer, would be nice to reason weather that is optimistic or not. The sections being delivered to FAL for MSN001 seems rather complete, here a close-up of the middle section as it arrived to FAL:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Section15-21MSN001closeup.jpg

We see that the air cond pacs with ducting, wiring etc is in place and further back all the plumbing / wiring around the MLG well sticking out under the wing fairing.
Non French in France

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alggag, Baidu [Spider], FLIHGH, Google Adsense [Bot], hoons90, IndianicWorld, IPFreely, klkla, msycajun, psimpson, rohanb2, SCQ83, Sooner787, Ulsterman81, United1, Yahoo [Bot], ZKLOU and 206 guests