Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/14/2007 2:46:34 AM EST
Looks like somebody forgot about that pesky international dateline, or something.






2/14/2007 - HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, Hawaii (AFNEWS) -- While en route to Kadena Air Base, Japan, Feb. 10, a software issue affecting the F-22A Raptor's navigation system was discovered.

All aircraft, which departed Hickam earlier that day, returned safely. F-22A engineers and maintainers are working to update the software. After successful testing, the aircraft will continue their planned first overseas deployment to Kadena. Officials expect the aircraft will depart Hickam within the next several days.

"This is a minor issue, and, since our focus is always on safety, the aircraft will not depart until we are confident there are no further issues with the navigation system," said Lt. Gen. Chip Utterback, the 13th Air Force commander.

The Air Force is deploying 12 F-22A Raptors and more than 250 members from the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Va., to Kadena as part of a regularly scheduled U.S. Pacific Command rotation of aircraft to the Pacific.


www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041054


Obligatory Raptor Porn:

www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070207-F-2034C-001.JPG
www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070207-F-2034C-005.JPG

Link Posted: 2/14/2007 10:01:15 AM EST
Bump for the daywalkers.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 12:23:34 PM EST
Reminds me of the Robin Williams Live on Broadway skit where he talks about the people who work for NASA were high when they wrote the software programs for the Mars Lander.

"I wrote it in feet.....but programmed it in meters. Fucker just buried!"

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 12:29:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Looks like somebody forgot about that pesky international dateline, or something.


You ever try to test a Suite of Software that has over 300,000 lines of code?
Just performing an Analysis of the the Test Strategy and Test Plan and examining the Test Cases to ensure that adequate Test Coverage has been ensured is daunting.

The Avionics Software has been re-written several times because of long Raptor's Long Acquisition Time has led to obsolescence resulting in the necessity for Code Redesigns.

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 12:53:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Looks like somebody forgot about that pesky international dateline, or something.


You ever try to test a Suite of Software that has over 300,000 lines of code?
Just performing an Analysis of the the Test Strategy and Test Plan and examining the Test Cases to ensure that adequate Test Coverage has been ensured is daunting.

The Avionics Software has been re-written several times because of long Raptor's Long Acquisition Time has led to obsolescence resulting in the necessity for Code Redesigns.



As a matter of fact I have done some programming, nothing like that though. I thought the raptor had over a million lines of code. I am quite familiar with aircraft software failures though, I have worked the C-17 (I'm an avionics tech), or as I like to call it "100 computers flying in close formation".
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:16:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 1:19:00 PM EST by Bostonterrier97]

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Looks like somebody forgot about that pesky international dateline, or something.


You ever try to test a Suite of Software that has over 300,000 lines of code?
Just performing an Analysis of the the Test Strategy and Test Plan and examining the Test Cases to ensure that adequate Test Coverage has been ensured is daunting.

The Avionics Software has been re-written several times because of long Raptor's Long Acquisition Time has led to obsolescence resulting in the necessity for Code Redesigns.



As a matter of fact I have done some programming, nothing like that though. I thought the raptor had over a million lines of code. I am quite familiar with aircraft software failures though, I have worked the C-17 (I'm an avionics tech), or as I like to call it "100 computers flying in close formation".


Then you know that job function of programming is a lot different than that of a Software Quality Assurance Engineer or QA Analyst.

The interplay between a QA department and the SW Engineering Department is pretty close. The Software will have many Rev's within each Release. As Software goes through the test cycle it will go through Unit and Integration Testing, Functionality Testing, Compatilibility Testing, Parameter Testing, Load and Stress Testing, etc. Each Rev can undergo Full Bug Regression Testing.


Make a change to the code, or sometimes fix a bug and a new bug(s) is introduced. Sometimes a Bug that was previously fixed is open again because another fix involved a change in the logic of the code.

In the Raptor's case, maybe the Dateline bug was detected and fixed, but then was reopened due to additional changes in the software or a mistake in the configuration control of the code. And maybe some of the closed bugs were overlooked due to management pressure upon the Test Department for signoff.

The failure to root out software bugs could have many causes. It could be due to some shoddy SQA work. It could be due to bad CM. It could be due to Management wanting to make a deadline or contracturual term. It could be due to a lack of courage in the QA department standing its ground over bugs. It could even be due to malicious intent
such as a Manager outside of the QA department having access to a Bugbase and intentionally closing open bugs. And then turning around and deceiving Government Auditors.



ETA: as a sidenote. Here is a collection of Software Bugs:wwwzenger.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/persons/huckle/bugse.html#torpedo

Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:21:16 PM EST
If they had used the right TPS cover sheet, I'm sure everything would have been fine.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:28:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 1:29:15 PM EST by dugedug]
Didn't the C-17 go through the same hickup with its MAC software back in ~1999? I know it was afraid of water for a while...
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:32:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:35:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2A373:
Chairborne didn't do a search for F-22


Actually that's exactly what I searched for before I posted. Oh well, we all know the search engine here is a POS. He only beat me by a couple of hours. Plus I'm not sure the time is accurate from a time zone 8 hours away.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:38:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Looks like somebody forgot about that pesky international dateline, or something.


You ever try to test a Suite of Software that has over 300,000 lines of code?
Just performing an Analysis of the the Test Strategy and Test Plan and examining the Test Cases to ensure that adequate Test Coverage has been ensured is daunting.

The Avionics Software has been re-written several times because of long Raptor's Long Acquisition Time has led to obsolescence resulting in the necessity for Code Redesigns.



As a matter of fact I have done some programming, nothing like that though. I thought the raptor had over a million lines of code. I am quite familiar with aircraft software failures though, I have worked the C-17 (I'm an avionics tech), or as I like to call it "100 computers flying in close formation".


I gave a tour to some C-17 maintiners one day at Charleston and they were amaized by the amount of black boxes in our jet.


They all fit neatly into one rack with room to spare.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:38:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 1:45:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2A373: They finally made it to Kadena
Hooray and thank God! I guess they were able to go online and run the Lockheed Update program.
Top Top