Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing 787s To Create Half a Terabyte of Data Per Flight

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the peanut-tracking dept.

Data Storage 213

Qedward writes "Virgin Atlantic is preparing for a significant increase in data as it embraces the Internet of Things, with a new fleet of highly connected planes each expected to create over half a terabyte of data per flight. IT director David Bulman said: 'The latest planes we are getting, the Boeing 787s, are incredibly connected. Literally every piece of that plane has an internet connection, from the engines, to the flaps, to the landing gear. If there is a problem with one of the engines we will know before it lands to make sure that we have the parts there. It is getting to the point where each different part of the plane is telling us what it is doing as the flight is going on. We can get upwards of half a terabyte of data from a single flight from all of the different devices which are internet connected.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

internet-connected plane (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102451)

What could go wrong?

Re:internet-connected plane (5, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102491)

Hopefully, they meant a TCP/IP connection, not "Internet" connected ;-)

Re:internet-connected plane (4, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102639)

I was hoping that too but the following quote seems to indicate there is some access from the ground.

If there is a problem with one of the engines we will know before it lands to make sure that we have the parts there.

I just hope they can only see information and have no control from the ground.

Re:internet-connected plane (4, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102693)

I just hope they can only see information and have no control from the ground.

Yeah, right, it seems to ring a bell for me, let's see... OK, let's say: like having a read-only access to a web-site?

Hopefully the plane pushes the data if it reports in real-time and the plane doesn't have any listening sockets accepting connections on some kind of wireless network. Pilots could also transmit problem reports through radio...

Re:internet-connected plane (0)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102783)

A web server of a read-only website, still accepts connections and web requests. There are listening sockets and there are connecting clients.

Re:internet-connected plane (5, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102795)

woosh...

Re:internet-connected plane (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103195)

There is already a broadcast-only system in place for sending this kind of telemetry back to HQ. Air France was getting warnings about their flight that went down over the Atlantic telling them that the air speed sensors were producing conflicting data (nice of them to share that with the pilots...)

This could be a similar sort of thing using UDP. It could also be two way - lots of servers accept TCP/IP connections for management and telemetry. It will be via a dedicated satellite link most likely and hopefully not connected to the public internet, but considering that apparently lots of our other critical infrastructure is I wouldn't take that as a given.

Re:internet-connected plane (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103289)

Yep. Some engine manufacturers already monitor all their engines continuously, in real time.

Rolls Royce was the first, I think GE have started doing it too.

It's not a big leap from monitoring the engines to monitoring the entire aircraft.

Re:internet-connected plane (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102707)

eeeh, Almost everything is internet connected. They tell you that the nuclear power central is not connected, but if you really audit it you will find there is some kind of double vpn to connect it.

The international airports have their own internal networks, but in some ways they are always connected to the internet. There are some vpn and firewalls between your home desktop and the plane, but in the end it is all connected.

Re:internet-connected plane (2)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103173)

Hopefully, they meant a TCP/IP connection, not "Internet" connected ;-)

Whatever it is I hope it's an encrypted connection. That would put them one step ahead of the military [slashdot.org] .

Re:internet-connected plane (5, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102721)

This isn't exactly new - Rolls Royce, GE and Pratt & Whitney all do "power by the hour" rented engines, which are permanently connected (allowing for coverage issues) to data receiver centers which manage them. If they need maintenance, are running hot or have a vibration issue (its amazing how much you can discern about an engine due to its vibration levels), the engine manufacturer can determine before the flight has even ended whether or not the engine needs that maintenance at that point, needs replacing, or can suffice until the aircraft can be rotated to a full maintenance center to be swapped out.

On PBTH engines, its typical that the airline will be called by the manufacturer to report the issue before the crew flying the aircraft ever notices anything.

Its also a service engine purchasing airlines can select.

Re:internet-connected plane (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43103045)

wget http://www.vigrin-atlatic.com/flight/12321/manage.aspx?flags=down&gear=up&parachutes=deploy

Re:internet-connected plane (0)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103147)

mod the GP funny!

What could go wrong? (1)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103255)

Depends, If they're just censors with no tie-in to the aircraft's operation then there shouldn't be any issue. But that needs to be in the form of hardware or air-gap, not some software setting that can likely be overridden remotely. The only way I would see this kind of functionality being safe is if the aircraft basically has two health monitoring systems, one used by the cockpit which has NO communications ability. And the other which can communicate and does have passive only access to the aircraft's censors, but is otherwise is physically disconnected from any of the aircraft's control systems.

Re:What could go wrong? (3, Interesting)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103369)

Even if you can't get at anything on the plane, it could be possible to hijack and falsify the telemetry. You could keep telling maintenance that the engine is just fine even though it's in trouble, so it doesn't get the service it needs.

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102453)

welcome our new data loving overlords!

Wait, does posting as an AC mean that I give or don't give a rat's ass to someone who cares? I'm so confused!

Internet connected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102461)

I wonder what would be the length of the RJ45 cable though

Re: Internet connected (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102567)

RJ45 is a connector not a cable.

I guess you meant the cat5 cable.

Re: Internet connected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102615)

cable spec? not a cable...

Re:Internet connected (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102583)

They probably use HSDPA cables.

Re:Internet connected (5, Funny)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102611)

They'd be better off using Monster Cables.

Re:Internet connected (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103033)

Yeah, with big direction arrows on the headers.

Re:Internet connected (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103123)

That's their security strategy so that data gets only transmitted down and the planes don't get cracked into.

Usage of data in a flight simulator (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102463)

It would be cool if one could play back that data in a flight simulator to recreate the flight.

Re:Usage of data in a flight simulator (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102569)

Sufficient data for playing back flights in simulators has been recorded by the black boxes for a couple of decades already. It's done to evaluate the crew's actions (and compare those with what they've been trained to do) as well as to test if alternative actions could've prevented the accident. A good example was Swissair 111 (in 1998) which had a fire on board and crashed before the crew could land the aircraft. The crew didn't even try to get it to the nearest airport as fast as they could because they wanted to dump fuel, prepare the cabin and were reluctant to land at the very closest airport at first since they wanted one with Swissair mechanics. As part of the investigation crews in simulators got exactly the same fire scenario at the same point and among other things tested if they had been able to reach the airport if they didn't dump fuel and land overweight. In those scenarios too, however, it would've taken too long from the point the fire was first detected.

What could possibly go wrong? (5, Funny)

stoploss (2842505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102469)


dave@console:~ ssh dave@hal-787
[dave@hal-787 ~]$ echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors
echo: I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that.
[dave@hal-787 ~]$ sudo echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors
dave@console:~ Connection to hal-787 lost.

Mile high club (1)

hviezda14 (580875) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102485)

I see this as next level for all the hackers: let the airlines do all the unnecessary orders based on signals from hacked plane. Mile high club got just new meaning.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102527)

Admittedly sudo echo "1" creates the most powerful "1" there is, but it's still not quite enough to affect permissions checks on the redirection.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102627)

Won't you take me to funky town?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (5, Informative)

Agent ME (1411269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102541)


[dave@hal-787 ~]$ sudo echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors

You don't want to run echo as superuser; a regular user can echo 1 to the program's own stdout just as easily as superuser. The shell is what opens the output file (/dev/landing-gear-doors), so you either need to run the shell as superuser or have a different program as superuser which opens the file. Either of these will work:


[dave@hal-787 ~]$ sudo sh -c 'echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors'
[dave@hal-787 ~]$ echo "1" | sudo tee /dev/landing-gear-doors

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102595)

He,he, I kind of never got used to sudo. On all systems I ever had access to, simply typing "sudo bash" gives me the old root shell...

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102625)

sudo -s is fewer characters than sudo bash.

sudo make me a sammich

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102705)

If you're short on characters, plain old su will save you a few more...

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102907)

It doesn't work because root has no password set on a typical sudo system.

~# grep root /etc/shadow
root:!:15997:0:99567:5:::

I use my user (not root) password to execute sudo bash. Thanks to the guy who gave a hint about sudo -s!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103171)

You could just use "sudo su"

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102605)

This is the real solution to the problem: sudo -i. Using sudo as above provides zero additional protection.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102781)

Just log in as root. no sudo needed.

and then do
shutdown -h now

That gives the pilot something to do!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102881)

But that does rather ruin the joke.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102929)

Thank you, sir!

I was just now having trouble with a permission denied while trying to sudo $somecomand > $file.

The $somecommand was running as root, but the ">" part was still the regular user.

The single quotes sudoes the whole thing.
/newbie

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102951)

Really, once again, thank you.

I had been frustrated by this problem, and decided to distract myself by reading slashdot for a few minutes while waiting for the solution to pop into my head.

I didn't have to wait long.

Slashdot still rules.

Bonus--captcha: "unaware"

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103189)

nice tip!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43103343)

or

apt-get purge sudo :D

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

RDW (41497) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102971)

Even attempting to activate the manual override can be confusing for those without prior unix experience:

http://xkcd.com/912/ [xkcd.com]

Internet != Network (5, Insightful)

scsirob (246572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102473)

Connecting flight controls to "The Internet" would be the stupidest of all ideas. If they do this, anyone getting on board would be a candidate for the Darwin awards.

I'm sure they meant to say that all these systems are networked together, using ARINC or other aviation network technologies.

interent != Internet (2)

Prokur (2445102) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102513)

there is a difference between internet (any internetwork) and the Internet (a worldwide publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks)

Re:interent != Internet (0)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102655)

intranet != internet

FTFY

Re:interent != Internet (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103207)

internet != the internet FTFY

Re:interent != Internet (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103361)

internet != the Internet

The "I" is capitalized in "The Internet."

Re:Internet != Network (2)

Christian Smith (3497) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102521)

Connecting flight controls to "The Internet" would be the stupidest of all ideas. If they do this, anyone getting on board would be a candidate for the Darwin awards.

I'm sure they meant to say that all these systems are networked together, using ARINC or other aviation network technologies.

TFS says "an internet". A network -> network connection is an internet connection, regardless of whether it's routed to "the internet".

Re:Internet != Network (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102589)

If it uses the IP (Internet Protocol), then it's probably an internet.

Re:Internet != Network (2)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102737)

Another possible meaning is that it's purely dataloggers monitoring every device he describes. So there's no way to control anything, just a way to monitor it.

Re:Internet != Network (2)

rioki (1328185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103135)

True that, by implementing push only the plane is safe. Let's hope they implement proper authentication, since injecting fake error reports may not hurt the plane, but can definitely hurt the airline.

internet connected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102475)

Who's the first to hack those planes and connect them to flightgear. Passenger plane UAV!

Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102479)

Hopefully he's just abusing the word 'Internet'

Misuse of "literally" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102487)

[[ Literally every piece of that plane has an internet connection ]]
I'm sure that's not actually true. Seats? Toilets? Overhead bins? Main wing spar?

Re: Misuse of "literally" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102581)

You are literally the craziest person I've met

Re:Misuse of "literally" (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102809)

Main wing spar would be a certainty of some form of connectivity due to its fatigue and stress sensors.

I will give you the rest.

Much less data than you think (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102493)

Sources say it's an XML dump. Maybe 100KB of actual data in there.

Re:Much less data than you think (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102501)

This would make perfect sense ;-)

Re:Much less data than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102645)

Before compression.

Re:Much less data than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102759)

Much worse than that, they are using PHP for their servers on all planes.

The horror.

Re:Much less data than you think (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103221)

it's the Apocalypse coming!

Re:Much less data than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102975)

Bravo, my good man, bravo!

Re:Much less data than you think (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103047)

Man, you made me snort my coffee and it was bloody hot. I don't think I'll ever have a cold or a sniffle again...

Batteries.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102511)

You'll need some big Li batteries to power all that....oh wait....

on fire

They're Watching Ypu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102539)

Isn't it funny? After pointing out yesterday that Virgin hire a reputation management company which scans the internet 24/7 to scrub any news which might tarnish Virgin's carefully massaged reputation we have a topic submitted to buff Virgin's image as a trend setter. The reality is Virgin just asset strip other people's ideas and sell them as their own. There's nothing special (or even nice) about Virgin. They just want your money.

Re:They're Watching Ypu (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103243)

The reality is Virgin just asset strip other people's ideas and sell them as their own.

Like an very well-known IT company...

Beowulf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102547)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102587)

My lord, that's like a whole 19 or 20 signals 16 bit digitized at 1 Meg Sa/S over an 8 hour flight.

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102679)

oh, half terabyte, maybe 8 bit then
So they might be storing some direct sample data. Not a big deal.

Storage in the cloud (3, Funny)

verifine (685231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102597)

Finally it makes sense, the plane (which is often in the clouds) generates data (which is stored in the cloud.)

Re:Storage in the cloud (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103379)

Ironically it has to send the data down the ground first!

Currently producing zero bytes (1, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102635)

Because all 787s are grounded. Perhaps Boeing should have concentrated on the basics for a bit longer instead of the frivolous nonsense that is nothing more than a tickbox on a marketing sheet.

Re:Currently producing zero bytes (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102675)

I don't know that it's all that frivolous.

Your average airline is running on razor-thin margins. They do NOT want a plane grounded for any longer than is absolutely necessary - because a grounded plane isn't earning any money. If an airliner can signal any faults several hours before it lands, the maintenance crew have advance warning so they know exactly what to look at (and maybe even have parts available) the instant it touches down rather than have it sitting on the tarmac waiting for parts to arrive.

Re:Currently producing zero bytes (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103239)

Maintenance data is far more than a 'tickbox on a marketing sheet', it's the absolute bedrock for efficiently operating a large fleet of... well, anything. Cars, trucks, planes, etc. That airlines and airframe manufacturers can and do collect and analyze tons of maintenance and operational data is a large part of why air travel is so safe and (relatively) cheap.

Makes me wonder... (1)

Foske (144771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102637)

1) How often do they update the virus scanner on their toilets ?

2) Is ssh enabled on their engines ? Are the engines protected against "shutdown -h -t now" commands ?

3) Can I upload video player software to the cockpit screens ? I mean, looking at those indicators the entire flight is soooo boring !

Re:Makes me wonder... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103053)

Hmm, can a common user fill up the tmpfs of /run and cause the whole system to grind to a halt?

Engines at Rolls Royce (4, Interesting)

martin (1336) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102717)

Have been doing this for years. They constantly stream data to RR HQ and theres a team of highly experienced people watching the data. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIYBgZNrsg&sns=tw [youtube.com]

Re:Engines at Rolls Royce (0)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102779)

I notice that this did not prevent an uncontained failure of an A380 engine [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Engines at Rolls Royce (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103125)

Why would it? It only highlights situations where there is prior indication of an issue on a monitored part. The A380 engine failed because of a leak of oil that pooled, caused a fire and thus caused an engine failure.

Couple things to note - it was the engine core that failed, which is not required to be contained by certification standards, and RR were aware of the engine heat issues caused by the fire during that flight as it happened, however there was nothing they could do. The amount of oil that leaked was trivial, it was the fact that it leaked where it did and pooled where it did.

Re:Engines at Rolls Royce (1)

martin (1336) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102925)

Quite - everything seemed to happen v quickly once the oil pipe broke. And yes the engine should be able to contain a broken blade

Allows get issues with new engines and the original Trent almost broke RR (its development costs being the major reason fir nationalising it in the 1970s from what I remember

Re:Engines at Rolls Royce (1)

pittance (78536) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103081)

And yes the engine should be able to contain a broken blade

Slight correction: the engine should be able to contain a failed fan blade. A turbine disc (or the one third disc pieces it breaks into), which is what failed on the flight here, acts like god's own laser beam and is not containable and so the aircraft will always have to be designed to tolerate that type of failure as it duly did. In fact the regulations require uncontained fan blade failures to be checked as well, even though they shouldn't happen.

500 gigs? How are old machines staying ualoft? (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102733)

What percent of that "data" is bad scripting, really bad mark-up and AdSense shit? Is there maybe an address like "m.part_number.plane_number.location.internalsite.boeingcorp.com" so the people who fix the problems can get the info without being tracked and spammed by OK Cupid and 100 different tool sellers?

Brilliant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102741)

Hopefully they will be using Windows 8 and not Linux, try and keep the Washington companies together ya know.

flights? what flights? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102885)

"We can get upwards of half a terabyte of data from a single flight". Well, provided they're actually able to fly, which is not the case, last time I checked.

Looks like a job for Big Data!111 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102891)

Cue the consultants and bullshit artists.

Re:Looks like a job for Big Data!111 (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103387)

Thank you for saying "cue" instead of "queue" which is so common these days.

And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102997)

I still have to turn my Kindle off during take-off and landing.

500GB in a few hours? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103013)

That must be some wicked-fast in-flight Internet connection they have...

I use about 160GB/month, and my ISP considers me an abuser.

Re:500GB in a few hours? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103059)

160GB/month? Geez, I think you need treatment for your pr0n addiction...

Re:500GB in a few hours? (1)

ketomax (2859503) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103129)

160GB/month? Geez, I think you need treatment for your pr0n addiction...

Starring who, the flight crew? And they call it Virgin Atlantic!

Re:500GB in a few hours? (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103269)

Some torrenting of movies/series easily achieves that - not necessarily pr0n...

7-Zip (1)

Compact Dick (518888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103091)

LZMA [wikipedia.org] is Boeing's friend.

Re:7-Zip (1)

fbobraga (1612783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103261)

For 100KB [slashdot.org] ?

All this for lousy service (1)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103141)

0.5 TB about how your flight is late or cancelled and there's nothing anyone can do about about anything ever.

Boeing 787s To Create Half a TB per flight (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103163)

Normally that would be a whole TB, that is when the plane makes a whole flight.

787 On-Board Network (5, Interesting)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103177)

In less then two minutes on Google I found this article with a description of the 787 on-board network: http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/articles/2011/06/boeing-787-avionics.html [avionics-i...igence.com]

The Core Network, which is standard on the 787, uses computing servers and networks based on commercial open standards. It also has a variety of third-party applications to manage the onboard data flow to improve airline efficiency. The Common Data Network (CDN from Rockwell Collins is a, bi-directional copper and fiber optic network that utilizes ARINC 664 standards and protocols to manage the data flowing between the 787's onboard systems. It is based on Ethernet technology and enabled for avionics systems. The CDN has higher data rates, expanded connectivity, and reductions in overall aircraft weight when it is contrasted with point to point topologies, Rockwell Collins officials say.

Another quick search on ARINC 664 yields the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_Full-Duplex_Switched_Ethernet [wikipedia.org]

AFDX is a next-generation aircraft data network (ADN). It is based upon IEEE 802.3 Ethernet and utilizes commercial off-the-shelf hardware thereby reducing costs and development time. AFDX is one implementation of deterministic Ethernet defined by ARINC Specification 664 Part 7. AFDX was developed by Airbus Industries for the A380, initially to address real-time issues for flight-by-wire system development. A similar implementation of deterministic Ethernet is used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. AFDX bridges the gap on reliability of guaranteed bandwidth from the original ARINC 664 standard. It utilizes a cascaded star topology network, where each switch can be bridged together to other switches on the network. By utilizing this form of network structure, AFDX is able to significantly reduce wire runs thus reducing overall aircraft weight. Additionally, AFDX provides dual link redundancy and Quality of Service (QoS).

So both the Airbus 380 and the 787 use COTS hardware and Ethernet, as does the Internet. Although slightly sloppy, describing the network as an "internet" is technically correct. Asserting that the data is "bloated XML" or that their is bad scripting, spam or cookies involved is grossly stupid.

I have worked with previous ARINC formats, and the data is very compact. It fact, it is positively cryptic, and generally you use software to turn it into a more human friendly form, like a line graph. So if there is a half terabyte per flight, it is all "real" data. Any of the posts that assume otherwise are a combination of arrogance and ignorance, which is typical for what passes as comments on Slashdot these days. Hence my sig:

Re:787 On-Board Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43103377)

>Hence my sig:

So Slashdot's combination of arrogance and ignorance has influenced your use of a blank sig?

Re:787 On-Board Network (2)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about a year and a half ago | (#43103385)

...deterministic Ethernet defined by ARINC Specification 664 Part 7.

That rang a token-bus bell, so I dug a little deeper. It seems they borrowed the token-bucket concept [wikipedia.org] from ATM [wikipedia.org] to get their deterministic behavior. Pretty clever.

On a side note, how I wish we'd standardized on ATM-to-the-premises!

RR engine - meet your new buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43103245)

Stuxnet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?