no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
26 comments in c/tech@programming.dev view that post
[–] 15 points 11 months ago (1 child)

Not sure about a specific article for planes, but some forms of solar radiation can cause random bits to flip to the opposite when it crosses through computer hardware like memory.

These randomly occur already just by us existing in the solar system, and error correction algorithms, hardware like ECC memory, and shielding helps to prevent and correct these issues when they do happen. The intense radiation recently, the same that caused the extended auroras, caused more and stronger occurrences though.

One flight we know was affected despite systems that help prevent issues like that, so they're having the software reloaded on every plane that might have been affected.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    In my previous work we had a bunch of devices that failed at the final installation. All of them passed that test at the end of line at the plant without any issues but they simply refused to boot at the customer site. When we read the ROM contents some data was corrupted We had a very extensive investigation and finally they realized that all the ones that failed had been flown instead of using ground shipping and there had been some solar activity so the final conclusion was bit shift due to solar storm and since fixing was to difficult and expensive it was just decided to stop shipping this particular device by air (it used a very cheap flash memory)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] [S] 6 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    Nice thank you, this one has the details I was curious about

    In a service difficulty report submitted to the FAA the operator stated, that the Elevator Aileron Computer #2 (ELAC2) was identified faulty causing an uncommanded pitch down in cruise flight, the autopilot remained engaged

    On Nov 7th 2025 the NTSB reported: "During cruise, the aircraft experienced an uncontrolled descent for approximately 4-5 seconds before the autopilot corrected the trajectory. This likely occurred during an ELAC switch change." The occurrence caused 10 injuries on board, the NTSB opened an investigation.

    The subsequent investigation identified a vulnerability with the ELAC B hardware fitted with software L104 in case of exposure to solar flares.

    This identified vulnerability could lead in the worst case scenario to an uncommanded elevator movement that may result in exceeding the aircraft structural capability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    ...for approximately 4-5 seconds before the autopilot corrected the trajectory.

    Not trying to blame them, but where were pilots in this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    It's fly by wire, the pilot doesn't have direct control of the plane, which is the main issue here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    Shouldnt there be alarms when the auto pilot detected an unexpected rapid elevation change?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It's not elevation, the height of a plane is called altitude. The change was in the elevator which is a control surface on the plane. There is so many people with so little understanding weighing in on this thread it's hilarious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    altitude: 1 a: the vertical elevation of an object above a surface (such as sea level or land) of a planet or natural satellite

    elevation: 1: the height to which something is elevated: such as c: the height above the level of the sea

    Looks like the same word in a slightly different package. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I wonder if it was even possible for the pilots to intervene, or if the system was interpreting any signal from them as "pitch down" during that time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    The pilot should be able to intervene. If the system interprets pilot input as nonsensical it overrides the pilot, but the pilot can switch to what Airbus calls "direct law" which directly maps pilot input to control surfaces without any sanity checks from the flight control system.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Disconnecting the AP when flying at altitude isn't necessarily the best thing to do even if there is an upset. There are so many factors a play that asking what they were doing for 5 seconds is a ridiculous question.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    SUNLIGHT??? While flying through the air?? Who could have seen this coming :o

    Yeah, that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    There's other radiation in solar radiation than just light. The most harmful stuff doesn't really reach the earth's surface, but you're exposed to higher radiation amounts when flying, same applies to any electronics on board an aircraft. That's why you will usually find multiple flight control computers that have to agree on their calculations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight-time_equivalent_dose

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I mean its all still just the same thing as "light" tho, its just not the kind thats visible to the human eye. Its all electromagnetic radiation in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    The maths and physics are the same, the impact is not. It's about energy and how well you can shield against it. Shielding against visible light is simple, thin cardboard is probably enough, the aluminium frame of an aircraft is more than sufficient and the plastic or ceramic packaging of a microcontroller too. Shielding against gamma radiation is hard, you'll need something like a thick layer of lead, and even then every once in a while a photon might get through.

    Edit: The incident that caused this grounding was a solar flare, so not just some visible light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The different wavelengths don't travel through the atmosphere equally though, that's why you see red light on the horizon in the morning and evening

    But you're really clever, from your snarky comments, so I guess you already knew that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    :)

    What i tried to point out with my original comment is that it seems odd that the people that get payed billions to build airplanes havent considered this problem. Cosmic radiation causing bit flips is super old knowledge and one of the reasons why ECC memory exists. I dont know if thats what happened here but if it is then its an embarrassing failure.

    Airbus discovered that, at high altitudes, its data could be corrupted by intense radiation released periodically by the Sun.

    Its not very specific so who knows what actually happened or if they are just completely bullshitting maybe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I would guess flares are getting more common and more powerful, and the protection was projected for less intensity without enough overhead.

    Makes me wonder how big is protective capacity on the space station and satellites, but they are likely built with more security considerations than budget considerations

  • source
  • parent
  • 15 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    How did this issue only manifest itself after 37 years in service? Sun radiation isnt a new phenomenon.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I think I read that the issue is relatively new thanks to a software update (speculation in another thread, so questionable veracity). So perhaps a change that wasn’t flawed by itself but by bad luck combined with this radiation sensitivity to make the issue significant.

    But also solar flares are kind of rare, especially on the stronger end, so easy to imagine bug reliant on them sitting idle for years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    If anyone has an article with more technical details on what the solar radiation did, and how they're going to patch it, I'd like to read about it :)

    Not a direct answer to your question, but: the sun (like the earth) has areas that are more "geologically" active; those areas tend to throw out solar flares. As the sun rotates, the area that throws out these solar flares slowly faces toward the earth (solar maximum) then slowly rotates to face away from the earth (solar minimum). The solar cycle is roughly eleven years long.

    Currently, we're just slightly past solar maximum. For the past year or so, the "more active" part of the sun has been roughly facing earth and intermittently spitting out solar flares. When these flares hit the earth's atmosphere, they cause auroras (which is why we've had so many auroras these past couple years) and can interfere with electronic and electrical equipment (see: the Carrington event).

    I have no details on what l the exact damage that was caused by the interference the plane suffered, nor any knowledge of how they plan to address the issue. But whatever they come up with is going to take some time to develop - and we're moving away from solar maximum so being hit with a massive flare is increasingly less likely - at least for another decade. My suspicion is that they'll come up with a "solution" that actually may not work very well, but it works well enough to give the impression that they're doing something - and it'll look like it's working to some extent, simply because the active side of the sun is rotating away from us.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago

    As the sun rotates, the area that throws out these solar flares slowly faces toward the earth (solar maximum) then slowly rotates to face away from the earth (solar minimum). The solar cycle is roughly eleven years long.

    This doesn't have anything to do with the sun's rotation. It actually rotates once every 28 days. The solar maximum and solar minimum are just phases in activity caused by internal activity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago

    As a ham radio operator, I can tell you solar flares can create incredible and somewhat unpredictable changes in radio transmissions. Hams love it because we get to push boundaries from a safe shack, but if I was on a plane that uses radio signals to navigate I would be less happy about solar flares effecting transmissions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 8 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Appreciate the write-up, thanks!

    I found this diagram, and this should mean that the levels will drop by around 2030?

    Source: https://www.stce.be/news/453/welcome.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Why is half of your graph Japanese?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I think the website is old, and the blurry bits were a prediction

    The new cycle is expected to start late in 2019 or in 2020, with solar maximum to be reached between 2023 and 2026 and the maximum (smoothed) sunspot number in the 95 to 130 range.

    A different color and a legend would have been nicer imo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I work in the software industry and I have a guess regarding what the might do to "fix" the problem.

    First, we look for the cause, but in this case it is external: we can't prevent solar flares. So we will turn to mitigation instead:

    Data gets flaky and erratic unter radiation, so what we would do is to double- and triple-check the data bits. By adding more levels of data correction, more bits can be wrong and we can still figure what it was supposed to be.

    Adding more corrections means more overhead and slower performance, but it can still be made to work within the given constraints of real-time processing. They will need to find a balance between hardening and usefulness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Is it a software fix? Or are they adding shielding around the flight control system or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The articles I saw mentioned that it would be fixed in software.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Sounds like SEE (single event effect) if it's something fixable by software.

    TID (total ionizing dose) is another flavor of radiation effect on components, but that's a total lifetime effect where it slowly degrades. Using rad hard parts or adding extra shielding is the main fix.

    SEEs are transient effects from high energy charged particles that can cause bit flips and latch ups in circuitry depending on where the particle hits and deposits it's charge in the circuitry. Extra shielding can help prevent these as well, but they can also be mitigated in software, sometimes the fix is just error detection, or power cycling a specific section of circuitry to clear a latchup

  • source
  • parent