787 Operators Face “Blacklist” Restrictions Due to Software Glitch
Joe Cortez December 17, 2015
Australian and Canadian officials have set “blacklist” restrictions on the troubled Boeing 787 Dreamliner over a software glitch.
Operators of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner are facing restrictions while flying Australian and Canadian skies over what is being described as a software glitch in location transponders. FlightGlobal reports the issue affects nearly every aircraft delivered and has resulted in a “blacklist” of the aircraft.
The problem revolves around the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transponders installed on current 787 aircraft. The issue was first reported in 2014, when Canadian air traffic controllers believed a Dreamliner was over 30 miles off course. The aircraft suddenly jumped back on route, as pilots informed the ground teams that their instruments read they were on course correctly. A similar situation was reported in Australia four months later.
As a result, operators of the aircraft will face certain restrictions while flying over Australia and Canada. Nav Canada put all 71 Boeing aircraft on a “blacklist,” preventing them from utilizing reduced separation procedures in air. Instead, pilots will be forced to utilize standard separation procedures in Canadian airspace.
In Australia, the restrictions are much stronger. Airservices Australia has mandated all Dreamliner aircraft fly below 29,000 feet while in Australian airspace. Because of the ADS-B software glitch, pilots flying the Dreamliner must treat their aircraft as if it does not have an ADS-B transponder installed. Additional “blacklist” restrictions have been put in place at three major Australian airports, including Sydney Airport (SYD).
Boeing has acknowledged the problem and has promised operators a fix that will be released “imminently.” The manufacturer assures the situation is one of convenience and the glitch does not affect aircraft safety.
“It is important to understand that this is not a safety concern,” Boeing announced, according to FlightGlobal. “Existing systems such as radar provide the necessary positional data to [air traffic control] that allow the continued safe operation of the fleet.”
[Photo: Boeing]
It's not that it's difficult, I think it's just some buggy code. My $150 Dual GPS is just as accurate as the $20,000 G1000 with WAAS in the planes I fly every day, However, it's up to the computer to monitor and check for accuracy. What's bizarre to me is that the computers themselves didn't alert the crew (unless it was for a handful of seconds, because annunciations are usually only made if something like RAIM is lost after a few minutes). And that brings me back to my original question: they're relying on ADS-B for the Next Gen ATC systems, but with the amount of redundancy that regulatory bodies mandate, I am still surprised they don't have a normal transponder onboard and operating as backup.
For fark's sake, is it really THAT difficult to have a computer 1) Get GPS coordinates, 2) Get velocity & altitude from the aircraft's instrumentation 3) Transmit them on 1090MHz? A $20 smartphone from Walmart and APRS software can do this flawlessly!
What country was the software developed in?
So...do these planes just not have a Mode A/C/S transponder installed? With the level of redundancy built into airplanes and especially air carrier avionics, you'd think there would be a backup. And I understand the obvious safety concern, but the sudden knee-jerk response to just restrict them from RVSM or above certain altitudes, because of a momentary blip? I fail to see how this is any different than when a traditional radar return either is blocked, interfered, or when weather and birds show false returns on a radar scope. All the time in my local airspace, Approach will inform us of "traffic at your 10 o'clock, type unknown altitude unknown" and 9 times out of 10 is't a bird, or simply nothing.
"Not a safety concern" ... how to play with words. Sure it doesn't fall off from the sky, but, if ATC is not sure of your exact location, then, it IS a global safety issue. Haven't they learned anything from MH370 ?