Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms The operation in some new cars is getting worse.

I do seem to recollect a few years back when the development of self driving cars was in its relative infancy, that concerns were expressed around the security and integrity of the manufacturers software and the likelihood of viruses being introduced by other gadgets eg mobile phones, usb sticks, interfacing with the cars hardware/software.

Have they built sufficient firewalls and antivirus to prevent this and how does the system keep those upto date? How do they maintain the ongoing integrity of the software?

Agreed Howard.

Is it part of the endless arms race between vendors? One adds bumpers they all need bumpers. One adds X-box controls in the armrest the other installs playstation accessories in the headlining. Nice to see What Car making the Dacia it's car of the year 2021.

Excellent questions. The challenge of adequate testing of such complex software systems is keeping the experts in that topic very busy at present. We are now developing software systems that are so complex that a full verification becomes almost impossible. When the system is a mobile phone that is one thing. When it is a self driving car or an automated system in an aeroplane its another matter entirely (e.g. 737-Max).

I believe these touch screens in cars should be banned.
When I learnt to drive in the 60's I had a number of sessions with a police trained instructor. One of the things that was drummed into me was operating the switches etc without taking my eyes off the road. Clearly the latest touch screen that needs to be used to operate lights, wipers, heater etc means that the driver has to look at it and therefore isn't looking where they are going and could so easily miss a child running into the road

To be fair there is a difference between the issue around the 737-Max and failure to design and test software for intrinsic safety. The 737 could have been designed to avoid the error but the human factor of greed was the root of that one. The 787 and some versions of the 747 were electronic for ages. It will never be totally without error but then I wonder if every pilot in every plane is without risk each day, alcohol, fear, hatred, drugs.

There remain issues in the 787 that are not discussed for reasons of customer confidence - carbon fibre and lightning strikes. As the 787 is built of considerable amounts of the stuff and it does not react well to a heavy lightning strike. If one gets a tweak in mid air they need to be inspected prior to further flights. Is this worse than the other issues?
https://mainblades.com/2020/08/03/t...w-about-boeing-787-lightning-protection/

I have been watching the smart car security thing for quite some time. The number of layers of security involved will need to be akin to military grade before I go near one. Then again who gives a damn about me and would want to control my car. Perhaps I should not ask that?

I do wonder from time to time when we see features like doors being opened remotely by a mobile phone whether the integrity of the software can remain intact, especially as the cars get older, receive less maintenance and have older software virus updates (if any are done). Unless the software in somehow compartmentalised, you have increasingly more software elements controlling suspension, brakes, vehicle access and hosts of drivers safety features that potentially could be compromised over time.......

regards

https://www.exveritas.com/intrinsic-safety-systems/

Intrinsic Safety is designed in and then the software needs to produce results to match the overall design requirement.
Now add to this the requirement to ensure security and it gets a lot more complex. But not impossible, just more complex.
Then add the desire to be first to market with the successful solution (and VC investment which you gained by pushing the story?)

Then look at the upside of being able to take over a limo containing a high net worth person.
Access to the code that defines the model makes every other car on the road accessible, or a missile ready to be set.

I am not up for this particular nintendo game.

And if their control systems were vulnerable would they tell us? .... I can think of two stories .... one of the early 'fly by wire' cars (dim and distant past but a top of the range Rover saloon rings a bell) .... little old lady crashed in town claiming the car ran away from her.... she was ridiculed and prosecuted .... was working with radio fitments for police under cover cars at the time and we ended up not using that model as RF interference could interfere with the ecu with the same result .... company knew it and kept quiet. Probably a car near her with an illegal burner on their transmitter.

Early cash machines and staff being prosecuted and sacked for stealing when what they were sent to get out of the machine for petty cash proved to be wrong ... the issue was known about but the cash machine companies kept quiet and let it happen rather than damage confidence in the new system they had so much invested in.

Both things that have been resolved and the tech is much better thought out .... but I doubt corporate morals have had similar upgrades

K

Corvair, unsafe at any speed.
Ford/Firestone Tyres.
737 Max

What was it they said - Greed is good. Not so much.

Regulation is better.

The 737 Max is/was unsafe because an electronic system was used to hide an aerodynamic "bodge".

They wanted to fit larger, more powerful and yet more efficient engines to compete with the new Airbus "Neo" family.
The original 737 design required it had built in air stairs, this led to a short undercarriage that left plenty of room for the engines.
Later versions had flat bottomed engine nacelles with limited ground clearance.
But for the max it simply wasn't possible to fit the engines where they were designed to fit.
So some genus thought "no problem, we can move the forward a bit, so the fat bit is forward of the wing"....

Result... they fitted....BUT the consequence was a massive trim change with changes in engine power. Not a problem, but it would mean a lot of re-training of pilots, which is expensive and means not all 737 pilots can fly the MAX.
Oh dear, all Airbus pilots can fly ANY twin engined Airbus and airlines like this.
So how do we get over this? It is going to be expensive.

No problem, thought another genius, we can use software to provide automatic stability based on the existing auto trim system: great said the bosses...

Still not really a problem...
But the software was badly coded/engineered and not well integrated, there was no redundancy as is found in an Airbus AND PILOTS DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THERE...
The FAA had delegated approval process for "MINOR SYSTEM CHANGES" to Boeing.

When it went wrong, as there was no built in redundancy, nd the pilots hadn't a clue and the software crashed the planes.

So, greed..yes.
Fear of the Competition = short cuts..yes
Emasculation of FAA Oversight.... Blame Trump.