[V99]

Yes the FAA can issue what are called Airworthiness Directives and require an issue be resolved in the timeframe and manner they specify.

The timeframe could be anything, but common forms are like:

- Within the next X (flight) hours or Y calendar days

- You don't have to, but additional inspection needed every X hours or Y days until you do

- At next annual inspection

- Immediate/before flying again (usually called an Emergency AD)

[MBCook]

I know the FAA can, I was referring to the manufacture. If Boeing makes a software patch do they have any way of forcing everyone to install it other than asking the FAA to issue a directive?

[AdamJacobMuller]

They might be able to, but, if they are effectively saying "our product is broken and you can't use it until you do X" they could be responsible for massive contractual liabilities.

[MichaelZuo]

Based on what legal reasoning…?

I haven’t heard of any similar successful court cases in recent years in the US.

[p_l]

Based on aviation law they can notify the certification authority of a mandatory fix which will be then required to be applied for users to aircraft operators to apply. If necessary with 0 deadline, i.e. "if the plane is on the ground it's not flying till the following change is applied"

[MichaelZuo]

Can you cite which parts of “aviation law” could have a decent chance of leading to the aformentioned outcome?

[p_l]

General worldwide: Chicago Convention aka ICAO convention (currently under auspices of UN), Annex 8 [2] and Annex 6 [3].

For USA [4], Title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I Subchapter C, Part 39

For EU [5] Article 76 (6) of the Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139

[1] https://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx [2] https://ffac.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ICAO-Annex-8-Airw... [3] https://ffac.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ICAO-Annex-6-Oper... [4] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C... [5] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/regulations#b...

[jiggawatts]

AFAIK, no.

I read through the 787 Dreamliner manual for setting up the software for patch distribution to the planes, and there are checks and overrides at every step. The whole thing is physically controlled by the owning airline or maybe the leasing company, but not Boeing.

[MBCook]

That sounds smart.

I wasn’t thinking a “we’re pushing an update too bad” kind of thing but more a “hey you have to do this to be allowed to fly, your choice” with the weight of law behind it.

[jiggawatts]

That guide book was genuinely amazing, it was easily the best-written technical document of any kind that I had read.

The security is dialed up to 11 as well. It explicitly calls out the following scenario:

1) The plane is leased. 2) the maintenance is outsourced. 3) The plane at an airport in an "unfriendly" country. 4) The plane is not allowed to take off until it is patched due to an emergency directive.

That scenario is handled, securely!

There is encryption between the plane and the airport WiFi.

The maintenance crew can also plug in to an Ethernet port near the front landing gear.

There is a VPN back to the patch server managed by the airline.

The VPN host certificate is explicitly whitelisted in the plane.

The plane won't accept a patch unless it has been digitally signed by Boeing, the FAA, the Airline, and potentially the manufacturer and the local equivalent of the FAA!)

The pilot has to enter a 4-digit pin code in the plane.

Most of the associated wiring is only physically connected if there is weight on the front landing gear. You can't "hack" a plane in-flight and patch it with malware, the required cabling isn't connected.

[TheRealPomax]

That is to say, they used to. Whether they still do is rather entirely up in the air (wahey).