3 ms·

I agree. Check out the NTSB report[1] for the crash into a neighborhood in Queens[2]. 200-odd pages of very sober, rational (and interesting) discussion of how

I agree. Check out the NTSB report[1] for the crash into a neighborhood in Queens[2]. 200-odd pages of very sober, rational (and interesting) discussion of how a pilot ended up snapping the vertical stabilizer off an A300. There are many factors leading up to what ends up being summarized as pilot error. [1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0404.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

pmoriarty 9y ago
This kind of analysis is aided by the airline industry having very strict training and procedures that flight and ground crew are required to follow, along with regulations that equipment has to comply with. With them, you can see, for instance, where a pilot or mechanic did not follow procedure, was not trained adequately, or maybe some equipment was out of spec and wasn't caught in a checklist that should have been followed by the maintenance crew, etc. Compared to the airline industry, most software engineering is much more of a fly by the seat of your pants phenomenon where anything goes, and there's little standardization, process, or regulations that the entire industry has agreed on and actually follows. Such a Wild West approach definitely has a lot of upsides like speed of development, flexibility, freedom to innovate, and so on. But can have a cost in safety, reproduceability, accountability, and analysis of what actually went wrong or how to fix it next time.
mturmon 9y ago
The Columbia shuttle accident report is a masterpiece of the genre. It's available at: http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html It's detailed, but well-written and the quality of the analysis is extraordinary. For a sample, take a glance at the debris maps on page 45, followed up with amazing results on page 75. If you like understated drama, start at the comm transcript on page 42. ("Lock the doors.")

pmoriarty 9y ago

This kind of analysis is aided by the airline industry having very strict training and procedures that flight and ground crew are required to follow, along with regulations that equipment has to comply with. With them, you can see, for instance, where a pilot or mechanic did not follow procedure, was not trained adequately, or maybe some equipment was out of spec and wasn't caught in a checklist that should have been followed by the maintenance crew, etc. Compared to the airline industry, most software engineering is much more of a fly by the seat of your pants phenomenon where anything goes, and there's little standardization, process, or regulations that the entire industry has agreed on and actually follows. Such a Wild West approach definitely has a lot of upsides like speed of development, flexibility, freedom to innovate, and so on. But can have a cost in safety, reproduceability, accountability, and analysis of what actually went wrong or how to fix it next time.

mturmon 9y ago

The Columbia shuttle accident report is a masterpiece of the genre. It's available at: http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html It's detailed, but well-written and the quality of the analysis is extraordinary. For a sample, take a glance at the debris maps on page 45, followed up with amazing results on page 75. If you like understated drama, start at the comm transcript on page 42. ("Lock the doors.")