3 ms·

> Boeing is working on a software fix, according to industry and government officials, that would likely mitigate risks. On Saturday, the company went further t

by danso 8y ago

> Boeing is working on a software fix, according to industry and government officials, that would likely mitigate risks. On Saturday, the company went further than before in spelling out dangers pilots can face if they misinterpret or respond too slowly to counter automated commands. So the issue seems to be that Boeing didn’t even tell pilots and airlines that the auto-stall-prevention system has been added to new variants. So I wonder if this software mitigation is something as simple as a warning screen or dialog box. If they’re writing software, at this point, to fix/patch how the system actually functions, that seems to imply they released a flawed system/heuristic, if such a patchBle flaw was found out so soon after the Lion Air crash.

mjevans 8y ago
It probably worked just fine in perfect maintenance / test conditions, but degrades badly (very badly) when poor users, poor maintenance, and flying well past 'sane' response to errant sensors happens; as in this case. Testing new variations of software for a product that works when used as designed/tested already may have been (I'll speculate probably was, and at a low back-burner update priority baked in to some other larger change) in progress; but that's still re-testing and validating a complex system that must fulfill the other test cases (probably with real flight time and conditions). Particularly when a well trained operator (pilot) is supposed to be able to safely work around the existing defect, and seems to have done so in prior flights of that plain as well.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Brand new planes shouldn't have these sort of issues.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- adrianN 8y ago
  In highly regulated environments like software for planes, you don't push new versions without full testing and validation.
  - markdown 8y ago
    Perhaps all those test hours flown in simulators and in the air were by Boeing test pilots who actually had full knowledge of how the new MCAS system operated.

by danso 8y ago

mjevans 8y ago

It probably worked just fine in perfect maintenance / test conditions, but degrades badly (very badly) when poor users, poor maintenance, and flying well past 'sane' response to errant sensors happens; as in this case. Testing new variations of software for a product that works when used as designed/tested already may have been (I'll speculate probably was, and at a low back-burner update priority baked in to some other larger change) in progress; but that's still re-testing and validating a complex system that must fulfill the other test cases (probably with real flight time and conditions). Particularly when a well trained operator (pilot) is supposed to be able to safely work around the existing defect, and seems to have done so in prior flights of that plain as well.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Brand new planes shouldn't have these sort of issues.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
adrianN 8y ago
In highly regulated environments like software for planes, you don't push new versions without full testing and validation.
- markdown 8y ago
  Perhaps all those test hours flown in simulators and in the air were by Boeing test pilots who actually had full knowledge of how the new MCAS system operated.