14 ms·

Would you throw out your computer because of a bad hardware driver? This is effectively a software issue, that will eventually be solved

• spwmoni 8y ago
  If my computer had killed hundreds of people, yes, I would throw it out, even if the manufacturer promised to fix it.
• gpm 8y ago
  This is a hardware issue. Lack of redundancy in sensors. Lack of knobs to turn MCAS off without turning off the electric motors that are apparently necessary to control the plane in challenging circumstances (which a hardware failure can put you in). It's also a training issue, especially with the first flight pilots not being informed about this system. Maybe it can be worked around via software changes and human training. But the software appears to have done what it was supposed to.
  • cjbprime 8y ago
    Every MAX already had two AoA vanes, MCAS just wasn't hooked up to both in software.
    • gpm 8y ago
      Yes, two. The standard for critical systems is 3. Two isn't good for much, if they give different readings you don't know which to believe. Either that kills you like in real life, or it kills you because of the stall problem it was invented to fix. Edit: And yes, you could do something more sensible than what they did, but that doesn't "fix" the issue, it merely mitigates it to some extent.
      • cjbprime 8y ago
        This seems a little overstated. As I understand it the plane isn't actually aerodynamically unstable and isn't going to stall itself without the pilot pulling into it. The main issue seems to have been software to me. I'm not saying they should avoid using a third sensor. It sounds like a good idea. But I'm not sure it's required for airworthiness, after you move from one to two.
        • gpm 8y ago
          Maybe a little overstated to avoid getting into subtleties, but I stand behind the point. Yes, it seems the plane is probably mostly flyable if you kill the MCAS system (which is the only reasonable step to take in a two sensor system when they disagree). But - The plane no longer handles the same, you definitely need to be alerting the pilots, and put this change into manuals and training. This isn't just a thing you should silently do in software and expect not to kill people. - The plane no longer meets the FAA rules for the class under these conditions. Maybe that's acceptable because it is an error state, but I think that meets the definition of a "workaround" and not a "fix". - At least one of these planes took off when one of the sensors was known to be bad from the previous flight (as I understand it). I can only assume that they don't do that when something critical to the handling of the plane is broken. This is another process bug that needs to be fixed before a software workaround might be acceptable. I don't see any way to interpret this other than "the hardware didn't work as we thought it did", which leads me to say "hardware bug", even if you can maybe work around it with process, training, and software changes.
• beeneuf 8y ago
  I mean, yeah, if a bad hardware driver could threaten my life in some way (like overheating a component to the point of a fire risk) then I would discontinue use of that machine immediately.
• effingwewt 8y ago
  Except if your computer has a failed driver it won't kill you, why are you all over these posts so adamantly defending Boeing? OP had a valid comparison via car and plane, yours was simply asinine.