4 ms·

When is the media going to get the message that this wasn't a software issue?

by mehrdadn 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
But but but... there's a computer! It has to be a software issue! /s
pseudolus 7y ago
The final verdict isn't in, but it appears to have been a systems engineering problem with a software component.
- mikeash 7y ago
  The software performed exactly as designed. The problem is a faulty spec for how it should behave. The software is pretty much incidental.
  - salex89 7y ago
    You are correct, however... I can't imagine a single engineer with any kind of proper education (formal or not) implementing any piece of software or hardware without thinking:"One sensor? Really? What's the failure rate on this thing". That might have been enough to stop the chan of events.
    - numpad0 7y ago
      You get $9 for hypothetical blood splattered on your hand or you get worse than nothing for nothing
    - kbad1000 7y ago
      Or may be they pointed it out but got reply "just work as said, you're just $9 engineer"? Or they were never told about the exact purpose?
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      The engineers may not have realized they were relying on one sensor, or they might be the $9/hour variety with no avionics experience who don't know any better. The main problem was higher up. The overall design was bad, and Boeing didn't seem to have a handle on it.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        I suspect they were told that runaway trim wouldn’t be a serious problem, and they believed it since they wouldn’t have the expertise to analyze the whole thing from first principles.
      - anticensor 7y ago
        Or they have a "obey all orders even when it is blatantly criminal" clause.
  - danso 7y ago
    Software is an integral part of modern flight. Somewhere up the chain, there’s a highly-paid software engineer/manager who helped design and signed off on the spec.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Would a highly paid software engineer be expected to understand the potential consequences of runaway trim? I’d think that would be up to the aerodynamics folks, who most likely said that it was not a problem.
  - touristtam 7y ago
    If the issue was in the specs, then it is software. Producing code is only really one piece of software development.
alkonaut 7y ago
It will eventually fly with only software fixes, which will reinforce that picture.
pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
software put the plane in a nosedive. when are you going to accept that?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tiredofit 7y ago
Software was definitely part of the issue.
- tiredofit 7y ago
  But it wasn't a software issue! /S https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/04/08/boeing-737-max-crash-and-the-rejection-of-ridiculous-data/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/04/08/boeing-737-max-... Any competent engineer would raise moral and ethical questions when working on software that is "mission ciritical". Causing a passenger plane to continually go into a nose dive because of data coming from a single sensor is absolutely ludicrous. Just because the software was horribly designed, doesn't mean it isn't a software issue.
  - kahlonel 7y ago
    It is a hardware design issue. There's a concept of N+1 redundancy in safety-critical systems, a hardware design decision. This basic philosophy was missing from the MCAS system[1]. You can argue that the software could just ignore bad sensor readings, but that's just software making up for hardware deficiencies. 1. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lac...

When is the media going to get the message that this wasn't a software issue?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

But but but... there's a computer! It has to be a software issue! /s

pseudolus 7y ago

The final verdict isn't in, but it appears to have been a systems engineering problem with a software component.

mikeash 7y ago
The software performed exactly as designed. The problem is a faulty spec for how it should behave. The software is pretty much incidental.
- salex89 7y ago
  You are correct, however... I can't imagine a single engineer with any kind of proper education (formal or not) implementing any piece of software or hardware without thinking:"One sensor? Really? What's the failure rate on this thing". That might have been enough to stop the chan of events.
  - numpad0 7y ago
    You get $9 for hypothetical blood splattered on your hand or you get worse than nothing for nothing
  - kbad1000 7y ago
    Or may be they pointed it out but got reply "just work as said, you're just $9 engineer"? Or they were never told about the exact purpose?
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    The engineers may not have realized they were relying on one sensor, or they might be the $9/hour variety with no avionics experience who don't know any better. The main problem was higher up. The overall design was bad, and Boeing didn't seem to have a handle on it.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      I suspect they were told that runaway trim wouldn’t be a serious problem, and they believed it since they wouldn’t have the expertise to analyze the whole thing from first principles.
    - anticensor 7y ago
      Or they have a "obey all orders even when it is blatantly criminal" clause.
- danso 7y ago
  Software is an integral part of modern flight. Somewhere up the chain, there’s a highly-paid software engineer/manager who helped design and signed off on the spec.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Would a highly paid software engineer be expected to understand the potential consequences of runaway trim? I’d think that would be up to the aerodynamics folks, who most likely said that it was not a problem.
- touristtam 7y ago
  If the issue was in the specs, then it is software. Producing code is only really one piece of software development.

alkonaut 7y ago

It will eventually fly with only software fixes, which will reinforce that picture.

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago

software put the plane in a nosedive. when are you going to accept that?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tiredofit 7y ago

Software was definitely part of the issue.

tiredofit 7y ago
But it wasn't a software issue! /S https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/04/08/boeing-737-max-crash-and-the-rejection-of-ridiculous-data/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2019/04/08/boeing-737-max-... Any competent engineer would raise moral and ethical questions when working on software that is "mission ciritical". Causing a passenger plane to continually go into a nose dive because of data coming from a single sensor is absolutely ludicrous. Just because the software was horribly designed, doesn't mean it isn't a software issue.
- kahlonel 7y ago
  It is a hardware design issue. There's a concept of N+1 redundancy in safety-critical systems, a hardware design decision. This basic philosophy was missing from the MCAS system[1]. You can argue that the software could just ignore bad sensor readings, but that's just software making up for hardware deficiencies. 1. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lac...