5 ms·
The software performed exactly as designed. The problem is a faulty spec for how it should behave. The software is pretty much incidental.
by 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 agoYou 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 agoYou get $9 for hypothetical blood splattered on your hand or you get worse than nothing for nothing
- kbad1000 7y agoOr 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoOr they have a "obey all orders even when it is blatantly criminal" clause.
- danso 7y agoSoftware 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 agoWould 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 agoIf the issue was in the specs, then it is software. Producing code is only really one piece of software development.