> Firstly, no the software did not do exactly as it's supposed to. It crashed the plane by rendering it unflyable. It's not supposed to do that. This belongs i

> Firstly, no the software did not do exactly as it's supposed to. It crashed the plane by rendering it unflyable. It's not supposed to do that. This belongs in the true-but-trite category. The decision to depend on a single, unverified AofA input was not a programming error, and neither was the increase in power in the second version. These decisions were made by Boeing, and endorsed by the FAA (to the extent that Boeing informed the FAA of them.)