5 ms·

Imagine if your bugfix process was broadcast to the world, every new IN added to spirateam et al, every new crash condition found by test/QA, every time the sof

by Aloha 7y ago

Imagine if your bugfix process was broadcast to the world, every new IN added to spirateam et al, every new crash condition found by test/QA, every time the software failed in test, it got printed by news organizations the world over. This is world the 737MAX software people are living in, for this alone, they have my utmost respect.

supercanuck 7y ago
imagine if your bug has the potential to kill 300 people.
- gamedori 7y ago
  To be fair, if another 150 people die that will be the end of the 737 program - and probably Boeing. 300 more deaths is highly unlikely.
  - ulfw 7y ago
    So one more plane crash is possible but two are not?? Huh?
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      Yes. After one more plane crash, it will probably become uneconomical for carriers to continue operating the 737.
      - Aloha 7y ago
        How does a crash on the 737MAX effect operations on 737NG aircraft, or older ones - what suddenly makes it uneconomical?
        alexis_fr 7y ago
        Because people are made aware that Boeing wasn’t serious with engineering since 2012. And the FAA paid Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, which by all layman’s definition fall under the terms of “corrupted”. Who wouldn’t pay attention to the little mention in Google Flights with the brand of the plane?
        Aloha 7y ago
        I think you grossly overestimate the general public, and their ability to pay attention, or care. The 737MAX isnt the first aircraft to have an issue like this - and they kept flying them.
        swiley 7y ago
        >And the FAA paid Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, which by all layman’s definition fall under the terms of “corrupted”. In my experience this is pretty normal for specialized stuff like this, it has nothing to do with corruption.
        Aloha 7y ago
        It's this way in my industry as well, it's really hard to find people who have not worked for one of the big two vendors in my field.
        lizmat 7y ago
        People's refusal to fly in anything with "737" in its name.
        mattlondon 7y ago
        The whitewash is already starting. The 737 Max name is now being replaced with the 737-8200 term (1). I assume they are hoping that 737-8200 is not tarnished like 737 Max is. 1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-boeing-737-max-8200-name-new-crash-a9004896.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair...
  - Aloha 7y ago
    I think you underestimate Boeing size, wealth, and importance to the federal government.
    - BinaryIdiot 7y ago
      This. Even is Boeing had to drop out of the airplane game _entirely_, they have a ton of other lines of business. If another 737 Max crashed then that would be the end of the Max, IMO, but I doubt older 737s would be dropped and Boeing would still be around easily enough.
    - alexis_fr 7y ago
      This. - Boeing is certainly well financially engineered in many financial vehicles, - It’s alone the #1 net exporter of USA, - USA needs Boeing, whether it exports or not. Boeing also funds candidates, just mentioning. - Existing conpanies need to maintain their existing planes, and they need Boeing’s consultancy for that, - I’d say even Airbus needs their competitor, or they would fall in a dangerous monopolistic position. As much as one would enjoy the spectacle of a corrupted eating the dust, it is probably too stable to happen. But ever heard of De Havailland? That’s probably to do with their 4 crashes in a row, due to its airframe shredding of metal fatigue and material constraints being concentrated on the edges of their square windows. Ever flew in a DC-10 or MD-11? That’s probably to do with their 4 crashes in a raw, for a bad doorlock. Just saying.
      - iguy 7y ago
        But in the days of de Havailland & McD-D, there were maybe half a dozen companies which made airliners. That's a much more Adam-Smith world than when there are exactly two.
  - lrem 7y ago
    300 people died before Boeing started acknowledging that maybe this wasn't entirely pilot's fault...
toyg 7y ago
Imagine if your software had already killed a few hundred people. Boeing developers have been put in an untenable position and should consider walking out until management does the right thing and kills the plane.
- Aloha 7y ago
  The plane has no fundamental mechanical flaw, it has a software bug. The only flaw the plane had was being treated as 'just another 737'
  - ulfw 7y ago
    It has plenty of uncertifiable components grandfathered in for 50 years, topped with ‘still within range of grandfathering’ pieces of bandaid software on top. It’s fundamental because the whole fundament this rests one isn’t stable and all the adding instability add-ons do not make sense.
    - Aloha 7y ago
      Since you seem to be an expert in airplanes and complex systems, which components are not certifiable? the 737MAX could have been certified as a new airplane, with a new type certificate, and a new pilot type rating to go with it - but that would have removed much (or all) of its economic justification to exist.
      - nraynaud 7y ago
        It would be a not very good airplane. It has only 2 selling points: its type certificate, and its 737 footprint at the terminal. Any new airplane would be a bit higher, it brings some downsides (ground operations people really like the easy access), but having bigger engines under the wings is such an advantage that it overrides all other considerations.
        Aloha 7y ago
        Thats kinda my point, the shared type certificate is most of the justification for the airplane to exist, Boeing would rather build a whole new small aircraft, people who fly on them would rather fly on a whole new aircraft - airlines however strongly prefer something that costs as little as possible to put into service - and has commonality with existing fleets, which means not a whole new aircraft. I bet if you offered Delta some brand new MD-95's they'd take up on them, as they have basically every MD-95 produced.
ulfw 7y ago
Imagine a world where a certification agency tasked to examine a plane for faults before certifying it so as to assure people aren’t killed needlessly, would have actually done their job instead of outsourcing it to the very same manufacturer whose incentive it is to certify itself ASAP. Novel concept, I know. But where would we be without corruption...
std_throwaway 7y ago
> Imagine if your bugfix process was broadcast to the world Have you heard of the site called github?
- throwaway082729 7y ago
  Heard of a private GitHub?
  - std_throwaway 7y ago
    Yes, for those who need to hide their code from public scrunity.
    - zbentley 7y ago
      ...or you work on closed source software in your company's private GitHub.
      - std_throwaway 7y ago
        Closed source software should not be used in safety critical systems that affect the general public.
        king_magic 7y ago
        Most software engineers aren’t qualified to have an opinion about the quality of proprietary safety critical software systems that also happen to run against proprietary hardware. So unless you’ve found an economical way to develop an open source jetliner... honestly, what would be the point of open sourcing safety critical systems to the general public? I’m not at all saying it should be closed off from external safety inspectors or regulators or anything like that, but I’m not really seeing the value of opening the software up to the general public.
        adrianN 7y ago
sundvor 7y ago
I picture a labyrinth of outsourced spaghetti, with no real ownership anywhere. Would be very happy to be corrected here.
- Glawen 7y ago
  Most probably wrong. Code and requirement tracability is mandatory when we do safety critical system. If you have an audit, they can pick a source file or even line of code and ask you to find why it was added and the associated requirement. They can also ask you to show the test report where it was tested
_trampeltier 7y ago
Yes this comes with "we do everything in software". I work in automation an I guess most of our plc code is much smaller and simpler than just one website. Software devs still live in this "you can use this software as-is" world. This thinking is just not compatible with, we use software for everything. Even I liked PLC programming as a younger guy and a kind of I still like to do it .. you can do cool things on the machines .. the way it goes at moment does worry me quiet a bit. And if you would work in a different job, for ex. design a building or bridges, since ever was this "if you fail, you are in the news". So please you just software guys, grow up.

by Aloha 7y ago

supercanuck 7y ago

imagine if your bug has the potential to kill 300 people.

gamedori 7y ago
To be fair, if another 150 people die that will be the end of the 737 program - and probably Boeing. 300 more deaths is highly unlikely.
- ulfw 7y ago
  So one more plane crash is possible but two are not?? Huh?
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Yes. After one more plane crash, it will probably become uneconomical for carriers to continue operating the 737.
    - Aloha 7y ago
      How does a crash on the 737MAX effect operations on 737NG aircraft, or older ones - what suddenly makes it uneconomical?
      - alexis_fr 7y ago
        Because people are made aware that Boeing wasn’t serious with engineering since 2012. And the FAA paid Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, which by all layman’s definition fall under the terms of “corrupted”. Who wouldn’t pay attention to the little mention in Google Flights with the brand of the plane?
        Aloha 7y ago
        I think you grossly overestimate the general public, and their ability to pay attention, or care. The 737MAX isnt the first aircraft to have an issue like this - and they kept flying them.
        swiley 7y ago
        >And the FAA paid Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, which by all layman’s definition fall under the terms of “corrupted”. In my experience this is pretty normal for specialized stuff like this, it has nothing to do with corruption.
        Aloha 7y ago
        It's this way in my industry as well, it's really hard to find people who have not worked for one of the big two vendors in my field.
      - lizmat 7y ago
        People's refusal to fly in anything with "737" in its name.
        mattlondon 7y ago
        The whitewash is already starting. The 737 Max name is now being replaced with the 737-8200 term (1). I assume they are hoping that 737-8200 is not tarnished like 737 Max is. 1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-boeing-737-max-8200-name-new-crash-a9004896.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair...
- Aloha 7y ago
  I think you underestimate Boeing size, wealth, and importance to the federal government.
  - BinaryIdiot 7y ago
    This. Even is Boeing had to drop out of the airplane game _entirely_, they have a ton of other lines of business. If another 737 Max crashed then that would be the end of the Max, IMO, but I doubt older 737s would be dropped and Boeing would still be around easily enough.
  - alexis_fr 7y ago
    This. - Boeing is certainly well financially engineered in many financial vehicles, - It’s alone the #1 net exporter of USA, - USA needs Boeing, whether it exports or not. Boeing also funds candidates, just mentioning. - Existing conpanies need to maintain their existing planes, and they need Boeing’s consultancy for that, - I’d say even Airbus needs their competitor, or they would fall in a dangerous monopolistic position. As much as one would enjoy the spectacle of a corrupted eating the dust, it is probably too stable to happen. But ever heard of De Havailland? That’s probably to do with their 4 crashes in a row, due to its airframe shredding of metal fatigue and material constraints being concentrated on the edges of their square windows. Ever flew in a DC-10 or MD-11? That’s probably to do with their 4 crashes in a raw, for a bad doorlock. Just saying.
    - iguy 7y ago
      But in the days of de Havailland & McD-D, there were maybe half a dozen companies which made airliners. That's a much more Adam-Smith world than when there are exactly two.
- lrem 7y ago
  300 people died before Boeing started acknowledging that maybe this wasn't entirely pilot's fault...

toyg 7y ago

Imagine if your software had already killed a few hundred people. Boeing developers have been put in an untenable position and should consider walking out until management does the right thing and kills the plane.

Aloha 7y ago
The plane has no fundamental mechanical flaw, it has a software bug. The only flaw the plane had was being treated as 'just another 737'
- ulfw 7y ago
  It has plenty of uncertifiable components grandfathered in for 50 years, topped with ‘still within range of grandfathering’ pieces of bandaid software on top. It’s fundamental because the whole fundament this rests one isn’t stable and all the adding instability add-ons do not make sense.
  - Aloha 7y ago
    Since you seem to be an expert in airplanes and complex systems, which components are not certifiable? the 737MAX could have been certified as a new airplane, with a new type certificate, and a new pilot type rating to go with it - but that would have removed much (or all) of its economic justification to exist.
    - nraynaud 7y ago
      It would be a not very good airplane. It has only 2 selling points: its type certificate, and its 737 footprint at the terminal. Any new airplane would be a bit higher, it brings some downsides (ground operations people really like the easy access), but having bigger engines under the wings is such an advantage that it overrides all other considerations.
      - Aloha 7y ago
        Thats kinda my point, the shared type certificate is most of the justification for the airplane to exist, Boeing would rather build a whole new small aircraft, people who fly on them would rather fly on a whole new aircraft - airlines however strongly prefer something that costs as little as possible to put into service - and has commonality with existing fleets, which means not a whole new aircraft. I bet if you offered Delta some brand new MD-95's they'd take up on them, as they have basically every MD-95 produced.

ulfw 7y ago

Imagine a world where a certification agency tasked to examine a plane for faults before certifying it so as to assure people aren’t killed needlessly, would have actually done their job instead of outsourcing it to the very same manufacturer whose incentive it is to certify itself ASAP. Novel concept, I know. But where would we be without corruption...

std_throwaway 7y ago

> Imagine if your bugfix process was broadcast to the world Have you heard of the site called github?

throwaway082729 7y ago
Heard of a private GitHub?
- std_throwaway 7y ago
  Yes, for those who need to hide their code from public scrunity.
  - zbentley 7y ago
    ...or you work on closed source software in your company's private GitHub.
    - std_throwaway 7y ago
      Closed source software should not be used in safety critical systems that affect the general public.
      - king_magic 7y ago
        Most software engineers aren’t qualified to have an opinion about the quality of proprietary safety critical software systems that also happen to run against proprietary hardware. So unless you’ve found an economical way to develop an open source jetliner... honestly, what would be the point of open sourcing safety critical systems to the general public? I’m not at all saying it should be closed off from external safety inspectors or regulators or anything like that, but I’m not really seeing the value of opening the software up to the general public.
        adrianN 7y ago

sundvor 7y ago

I picture a labyrinth of outsourced spaghetti, with no real ownership anywhere. Would be very happy to be corrected here.

Glawen 7y ago
Most probably wrong. Code and requirement tracability is mandatory when we do safety critical system. If you have an audit, they can pick a source file or even line of code and ask you to find why it was added and the associated requirement. They can also ask you to show the test report where it was tested

_trampeltier 7y ago

Yes this comes with "we do everything in software". I work in automation an I guess most of our plc code is much smaller and simpler than just one website. Software devs still live in this "you can use this software as-is" world. This thinking is just not compatible with, we use software for everything. Even I liked PLC programming as a younger guy and a kind of I still like to do it .. you can do cool things on the machines .. the way it goes at moment does worry me quiet a bit. And if you would work in a different job, for ex. design a building or bridges, since ever was this "if you fail, you are in the news". So please you just software guys, grow up.