7 ms·
“Only one computer was used in the past, because Boeing was able to prove statistically that its system was reliable, the person said.” — here boss no need for
by semerda 7y ago
“Only one computer was used in the past, because Boeing was able to prove statistically that its system was reliable, the person said.” — here boss no need for redundancy coz we write amazing code that’s statistically never going to fail! What were they thinking?!
There is no system 100% efficient. Even a small error rate over the standard ~20yr service life isn’t a guarantee a failure won’t occur. Considering the max are refurbished 737s, wouldn’t more precaution be taken?
- alkonaut 7y agoThe question is whether is fails safely. The design likely considered failure to not include near-inevitable crashes, but rather some manual intervention. In that case N failures per X thousand flight hours is nothing unusual. The change isn’t to get zero failures but to get a system that fails safely. Compare to a Tesla autopilot: it can work 99% of the time, if at 1% of the time it slows down and gives up. It can’t crash into oncoming traffic 1% of the time. The failure mode matters.
- tatersolid 7y ago> Considering the max are refurbished 737s, wouldn’t more precaution be taken? Correction needed: every part in a 737-MAX is new; they are not refurbished older 737s. The MAX are supposed to be brand new “fly-alike” planes that makes replacing older 737 models with something more efficient easier for the airline.