4 ms·

Click-bait title/article to "whitewash" Boeing's responsibility in the disaster; Excerpt from the article: Boeing said the company did not rely on engineers f

Click-bait title/article to "whitewash" Boeing's responsibility in the disaster; Excerpt from the article: Boeing said the company did not rely on engineers from HCL and Cyient for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which has been linked to the Lion Air crash last October and the Ethiopian Airlines disaster in March. The Chicago-based planemaker also said it didn’t rely on either firm for another software issue disclosed after the crashes: a cockpit warning light that wasn’t working for most buyers. So it was probably non-critical, routine drudgery software which was outsourced.

sofixa 4y ago
Where are the developers of the MCAS though? IMO they, alongside any PMs, engineers etc. that made the decisions, executed them, okayed this piece of software, and then lied about it in front of the regulator should have criminal liability. As a reminder, we're talking about a piece of software that could control the plane's angle of attack, pointing the nose downwards (with the obvious risk that this poses), and which relies on a single physical sensor, a pitot tube, which is known for relatively frequent (for aviation) failures due to ice and other blockages, which is why there are two of them. If the people who made those choices didn't understand the ramifications of their actions they have no place in aviation. At the very least they should be fired, but ideally they should be brought to justice. Alongside every Boeing pilot, engineer, manager, exec who knew about this, and lied about it.
- rramadass 4y ago
  Right; Boeing should be held 100% accountable. What i was pointing out is that a lot of articles like this one have been planted in the media subtly hinting and throwing shade on these external companies (who are innocent) thus deflecting from Boeing's responsibility. This needs to be called out every time.
- pas 4y ago
  Can you please share more details about the lies? Wasn't the sensor an AoA vane instead of a pitot tube?
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Boeing omitted MCAS from the FAA certification that they did themselves, even though it's: a) critical - if it malfunctions, the plane can crash b) based on something that is known to fail often, with zero redundancy Both of those they were mandated to disclose, and they didn't, knowingly. Why is none of these bastards in jail? > Wasn't the sensor an AoA vane instead of a pitot tube? Yeah sorry, mistook the sensor, indeed it's the Angle of Attack sensor next to the pitot tubes. Both are prone to frequent, for aviation, failure, so the point still remains.
    - pas 4y ago
      > Why is none of these bastards in jail? That is the question, right? I mean I get the NTSB no blame approach in progressing safety practices, but there needs to exist an authority that enforces these practices. And the worst part is that this gives a bad rep to "IT" as a whole in the eyes of laypeople, even though IT's internal view aviation is that it's full of safety standards, redundancy, reliability and maintenance is paramount, etc. It turns out the standards were not followed, and starry eyed junior programmers' view of aviation is just smoke and mirrors. When will we reach a turning point?

sofixa 4y ago

Where are the developers of the MCAS though? IMO they, alongside any PMs, engineers etc. that made the decisions, executed them, okayed this piece of software, and then lied about it in front of the regulator should have criminal liability. As a reminder, we're talking about a piece of software that could control the plane's angle of attack, pointing the nose downwards (with the obvious risk that this poses), and which relies on a single physical sensor, a pitot tube, which is known for relatively frequent (for aviation) failures due to ice and other blockages, which is why there are two of them. If the people who made those choices didn't understand the ramifications of their actions they have no place in aviation. At the very least they should be fired, but ideally they should be brought to justice. Alongside every Boeing pilot, engineer, manager, exec who knew about this, and lied about it.

rramadass 4y ago
Right; Boeing should be held 100% accountable. What i was pointing out is that a lot of articles like this one have been planted in the media subtly hinting and throwing shade on these external companies (who are innocent) thus deflecting from Boeing's responsibility. This needs to be called out every time.
pas 4y ago
Can you please share more details about the lies? Wasn't the sensor an AoA vane instead of a pitot tube?
- sofixa 4y ago
  Boeing omitted MCAS from the FAA certification that they did themselves, even though it's: a) critical - if it malfunctions, the plane can crash b) based on something that is known to fail often, with zero redundancy Both of those they were mandated to disclose, and they didn't, knowingly. Why is none of these bastards in jail? > Wasn't the sensor an AoA vane instead of a pitot tube? Yeah sorry, mistook the sensor, indeed it's the Angle of Attack sensor next to the pitot tubes. Both are prone to frequent, for aviation, failure, so the point still remains.
  - pas 4y ago
    > Why is none of these bastards in jail? That is the question, right? I mean I get the NTSB no blame approach in progressing safety practices, but there needs to exist an authority that enforces these practices. And the worst part is that this gives a bad rep to "IT" as a whole in the eyes of laypeople, even though IT's internal view aviation is that it's full of safety standards, redundancy, reliability and maintenance is paramount, etc. It turns out the standards were not followed, and starry eyed junior programmers' view of aviation is just smoke and mirrors. When will we reach a turning point?