3 ms·
If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane. But for physical defects, yeah that's scary.
by CoastalCoder 2y ago
If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane.
But for physical defects, yeah that's scary.
- rl3 2y ago>If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane. Ha. I have some bad news for you: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-...
- CoastalCoder 2y agoI can't read that article, but I'm assuming (hoping?) that even if the software is flawed, there's still clarity about which source code / build configuration is installed on a given plane. Contrast that to the allegedly faked test results, and known defects, of the planes' physical characteristics.
- rl3 2y agoThe source article was talking about how their software practices were so bad they’d hire $9/hr engineers to work on core avionics stuff. As for your point: There’s not much contrast. MCAS was software, after all. Only upside to software is because it can be updated (maybe), it’s at least more likely to be fixed instead of covered up.
- krisoft 2y ago> If it's a software issue, I'd think owners would be pretty clear on its status on each plane. That assume that it is a known software issue. If it is an issue with some unknown triggering factors how would they be clear on its status?