4 ms·
I really do not think the programmers are the responsible in this case. I'm not sure, but for what I understood, it was not a failure in the SW, but a failure t
by f1shy 2y ago
I really do not think the programmers are the responsible in this case. I'm not sure, but for what I understood, it was not a failure in the SW, but a failure to explain the pilots the changes in the behaviour of the plane.
- Ekaros 2y agoOn whole failure of the goal. Change a plane in big way, but try to get it act like it did not change. To avoid explaining and training pilots. So instead of training pilots to expect plane to act certain way in certain scenarios, it was instead fixed in software and hardware. But well that combination was done poorly and it should have still been explained.
- beeboobaa3 2y agoThey're not solely responsible, but they are responsible.
- ffgjgf1 2y agoIf they fulfilled the requirements provided to them I don’t see how that could be the case. Even if they didn’t it was Boeing’s job to verify that. It’s a bit like blaming low level construction workers for a bridge that collapsed (assuming they didn’t sabotage anything on purpose).
- beeboobaa3 2y agoYou should always question if the requirements you get make sense.
- ffgjgf1 2y agoAnd? How would that help if they have no clue about how that specific system was supposed to work?
- beeboobaa3 2y agoYou find out. Doubly so if you're working on safety critical systems like an airplane