|
0) It's the fault of the engineers for not specifying in the MCAS requirements that cross-checking systems was necessary.
1) It's Boeing's fault for OUT-SOURCING the development to Indian developers who barely know what a f*cking airplane even is, much less that have anything resembling even passing familiarity with avionics.
2) It's Boeing's fault for not sending aviation engineers to monitor the developers' work. THOSE would have been the guys to stand up and say, "Hey, this ain't right!"
3) It's Boeing's fault that management placed more importance on money than on safety. This probably led to "shortcuts" being implemented in order to meet unreasonable schedules. When presented with the age old conundrum regarding cost, features, and time, and that you can meet two of those three critreria, they practically stampeded to cut features in the interest of cost and time.
4) This is a very good example of how management screws up software, and then tries to blame the developer instead of management. I bet management all still got their huge-ass bonuses, too.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you read the article.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I read the article - they tried to fix bad hardware with software, and failed. Earlier articles on the subject tried to lay the blame at the feet of the programmers, but I (and every developer here) knew it was bullsh*t from the start.
0) Boeing screwed up the aerodynamics because they were trying to avoid the "not a 737 anymore" problem, because IT COST LESS MONEY.
1) Boeing decided to fix it with software, because it COST LESS MONEY
2) They outsourced the software development to India, because it COST LESS MONEY
3) All the things that happened as a result of or that caused the three items above were done to REDUCE COST TO BOEING.
4) Money over safety - same sh*t, different day.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: They outsourced the software development to India, because it COST LESS MONEY
Nowhere is it mentioned that they outsourced MCAS to India. They might have outsourced Payroll, HR or such non-technical stuff to India, not something as critical as MCAS, certainly not at $9 per hour.
modified 4-Nov-19 7:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
It was revealed in an article about it. No, I don't have a cite.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I did critical Food & Beverage (and pharmaceutical) inspection software for 9$ / hour.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: Indian developers who barely know what a f*cking airplane even is, much less that have anything resembling even passing familiarity with avionics
I am not sure whether such sweeping statements can be made.
A small example is that Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore[^] was formed in 1942, much before most of us were born.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been the victim of outsourcing twice, so I claim the right of extreme sarcasm.
To your point, establishing ANYTHING that happened in 1942 as a rebuttal is beyond bullshit, because NO programmer alive today has more extensive subject matter knowledge regarding avionics than an avionics engineer (unless of course that programmer has been an avionics programmer for a long enough period to be able to raise pertinent objections to the specifications).
The whole thing is still Boeing management's fault. The programmers did what they were told to do, the way they were told to do it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: NO programmer alive today has more extensive subject matter knowledge regarding avionics than an avionics engineer
I worked for a large British plane maker (that will remain nameless but you can probably guess) for 7 years. I worked in Flight Test Data Processing working on jet fighters so you would think I know a lot about flight engineering and avionics. I didn't. I worked with a couple (and occasionally more) aviation engineers to develop an expert system to analyse flight tests - however, the engineers specified the formulas, constants and other criteria that I used. I was an aeroplane nut at the time - getting my pilot's licence - but I still didn't know what half the stuff was. I was still able to build the test analysis framework very successfully (it was still in use 17 years after I left the company) so that these engineers could specify want they wanted without any "intelligence or subject knowledge" built into the program at all. It's not always needed to develop an expert system - as long as you have a couple of actual experts guiding you along!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: It's not always needed to develop an expert system - as long as you have a couple of actual experts guiding you along!
And that's xactly his point #2 in the first message
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how, if you squint, it looks a lot like Chrome's logo. 
And for a browser called "Edge", it has no edge, which one usually thinks of as a straight line. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's certainly going to make installing Chrome on a new PC harder. 
I'm not sure why MS thinks making their own browser harder to find leaving the system appearing to not have one installed at all is supposed to help anything at all though. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
The human brain can recognise a familiar song within 100 to 300 milliseconds, highlighting the deep hold favourite tunes have on our memory, a UCL study finds. Think of how much time top 40 radio stations could save!
Duh duh DUH
duh duh da-DUH
|
|
|
|
|
..and then you need up to 40s to remember the lead-singers name.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It's thought that stars began appearing in the first 100 million years after the Big Bang, and we've seen some really old stars; but the processes that created them from the primordial Universe soup are a big mystery. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong
Are you implying the universe is just a big experiment?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is wrong. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Just invent another 'dark' component to fill in the gap, 'dark event' should do the trick I reckon.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
|
That article has lots wrong with it... but I suspect the science about which it is written is not at fault but rather the journalist/editor.
|
|
|
|
|
In politics, stock markets, space, and the battlefield, tiny software calculation mistakes have had enormous consequences. It's more or less a problem
|
|
|
|
|
A well-rounded article.
|
|
|
|
|
Workfront's annual State of Work report reveals a huge productivity gap. Sorry to interrupt your day with this
|
|
|
|
|
Top domain name registrars NetworkSolutions.com, Register.com and Web.com are asking customers to reset their passwords after discovering an intrusion in August 2019 in which customer account information was accessed. Who secures the network security companies?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
