On 5/25/23 12:30, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
...and we still get gems like the Boeing 737MAX...
I get your point, but it's a bad example. MCAS worked precisely as specified, and while one could have a discussion regarding if those specifications were wrong, the logic was that a MCAS failure was indistinguishable from any other 737 trim runaway and was to be handled in the same fashion. Perhaps this is an example of Brooks' observation that most bugs in software are in fact bugs in specification.
I can even sorta understand the thought processes behind the specs. While there were two hull losses, there have been many, many, many more MCAS failures; the only time they resulted in holes in the ground is when the trim runaway procedures weren't followed -- that being a sort of sobering thought given that there are all sorts of other things that can lead to that happening beyond MCAS.
-- Christian Kennedy, Ph.D. ch...@mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419 http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97 PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97 "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration…"
