So.... are you saying that this 20 year old technology caused the crash of one or both of these aircraft????

 

That is an interesting point of view. Perhaps you would like to compare it to another industry? Please go to MAUDE data base from FDA and have a look see on all the software failures for life support equipment and recommendatuons on how to live with them until fixed. It is an uphill battle of humans living with software failure.

Software failures are expected and are accounted for with good engineering design. The solution is better systems design and programming. Here the problem was not really a software logic failure as the system did exactly as programmed (moved trim in exactly programmed sequences) until it killed everyone, the problem is one of I/O validation (sanity and value checks) for the control algorithm. It's a weakness seen in many security related software system failures that's commonly used by hackers to gain access. The duties of I/O validation belong ultimately to the pilots/drivers if there is a manual fallback but as we IMO will soon see with highly capable self-driving but still not fully automatic cars the hand-over to humans at the detection of validation errors or at the limits of computer control can be deadly because they will drop a bag of crap on your lap at the worst possible time and conditions while at the same time reducing your driving skills.

 

Software failures are expected and are accounted for with good engineering design. The solution is better systems design and programming. Here the problem was not really a software logic failure as the system did exactly as programmed (moved trim in exactly programmed sequences) until it killed everyone, the problem is one of I/O validation (sanity and value checks) for the control algorithm. It's a weakness seen in many security related software system failures that's commonly used by hackers to gain access. The duties of I/O validation belong ultimately to the pilots/drivers if there is a manual fallback but as we IMO will soon see with highly capable self-driving but still not fully automatic cars the hand-over to humans at the detection of validation errors or at the limits of computer control can be deadly because they will drop a bag of crap on your lap at the worst possible time and conditions while at the same time reducing your driving skills.

We are talking about the same things but I have no faith in it as you do. No, you cannot keep increasing the demand on the operator to validate the inputs for the computer because then the operator stops being a human being.

At the hospital alarm fatigue has been created in the name of improved patient outcomes creating quite the opposite.

https://www.chpso.org/newsletter/chpso-patient-safety-alert-baxter-colleague-infusion-pump-recall

This case is somewhat similar to Boeing. A company trying to fix a hardware flaw (faulty battery charging design) with software. They finally ran out of chances.

 

I'm at a loss at the question. I am not saying that.

Technology does work, and quite remarkable, but it has it's place. It needs to be specific.

A train would be much easier for software control, before a car, truck or plane.

Why haven't we been doing that for 20 years? It's more than possible.

It's the liability costs driving this self driving dream........not saving lives.

Shouldn't a complete and reliable train system be demonstrated/proved, before cars?

Subways first. Then city bus routes.

But with our phony PC culture......subways and city buses will be the last. Some city bus drivers make over 100K a year. And politically protected.

 

We are talking about the same things but I have no faith in it as you do. No, you cannot keep increasing the demand on the operator to validate the inputs for the computer because then the operator stops being a human being.

At the hospital alarm fatigue has been created in the name of improved patient outcomes creating quite the opposite.

https://www.chpso.org/newsletter/chpso-patient-safety-alert-baxter-colleague-infusion-pump-recall

This case is somewhat similar to Boeing. A company trying to fix a hardware flaw (faulty battery charging design) with software. They finally ran out of chances.

I don't see much similarity at all with the medical case. MCAS was not designed as a primary function system. It was grafted into a existing and capable platform that is still perfectly capable of flying in a stable manner without it.

"Faulty Airframe" doesn't appear on the list of root causes because it's NOT faulty.

 

A train would be much easier for software control, before a car, truck or plane.
Why haven't we been doing that for 20 years?

We have in London.

 

I'm at a loss at the question. I am not saying that.

Technology does work, and quite remarkable, but it has it's place. It needs to be specific.

A train would be much easier for software control, before a car, truck or plane.

Why haven't we been doing that for 20 years? It's more than possible.

It's the liability costs driving this self driving dream........not saving lives.

Shouldn't a complete and reliable train system be demonstrated/proved, before cars?

Subways first. Then city bus routes.

But with our phony PC culture......subways and city buses will be the last. Some city bus drivers make over 100K a year. And politically protected.

Having a human operator saved lives during St. Petersburg metro bombing...

Why havent we designed better pipelines? Why do they still leak before being shut down? Why does that require human intervention? That should be even easier than subway.

 

How bout a syringe, that monitors the body's reaction and prevents overdose.

Don't we lose more lives to that than traffic accidents. But no one is liable for that.

Protecting money will be the purpose of technology, not saving lives. But saving lives will be the campaign slogan.

 

How bout a syringe, that monitors the body's reaction and prevents overdose.

Don't we lose more lives to that than traffic accidents. But no one is liable for that.

Protecting money will be the purpose of technology, not saving lives. But saving lives will be the campaign slogan.

MCAS was put in precisely for that reason, money...

 

MCAS was put in precisely for that reason, money...

Money, absolutely. I build things at work to make money for the business. Do you think that's a 'bad' reason for a business?

 

Money, absolutely. I build things at work to make money for the business. Do you think that's a 'bad' reason for a business?

Depends on how you build them, what tactics you use to sell them and whether you use money to pay off regulatory bodies to push your products through even if they are inadequate. It is not a black and white answer.

I am not trying to point fingers, i just believe things are very much out of control at this point. That is all. I fight engineers who have build thibgs and are taxed with protecting company's assets. My job is to get them to recognize that their design is flawed. It is not a good job.

 

My job is to get them to recognize that their design is flawed. It is not a good job.

Your job helps save lives. It might be an ungrateful job, but it's not a bad job at all.

 

Your job helps save lives. It might be an ungrateful job, but it's not a bad job at all.

Thank you I should expand that it is very difficult to get thw companies to recognize issues and to fix them as it always costs money. I also see more and more an attitude emerging that software cannot be wrong, computers do not make mistakes people do etc. This sometimes is true, but the amount of time I see products rolled out with horrible user interface is countless, engineering with only cost in mind and poor servicability as well. This is why my attitude is as it is. Money to me is bad reason for business. I worked very hard to ensure that one company gets less of our business because that is their approach and I did it in an environment where contracts are locked up (public contracts etc). I wanted them to know that their approach is unacceptable

I am just a service tech and most of how far I try to go is far above my pay grade. I wish more people got involved in changing the system...

 

No practicing engineer of any kind thinks that software (or any human built system) cannot be wrong. There is a lot of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in software but you can say the same thing for Ice Cream. Failure is always a option the must be accounted for. Most engineers are extremely paranoid about failure and take it very personally. So yes, there is a reluctance to be the scapegoat for sometimes stupid behavior of management like we saw in the VW case or even the Challenger disaster.
https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-vw-hearing-20151009-story.html
VW exec blames 'a couple of' rogue engineers for emissions scandal

Software engineering differs from physical disciplines much like mathematical proofs differ from physical reality. The universe of possible configurations and failures in software is unbounded from mechanical limits and most physical laws of mass, energy and momentum so even a tiny miscalculation can cascade into an almost infinite set of possible of software driven failures. The fact that most software actually works well is a tribute good software engineering.

Money is the only reason for a 'for profit' business. You don't work for nothing.

 

Money is the only reason for a 'for profit' business. You don't work for nothing.

But a little less money and more compassion isn't a sin either. The culture of greed has taken over the world. Capitalism has changed into 'monoplism', no longer is the market place driving things, because the market place is filled by monopolies.

 

But a little less money and more compassion isn't a sin either. The culture of greed has taken over the world. Capitalism has changed into 'monoplism', no longer is the market place driving things, because the market place is filled by monopolies.

If you want compassion in the current business climate, get a dog. We compete directly with China (hint, as opposed to capitalism), ask them about compassion.

 

If you want compassion in the current business climate, get a dog. We compete directly with China (hint, as opposed to capitalism), ask them about compassion.

We compete with China for several specific reasons. It did not have to come to this point. I would continue but this would be off topic and political. I dont want the thread closed it is good. I would only say that my province has actually been fully sold out to China at this point for next to nothing. Several people got some nice kick backs. The rest of us are up s*** creek with no paddle.

 

We compete with China for several specific reasons. It did not have to come to this point. I would continue but this would be off topic and political. I dont want the thread closed it is good. I would only say that my province has actually been fully sold out to China at this point for next to nothing. Several people got some nice kick backs. The rest of us are up s*** creek with no paddle.

I understand. My main point was, like electrical potentials, the notion of what's proper for a business like Boeing is relative to what reference point you pick. You can't see the world in isolation or with rose colored glasses.

 

But a little less money and more compassion isn't a sin either. The culture of greed has taken over the world. Capitalism has changed into 'monoplism', no longer is the market place driving things, because the market place is filled by monopolies.

I'm not against compassion, but I think a better argument against monopolism is that it ends up shutting the doors of opportunity to everyone else. And it thus ends up promoting a culture of mediocrity and bereft of competitiveness that negatively affects every citizen.

 

I understand. My main point was, like electrical potentials, the notion of what's proper for a business like Boeing is relative to what reference point you pick. You can't see the world in isolation or with rose colored glasses.

We are having a peaceful discussion though? That is rare today. I agree with your points actually.

But today monopolies arise as competition is bought out. Is that healthy for business?