25 May
2023
25 May
'23
10:29 p.m.
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.
chris(a)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…"