On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 20:35:54 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:04:43 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 07:20:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 2:51:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:56:03 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 1/22/2020 9:10 AM, Guilaumme Faury wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/trum...sis-grows.html


At one time, Boeing knew how to build airplanes.

When engineers ran the company - before the bean counters took over.
Capitalism at it's best today.

There is nothing wrong with the plane, they have a software problem.

That's a good one two. And it's not really a software problem, it's
a DESIGN problem. The programmers didn't make a mistake, the program
does what they were told to make it do. If you bought a TV that didn't
work, that you could not use because of a "software problem",
would you say there was nothing wrong with the TV?



It isn't the bean counters, it is those kids in sneakers who are
writing the bugware.

Totally wrong. There is ZERO evidence that I have seen, that this was
a problem created by the programmers. The program did what it was
designed to do.

So I guess you have the specs the programmers were working with.
Please give us a link so we can all see.

Some programmer decided when MCAS was supposed to be operating how it
was monitored. My bet, they just gave them broad parameters of what
sensors were available and what actuators they had to use. They also
decided to only use one AOA sensor when two were available and not to
alert the pilot when they did not agree.
The latter actually being the fatal flaw. My guess is the programmers
don't know **** about airplanes, they just write video game type
software and do not take into account dealing with hardware failures.

If the beanies said "we need to cut the base price, so only put in one
AOA sensor - make a second one an extra cost option" the code kiddies
design around that parameter. Can't blame the code kiddies for that.

Both sensors are there. I doubt some suit in Seattle was involved at
that level. It was just a few more lines of code to compare the
sensors and turn on a light if they disagreed. In fact that was an
option. Those 3d world suits decided not to buy it.
I agree the training was lacking but it seems the 3d world airlines
had all the trouble, in spite of flying the max a fraction of what
airlines like Southwest were flying.


The engineers have to have the balls to stand up to the engineers for
a change and say "not on my watch - cut corners somewhere else -
redundancy is not on he table".

That may be true but we don't know what really happened and Boeing
isn't talking. It is clear from the leaks that there were engineers
who were monday morning quarter backing tho.