Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

From the article:

> all of the problems could potentially have been avoided by changing [code-snippet]

IMO, this implies the problem was a simple, single software problem. Firstly, that's in inaccurate assumption. Secondly, even if that assumption wasn't implied, one can't just say 'ooh, modify this if statement' with any authority because one does't know what the underlying algorithm looks like in the first place.

> The system as implemented could not have a "re-command full-nose down after reset".

For brevity, my comment lacked certain detail. The MCAS system was reset after pilots used the trim switches on the column. However, the MCAS did not account for this, and it's overall authority was allowed to point the plane full nose-down. See [1].

> In my view when a seemingly largely self-regulated group goes off and designs something with so many glaring issues

This is the point I'm mostly trying to make. When I read a column or comment that says "Oh, it was just the sensors" or "Oh, it was just the simple software problem," that's really helping Boeing's narrative. It's not just a simple mistake, it's a total failure of Boeing and regulators and cannot be understated.

1: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile...



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: