35 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

But the chances of the software that combines those systems being faulty is actually very high given the laughably poor state of software testing nowadays (usually scripts written by the implementer and hence containing the same wrong assumptions made when designing the software) - as shown by the problems with the MCAS system on the Boeing 737 Max 8...

Hopefully the same software EXPERT didn't do the systems on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner we are using in June.

The problem with the 737 Max is one of design rather than a shoddy software implementation. The software performed exactly as it was specified, but the specification was badly flawed.

 

https://medium.com/@jpaulreed/the-737max-and-why-software-engineers-should-pay-attention-a041290994bd

I don't agree. Its all too easy for software programmers to shun responsibility, even if this is a systems issue involving many disciplines. Programmers are an integral part of the design team and everyone on safety critical systems should be constantly asking "what if this happens...." ,not just blindly follow a simple spec. All persons involved in the design loop are responsible and should have realised there was insufficient redundancy, unsafe limits, unsafe self resetting schemes as well as poor and too complex methods of manual override. In the end, to paraphrase the findings of the Lionair investigation, it was a battle between the pilots and the MCAS, and the MCAS won, that should never have been possible.

15 hours ago, xman said:

 All persons involved in the design loop are responsible and should have realised there was insufficient redundancy, unsafe limits, unsafe self resetting schemes as well as poor and too complex methods of manual override.

Totally agree.

 

Applying that thought process to avionics isn't a new idea... in the early 1980's I worked for an aerospace company that supplied the DECU (Digital Engine Control Unit) used on the Pegasus engine in the Hawker Harrier. The team I was in were tasked with improving the redundancy to cope not only with processor (lane) failures but also multiple sensor failures, and we made some significant changes & improvements to the software specification and testing regimes.

 

If that was important on military aircraft nearly 40 years ago then surely it should have been essential in passenger aircraft now?

With today’s news that 4 drivers a minute are being caught by camera vans I’m beginning to worry where the police will get their revenue when all cars have speed limiters and with all the spare time they may have to catch other criminals perhaps with the assistance of the camera operatives.

Do you mean where the Government will get revenue to go to the Police, fines are not paid to Police forces.

 

Where will the Ex Senior Police Officers that run 'Speed Awareness Course contractors' get their new Golden Goose from?

@xman @PetrolDave - I agree your argument in principle but in practice you're presuming that the coders know enough about the system being coded to be able to say "this limit is wrong because $reason"

6 hours ago, KenONeill said:

@xman @PetrolDave - I agree your argument in principle but in practice you're presuming that the coders know enough about the system being coded to be able to say "this limit is wrong because $reason"

And if they don't understand the dynamics of the system well enough to be able to specify the reason for it being out of limits then the system is not fit for widespread use. More research and testing is required before deployment outside of an R&D environment. Safety comes before profit...

Edited 1 April, 20197 yr by PetrolDave

17 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

Safety comes before profit...

 

.......Since when........

17 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

 Safety should come before profit...

 

There, that's better. (sorry Dave) 

19 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

And if they don't understand the dynamics of the system well enough to be able to specify the reason for it being out of limits then the system is not fit for widespread use. More research and testing is required before deployment outside of an R&D environment. Safety comes before profit...

Agreed, but unless you specify that the coders (as well as the systems analysts) have to be experts in this specific field...

On 30/03/2019 at 11:10, PetrolDave said:

. in the early 1980's I worked for an aerospace company that supplied the DECU (Digital Engine Control Unit) used on the Pegasus engine in the Hawker Harrier. The team I was in were tasked with improving the redundancy to cope not only with processor (lane) failures but also multiple sensor failures, and we made some significant changes & improvements to the software specification and testing regimes.

 

 

Got to ask...   Are you an ex Dowty man?

17 hours ago, skomaz said:

Got to ask...   Are you an ex Dowty man?

Almost, DSIC (Dowty Smiths based in Basingstoke).

On 02/04/2019 at 10:59, Tilt said:

There, that's better. (sorry Dave) 

Any Professional Engineer (by which I mean a Chartered Engineer) is required under the terms of the Royal Charter granted to the Institution of which they are a member to ensure that he/she places matters affecting safety above profit in all their work.

9 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Any Professional Engineer (by which I mean a Chartered Engineer) is required under the terms of the Royal Charter granted to the Institution of which they are a member to ensure that he/she places matters affecting safety above profit in all their work.

 

Would the folk working on, or designing this system all be Chartered Engineers???

 

It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke but i suspect the system will get rolled out before it has been thoroughly tested and fully proven to be faultless.

 

IMO it is a rare occasion when government or industry put safety before profit.

No surprise then that BMW want MINI manufacturing out of the UK.

That will be JLR to follow then as 'safety and general health of the public must have taken a back seat to profit and grey areas in EU Emissions Testing and now WLTP.

1 hour ago, Tilt said:

Would the folk working on, or designing this system all be Chartered Engineers???

 

It was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke but i suspect the system will get rolled out before it has been thoroughly tested and fully proven to be faultless.

 

IMO it is a rare occasion when government or industry put safety before profit.

It's rare for the implementation of a system such as this by a German company such as VAG, not to be led by the European equivalent of Chartered Engineer i.e. a Eur.Ing. so maybe the Skoda version will be OK - time will tell.

 

I 100% agree that it's almost inevitable that at least some (most non-German?) manufacturers will roll it out without sufficient testing, long gone are the days of Chinese Wall testing being the norm.

 

Both Boeing and Tesla have been in the news recently for their poor testing methodology of safety critical systems, both of which it appears have been contributory factors in several deaths - so poor testing really can have fatal consequences.

Edited 3 April, 20197 yr by PetrolDave

1 hour ago, Skoffski said:

No surprise then that BMW want MINI manufacturing out of the UK.

That will be JLR to follow then as 'safety and general health of the public must have taken a back seat to profit and grey areas in EU Emissions Testing and now WLTP.

You'd be surprised at the reach of some of the professional bodies e.g. I.Chem.E. is almost global in its reach and is the de facto reference body for most of the world's chemical engineers. Ditto I.Mech.E. for mechanical engineers.

No i would not be surprised actually.

Not even surprised just how long before authorities that should have the best took to act over JLR etc.

Same with VW Group. 

6 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

Almost, DSIC (Dowty Smiths based in Basingstoke).

 

Aha...   I wasn't too far off then.  I spent 4 years training at Dowty in the late 80s in and around Cheltenham, spending time at fuel systems at Arle Court, Rotol at Staverton and Mining Equipment up at Ashchurch.

Anybody remember this? 

 

 

2 hours ago, Fin69 said:

Anybody remember this?

 

As in "What has a hazel nut in every bite?", to which the popular response was "Squirrel ****!"

 

Maybe should be moved to 'OFF TOPIC', .

Could have been a Marathon thread if not turned into a Snickers. 

Thank Crunchie tomorrow is Fried Mars Bar Friday.

On 03/04/2019 at 22:48, skomaz said:

 

Aha...   I wasn't too far off then.  I spent 4 years training at Dowty in the late 80s in and around Cheltenham, spending time at fuel systems at Arle Court, Rotol at Staverton and Mining Equipment up at Ashchurch.

Happy days,I did 13 years at DFS Atworth including apprenticeship and there is now  a( Dowty group of companies) Facebook page.