kalvado wrote:XRAYretired wrote:kalvado wrote:Should we believe Boeing that they started working on MCAS update back then? As it was pointed out, they have financial reasons to paint things beautiful. Then, does it take that long to do one procedure? How many decades does it take to design new plane with such pace?
Last, but not the least... What was supposed to be a quick fix is not submitted to FAA yet.
My bet whatever (and IF anything) was done after lion crash was inadequate and real work started some time in April..
Six months is prety quick for a modification to safety critical flight control software. Dont forget, as well as validating the change to the procedures intended, you must also verify that everything else continues to function as intended when the change is integrated into the whole. If anything, I would suggest the quick change is actually indicative of a concern that the gamble taken to keep the max in service and get the change in before another event might be lost. It was. A further delay was acrued due to a problem found with the flap system. It may have been identified as a result of verification of the MCAS change or a separate review convened due to the events.
Reason for the current delay? anybodies guess, but it may be related to the review of NNCs/Training with Boeing wanting to submit a whole change pack in one go and not have manual changes outstanding.
Which is basically saying that there was no system in software development, there were no proper component tests, no modularity. Which seems pretty accurate given what happened to MCAS - and way more scary than anything said so far about MAX.
Again, we had Toyota fiasco - which was exactly that situation.
@kalvado" Agreed. If you haven't read it you may find this article interesting https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/avi ... -developer