Does anyone have any information about who wrote the software for the Boeing 737 max?

Does anyone have any information about who wrote the software for the Boeing 737 max?

I have a suspicion that they just hired some pajeets to do it and the result were place crashes.

Attached: 181115121211-file-boeing-737-max-8-super-169.jpg (1100x619, 90K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q
youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

There's more to it than just the software.
Take the A320 Neo for instance. The thing has half a dozen computers constantly gathering information and crosschecking each other. Boeing on the other hand figured that not only fitting just 2 sensors was enough, but also only one of them is active at a time.

I just read that the system is basically fooling the pilot into thinking he is flying a normal 737
Don't know it that's a good idea to begin with

NSA

>I have a suspicion that they just hired some pajeets to do it and the result were place crashes.

everybody and their mothers knows the software from 737 and 787 is made on india

the problem WASNT the software but the fact that boeing decided to have a single INPUT instead of minimum two

What was the input/sensor?

>"everybody and their mothers knows the software from 737 and 787 is made on india"
>capitalization putting emphasis on random words
>"instead of minimum two"
I think this post was written by a poo.

Angle of attack sensor. AvE has a good video tearing down and analysing a similar one (from a plane that has 4 of them)

the aoa sensor
normally you need to have at least 2 one for the pilot and one for the copilot so if one of the tw is giving false data you can set the autopilot to get form the other one

airbus has 3 of them one of the wings and the 2 normal ones
but boeing being boeing nothing of the sort happened

>doesnt understand the problem
>thinks he is a smartass
>calls someone a poo to hide the fact that he is a retard

maybe next time try to inform your self about the said argument beforehand
youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q

>boeing being boeing

Attached: fasolka-orzeszek-z-wypustkami.jpg (351x406, 18K)

i mean apparently after the ethiopian crash they revealed that they had a security measure in the forst of both visual and sound alarm for the mcas
and instead of being mandatory they thought it was prudent to charge more for it

...

Technically, like I said in Boeing has 2. But for some fuckifiknow reason only one works at a time, they alternate between flights, which is fucking retarded, because if one fails midflight, when it's on the ground the maintenance crews are instead testing the functional one that was switched on in the meantime.

there is much more to it than just that
if one of them is showing a -20 and the other is nominal the software doesnt fucking know this because its written on a 8bit lingo that can accept inputs for only 2 sensors inthe FW which means that no matter what the pitot never SENDS data to it directly

No I'm calling you a poo because you're fucking illiterate.

Attached: 1554522354671.jpg (640x422, 28K)

boing boing boeing boing kurwa XDDDD

I think it's this, browsing from the phone when I'm at work is a bitch.
youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0

the main issue here is the the design is inherently flawed, these software patches are just bandaids to stitch together this mess. And bandaid solutions like that tend to snap

>But for some fuckifiknow reason
>From what I have heard and read. A two sensor system would have required FAA re-certs.
Big if true

There's nothing really wrong with the software - that's just an excuse Boeing it's using to avoid greater liability

For better or worse, saying that something is a software bug leads to far lesser repercussions - especially for individuals.

The actual problem with their plane is not having more than one sensor for a critical system, and not training pilots about this system (to market the idea that pilots don't need to be retrained, hence saving airlines money, hence leading to higher likelihood of more orders)

You could argue all this stems from their decision to "hack" larger engines onto an aircraft which was never designed for this.

But software in itself is the least of the things wrong here.

>From what I have heard and read. A two sensor system would have required FAA re-certs.

bullshit since 2013 faa doesnt do the cert but the company does

>Only entity that assures the manufacturer doesn't do a gargantuan fuckup for a quick buck is the manufacturer itself
What the fuck were they thinking?

Attached: qs633.jpg (888x499, 131K)

Attached: 1546558722005.jpg (1039x1191, 111K)