@Greg_Travis has written an article on the Boeing 737 Max Disaster, which @jjn1 describes as “one of the best pieces of technical writing I’ve seen in ages”. He explains why normal airplane design includes redundant sensors.
“There are two sets of angle-of-attack sensors and two sets of pitot tubes, one set on either side of the fuselage. Normal usage is to have the set on the pilot’s side feed the instruments on the pilot’s side and the set on the copilot’s side feed the instruments on the copilot’s side. That gives a state of natural redundancy in instrumentation that can be easily cross-checked by either pilot. If the copilot thinks his airspeed indicator is acting up, he can look over to the pilot’s airspeed indicator and see if it agrees. If not, both pilot and copilot engage in a bit of triage to determine which instrument is profane and which is sacred.”
and redundant processors, to guard against a Single Point of Failure (SPOF).
“On the 737, Boeing not only included the requisite redundancy in instrumentation and sensors, it also included redundant flight computers—one on the pilot’s side, the other on the copilot’s side. The flight computers do a lot of things, but their main job is to fly the plane when commanded to do so and to make sure the human pilots don’t do anything wrong when they’re flying it. The latter is called ‘envelope protection’.”
“In the 737 Max, only one of the flight management computers is active at a time—either the pilot’s computer or the copilot’s computer. And the active computer takes inputs only from the sensors on its own side of the aircraft.”
As a result of this design error, 346 people are dead. Travis doesn’t pull his punches.
“It is astounding that no one who wrote the MCAS software for the 737 Max seems even to have raised the possibility of using multiple inputs, including the opposite angle-of-attack sensor, in the computer’s determination of an impending stall. As a lifetime member of the software development fraternity, I don’t know what toxic combination of inexperience, hubris, or lack of cultural understanding led to this mistake.”
He may not know what led to this specific mistake, but he can certainly see some of the systemic issues that made this mistake possible. Among other things, the widespread idea that software provides a cheaper and quicker fix than getting the hardware right, together with what he calls cultural laziness.
“Less thought is now given to getting a design correct and simple up front because it’s so easy to fix what you didn’t get right later.”
Update: CNN finds an unnamed Boeing spokesman to defend the design.
“Single sources of data are considered acceptable in such cases by our industry”.
OMG, does that mean that there are more examples of SSOT elsewhere in the Boeing design!?
How a Single Point of Failure (SPOF) in the MCAS software could have caused the Boeing 737 Max crash in Ethiopia (DMD Solutions, 5 April 2019) – provides a simple explanation of Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) as a technique to identify SPOF.
Mike Baker and Dominic Gates, Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX system baffles some involved in developing the jet (Seattle Times 26 March 2019)
Curt Devine and Drew Griffin, Boeing relied on single sensor for 737 Max that had been flagged 216 times to FAA (CNN, 1 May 2019) HT @marcusjenkins
George Leopold, Boeing 737 Max: Another Instance of ‘Go Fever”? (29 March 2019)
Mary Poppendieck, What If Your Team Wrote the Code for the 737 MCAS System? (4 April 2019) HT @CharlesTBetz with reply from @jpaulreed
Gregory Travis, How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer (IEEE Spectrum, 18 April 2019) HT @jjn1 @ruskin147
And see my other posts on the Single Source of Truth.
Updated 2 May 2019