Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In offices across from Seattle’s Boeing Field, recent college graduates employed by the Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. occupied several rows of desks, said Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer who worked in a flight-test group that supported the Max.
"The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”"
Misleading. We must have some coders here that can clarify. ....but from what I can understand coding companies in the USA do farm out some of the coding but software engineers here in the USA 'supervise', 'reivew', etc......so ultimately someone paid lots more than nine dollars an hour allowed any mistakes to be made.
And from what I understand (and aviation experts please correct me if I'm wrong), but the problem with the 737 is an issue that American pilots were appropriately trained on.
Whatever the 'code' allowed for was known and with proper training the pilots KNEW what to do. The problem is in the rest of the world the pilots don't get the same training so they weren't prepared to react properly. This is a simplified explanation but it's how I understood it from someone who works on software coding for aviation......
Typical. Try to blame the problems of the world on immigrants and foreigners.
The problem that led to the 737MAX debacle was one of greed and arrogance on the part of Boeing management. They were desperate to have a plane to compete with Airbus, so they mounted an engine on a 737 that didn't really fit, because that was the quick and cheap way. Because this engine position could cause the plane to stall, they added software to detect a stall and point the nose downward. They failed to train pilots on this software, so when it happened inappropriately the pilots didn't know to over ride the software. Through it all, Boeing ignored FAA standards.
You can't lay this at the feet of software coders. This was due to management decisions all the way, and Muilenberg rightly lost his job.
Typical. Try to blame the problems of the world on immigrants and foreigners.
The problem that led to the 737MAX debacle was one of greed and arrogance on the part of Boeing management. They were desperate to have a plane to compete with Airbus, so they mounted an engine on a 737 that didn't really fit, because that was the quick and cheap way. Because this engine position could cause the plane to stall, they added software to detect a stall and point the nose downward. They failed to train pilots on this software, so when it happened inappropriately the pilots didn't know to over ride the software. Through it all, Boeing ignored FAA standards.
You can't lay this at the feet of software coders. This was due to management decisions all the way, and Muilenberg rightly lost his job.
I agree with this.
Even if they did outsource the work, someone at Boeing should have been checking their work when it was completed.
Location: Somewhere between the Americas and Western Europe
2,180 posts, read 640,915 times
Reputation: 2092
Penny wise, pound foolish. Basically the result of corporate focus and obsession on short-term earnings and revenue reports under the guise of "maximizing shareholder value."
"In offices across from Seattle’s Boeing Field, recent college graduates employed by the Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. occupied several rows of desks, said Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer who worked in a flight-test group that supported the Max.
"The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”"
I retired just over 1 year ago from a large engineering company and we have a large engineering office in India and it's popular among many of our clients to buy engineering service at a much reduced cost from that office. Over time, we've built up a decent office but I still don't think they can be relied on to solve complex problems but they can be taught to be efficient employees.
My son is a software engineer for a famous software company in the Seattle area and they employ more and more Indian software workers and services...he has become a bit soured on this process.
Even if they did outsource the work, someone at Boeing should have been checking their work when it was completed.
I've been in IT for over 20 years and I've worked with lots of teams of third-party developers, both onshore and offshore.
By the time I see their work to review it, it's usually too late to make large architecture or logic changes without seriously disrupting a project's timelines. (The people involved in making the architecture/logic decisions are usually on the outsourced third-party teams too.)
If you're too critical of the outsourced team's work, you may find yourself on the receiving end of accusations ranging from "blocking the project" to "you're a racist."
It's hard to keep my mouth shut when a fresh pair of eyes gets a look at some of the trash that comprises our legacy code base (mostly written by outsourced contractors). I no longer feel safe giving an honest, professional opinion.
I don't "let" this code go out. I don't really have a choice. I pretty much HAVE to approve it and HAVE to deploy it. If I refuse, they'll replace me with someone who won't refuse. But you better believe that when this stuff goes sideways in production (which it always does), I get pooped on for approving it...AS IF I HAD A CHOICE.
If you stay quiet, you can't win. If you speak up, you can't win. That's the situation a lot of us are in. We don't dare speak up.
I've seen people pay the price for trying to get our outsourced employees to correct their abysmal code/logic/architecture: at best, they're ignored. Sometimes they're accused of being racist. Sometimes they end up unemployed. I've seen all three scenarios in the last two years with my current company. It's very rare for the outsourced developers to make changes to their code (outside of minor stuff) based on the results of a code or peer review.
I've been in IT for over 20 years and I've worked with lots of teams of third-party developers, both onshore and offshore.
By the time I see their work to review it, it's usually too late to make large architecture or logic changes without seriously disrupting a project's timelines. (The people involved in making the architecture/logic decisions are usually on the outsourced third-party teams too.)
If you're too critical of the outsourced team's work, you may find yourself on the receiving end of accusations ranging from "blocking the project" to "you're a racist."
It's hard to keep my mouth shut when a fresh pair of eyes gets a look at some of the trash that comprises our legacy code base (mostly written by outsourced contractors). I no longer feel safe giving an honest, professional opinion.
I don't "let" this code go out. I don't really have a choice. I pretty much HAVE to approve it and HAVE to deploy it. If I refuse, they'll replace me with someone who won't refuse. But you better believe that when this stuff goes sideways in production (which it always does), I get pooped on for approving it...AS IF I HAD A CHOICE.
If you stay quiet, you can't win. If you speak up, you can't win. That's the situation a lot of us are in. We don't dare speak up.
I've seen people pay the price for trying to get our outsourced employees to correct their abysmal code/logic/architecture: at best, they're ignored. Sometimes they're accused of being racist. Sometimes they end up unemployed. I've seen all three scenarios in the last two years with my current company. It's very rare for the outsourced developers to make changes to their code (outside of minor stuff) based on the results of a code or peer review.
Sounds like a company culture problem. Let's say that's the case for Boeing...
The end result is two plane crashes and hundreds of lives lost.
The development of that plane was controlled by the bean counters first, same thing that killed American car companies for decades.
Outsourced the course code
Skipped steps in the testing procedures
Failed to offer training to pilots to speed up time to sale
Charged Extra to install safety measures that the planes own manual pointed to for troubleshooting as if it was standard equipment and could not be solved by a pilot alone.
Boeing wanted to beat Airbus to market and make maximum dollar doing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
