I predict that there will be a split in the industry between "software engineer" and "software laborer" where there are specific certifications you need to have before being called an "engineer". "Software engineers" will be held responsible, like civil engineers are, for mistakes that result in accidents. Companies that write safety critical software like auto, air, and space industries where human lives or huge $$$ are on the line will hire engineers, e-commerce companies will continue to hire "code laborers".
Maybe they will even give you a fancy ring to wear?
The problem here was that the process got too expensive, so Boeing was pressured into skipping it.
Not all software has the same consequences for failure. The highest level is when failure is catastrophic, i.e. "Failure may cause deaths, usually with loss of the airplane." This requires the highest "Level A" assurance level.
Presumably MCAS was not originally evaluated as needing to meet the highest level. If it were, the single AoA input would have immediately disqualified the design right off the bat.
There's some speculation that the delays on the "fix" are because if they have to redevelop the software at a "Level A" standard that means basically a complete reimplementation with full tracability of requirements from design to source code through compilation to executable, with independent verification. That won't happen in a few weeks.
No, because most companies aren't developing life-critical software.
I would imagine most companies that are developing life-critical software are familiar with those requirements.
Hmmmm. Interesting. Is it legally required to use this standard for these critical softwares?
And are developers legally required to be licensed, in the same way that civil engineers are?
1) It mutates it a few degrees at a time in a non-terminating loop, so it effectively has control authority of the entire stabilizer.
2) Even DAL C would require using more than a single input!
I once bought a domain called "paleolithic-computing" (neolithic wasn't available, even though I used the stonehenge picture), to use as a blog.
We are indeed in the caveman stage. In fact, in some ways, we seem to have regressed. There is a pressure to release features faster and faster, and everyone knows you can achieve anything in a sprint, right? Then just get 'devops' to deploy.
It helps that most other (or proper) engineering disciplines have been around for far longer. We are not even comparable to egyptians building pyramids, we are still figuring out how to build huts (and rebuilding them every few years with new tech).
Give it time.
Not saying it's strictly that way, just different trade-offs.