Hacker News Reader

Comment by bumby | Hacker News Reader

A good software assurance program in a flight environment should also be ensuring simulators are of high enough fidelity for testing and training.

As this story develops, it sure seems like there are either gaps in Boeings QA program or there is a culture that overrides quality concerns

View on HN

> A good software assurance program in a flight environment should also be ensuring simulators are of high enough fidelity for testing and training.

Actually, "must" not "should". Aeronautics certification standards require tools such as simulators to be qualified for their intended use. Similar requirement have been introduced in recent release of railway standards.

I agree with you're correcting my imprecise wording, but it still seems like there's an issue with the certification process if this particular "must" didn't get built in.

I guess my question is: why didn't the QA flag get raised on this or if it did, why wasn't it given any credence?

I'm not trying to armchair quarterback this, but I'm legitimately curious if this issue is one the certification process is expected to catch

Certification process is generic enough to apply it to different types of aircrafts. There is no specific requirements for different subsystems introduced by manufacturer. Simulation fidelity is tested against real world data but it is not possible to collect data for every condition that might occur during flight. You may refer to FAA FSS Level-D QTG document for further reference. [1]

[1]: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/media/14CFR60_Sear...

Concerns were raised, but also dismissed or otherwise culturally disincentivize by management.

There are whistkeblowers currently willing to testify as much, based on information released to Australia's 60 Minutes 737 Expose.

The company designing and selling the plane and simulator, is the same company certifying both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com