Well, Boeing on the other hand is having trouble building reliable planes.
^I think that addition is a more complete and fair sentence.
That Bloomberg article was highly misleading. The Indian team they cite did NOT work on MCAS and had no role to play in the accidents.
> You have got it the other way around. TCS etc don't have that much power over Indian military contracts. Instead Boeing had to comply and open an Indian development center to win those contracts.
> I talked to couple of people at the Indian center and they tell me because the center was created due a compulsion and not strategy the quality of work is terrible. Most of them are paid well but have no work to do.
It will very reliably crash shortly after takeoff if there's a problem with the single sensor that controls the MCAS.
The problem isn't reliability, it's a fundamental design flaw (the engines being too big for the obsolete airframe design) that was bandaged with a fundamentally flawed software hack that was specifically designed to not have any redundancy and to fail easily.
It's similar to the "featureitis" that causes complex software products and platforms to crumble and die over time. Part of why we keep rewriting the universe in software is the need to repeatedly start over to escape a mountain of accreted complexity in some old system. At some point the cost of rewriting the parts we need is lower than the cost of just maintaining the bloat.
Edit: Fanboys, this isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact. An EV simply doesn't have all the additional mechanical, electrical and software complexity that comes with those systems.
The problem is the automatic trim control system that was hacked on to make up for the design being fundamentally flawed (having engines too large for the obsolete airframe).
Edit: Why is this being down-voted? Is it factually incorrect or does it make people uncomfortable?
Yes, they have two less major mechanical systems. But they likely have more electronic and software systems, which tend to have more failure modes (and be more difficult to test) than their mechanical counterparts.
Back when I worked in automotive assembly, we'd did some work replacing mechanical systems with electronic controls. To a large extent, the mechanical systems, once tuned, would run indefinitely until they developed some mechanical wear. The electronic counterparts had to be re-tuned on a regular basis. The electronic ones had less moving parts, but increased complexity.
Come on, a car that stops when syslog has exhausted available storage! A car with continuous touchscreen failures in 2019! My GPS was bought in 2008, it has a touchscreen and it spent all its life inside a car, and it is still working, despite GPS rollover!
It's troubling that Tesla repeats mistakes that everyone else knows to avoid.