Programmed a faulty flight control system that kills hundreds of people and ground all planes that use it for nearly two years? Probably a promotion, if I had to guess.
Can someone remind me why software engineers can't be held to higher standards?
It can be done. Places like NASA do it. For JavaScript too even.
…but it has to be a culture thing. Either by choice or by regulation. Because otherwise it ends up being about shoveling crap as fast as possible.
The simplified distinction as he explained it to me is:
Engineers are the guys who painstakingly design things, with reams of university degrees as appropriate for their credentials.
Technicians are the guys who painstakingly implement the engineer's designs on paper into physical things. Academic credentials not necessarily required.
The vast majority of the people who call themselves or are called "engineers" should not be called engineers.
The system is useless without protections in place to prevent it from becoming a racket, but I'm not opposed to such a system.
[0]: https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-...
Jimmy can be a jerk, but he'll be careful if he'd risk being employed in his home state if he signs off on something he should know is unacceptable.
At least in the US, you can refer to this case where the state of Oregon tried to be as anal about the word "engineer" as you suggest and got slapped down. The whole case was a lot of fun because not only was the engineering board using unconstitutional restrictions of free speech, they were on the provably wrong side of an engineering argument while doing it, demonstrating just how stupid the attempted restriction of speech was in that case.
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
Perhaps in places where there is no First Amendment equivalent your suggestion holds weight.
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/traffic-engin...
That battle was lost long ago. I saw a truck driver by a ‘tree surgeon’ the other day.
My professors had no qualms about failing people because if you are not good enough to pass an exam, you are not good enough to be trusted with peoples lives.
because most of the time, civil engineers employ proven techs to solve problems that have been solved 100 or 1,000 times already. software engineers, I mean real engineers, face completely new issues in every aspect of the job on daily basis.
just remind me how much changed for civil engineering in the last 20-30 years? how is that compared to software engineering? let's just be honest, those people shouldn't be called engineers, they are more like technicians, as most part of their jobs don't involve anything new.
I guess the code is from ChatGPT now so that’s a big advancement?
There's a big difference between the typical so-called "software engineers" and actual Professional Engineers that are qualified to put the P.Eng. designation next to their name.
Why is this the software engineers’ fault?
1. The AOA sensor was faulty
2. The installation of the AOA sensor apparently didn't check for proper operation
3. The MCAS system was connected to only one of the two AOA sensors
4. The MCAS system had too much authority
5. The LA pilots did not think to turn off the stab trim system when it ran away
6. The EA pilots did not receive, read or remember the Emergency Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX pilots after the first crash that basically said to turn off the stab trim when it runs away
7. The first MCAS incident was when the crew simply turned off the stab trim and landed safely. The information about the faulty sensor was not passed on to the next crew, who crashed.
Should've been a politician.
I'm unfamiliar.
Part of that was civil, part electrical, part electronic, part mechanical, part drawing, part on site saftey, part drawing, etc.
Another key part, critical to passing, was ethics, civil responsibility and a roll call of great engineering screw ups that killed people as case studies of how badly things can go wrong.
If Software Engineering were to become an equivilant then a study of when software goes fatal would be mandatory.
I didn't hear about that fatal aviation software.
I didn't read the whole thing but it doesn't look like software modifications were the main issue.