|
|
|
|
|
by na85
2210 days ago
|
|
>But the first time you see airplane software malfunction, that means you need to change the way the software is written and released so that the whole class of issues will not ever happen again. This is pretty good intuition but often a systemic change is not economically feasible. For avionics software at least, a rewrite of the software would likely have to be recertified from scratch before it would be allowed to fly. We do, however, have several different quality assurance programs in Aerospace that are supposed to address this sort of thing. Once you identify the root cause, the process found to be deficient is supposed to have a Process Owner who is required to create a preventive and corrective action plan to prevent a recurrence, with more severe problems requiring more robust action plans. Done right, the process owner is supposed to be empowered to make the changes that need to be made. These systems tend to be evolutions of ISO 9000 as pioneered by Toyota (IIRC). They are highly bureaucratic and soul-sucking, but they are also the least-shitty solution that's been tried. |
|