[j-pb]

> Boom is building for reliability from day one, and by simplifying the design of the plane and using software solutions wherever possible, they should be able to avoid many of the pitfalls that the Concorde faced.

Oh boy.

Given softwares track record when it comes to reliability and safety I think that's a mistake.

I do trust engineers, I don't trust software engineers.

[sofixa]

What do you mean? Airbus planes have been using software very heavily ( fly by wire for instance) since the first models, and recent ones ( A350) have pretty serious server rooms onboard.

Just because Boeing are incompetent and criminally negligible doesn't mean that airplanes shouldn't use any software.

[tomatocracy]

There's a view that over reliance on software contributed to the total loss of flight AF447 (since pilots were not sufficiently experienced in how to fly the plane in the various fallback modes to be able to react appropriately in an emergency).

[sofixa]

That's more of a training issue than a software issue.

[jdavis703]

The two are closely related. It’s like saying SQL injection bugs are a training/code review issue. But what if the software eliminated that risk (e.g. ORMs).

[j-pb]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72

We still don't know what went wrong there.

[hef19898]

Good, finally an aerospace company that considers reliability and uses software. I have to tell my engineering colleagues, they will be happy to hear they can stop drawing on paper. Also that they can replace the sextants for navigation.

[Zanni]

By "software solutions," I believe they mean simulating wind tunnels so they can rapidly iterate. Once they have something that works, they still build a physical prototype and test it. There's no real software risk. (See bullet 1 under "Why Did The Concorde Fail.) There's another article on Boom that talks about this approach.