USAF feels Oleg's pain

[WTE_Galway]

Lockheed martin this time huh, surprised it was not Northrop Grumman again. I notice they were in the news again a few weeks back for ripping off the DoD yet again:

The Virginian-Pilot
© September 9, 2010

A Pennsylvania subcontractor has been charged with defrauding the government by supplying critical metal components for submarines that did not meet Navy specifications.

The metal was intended for use in Virginia-class subs, which are built by Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard in partnership with Electric Boat of Groton, Conn.

According to papers filed Tuesday by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia, Bristol Alloys and its president, James R. Bullick, fraudulently certified that metals critical to the submarines' integrity had been heat-treated when they had not been.

The Fairless Hills, Pa., company is no longer in business, its attorney, Michael Diamondstein, said Wednesday.

Diamondstein said his client "has cooperated with the United States government in trying to help them locate any of the nonconforming pieces of steel. It's our understanding that at no point in time were members of the United States military in danger due to this."

Spokesmen for the Navy and the U.S. attorney's office in Philadelphia declined to say whether any of the disputed metal has been installed in submarines or whether there are safety implications for the subs and their crews.

A Northrop Grumman spokeswoman said the company is cooperating fully with the government but declined to comment further, citing the pending criminal case.

[bf-110]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

I'm guessing that SoW is comparable to the F-35 software in complexity. The sim world is converging with real life aviation.

Nah..It has only a small difference.If something in SoW goes wrong,game crashes.If something goes wrong in a F-35,plane crashes too.

Other day I saw that computer viruses could infect car CPUs.I wonder if one can´t get its way trought a F-22 CPU?

[baronWastelan]

Here's how I see it: the cockpit of a new jet fighter or Airbus is actually a flight simulator, with a real airplane attached to it. So, any problem you might have with your PC could also happen to the CPU on the aircraft. Not very conforting to think about!

[AndyJWest]

Other day I saw that computer viruses could infect car CPUs.

Sounds unlikely. Where did you see this?

There are methods for reducing the harmfulness of software errors in safety-critical systems. One is to get code written by three different teams, and use 'majority voting' if there is a conflict when the system is operating. The flaw with this is it assumes that different programming teams won't make the same sort of errors - a doubtful assumption to rely on.

[dduff442]

From Mariner 1 via Ariane 5 to the SAAB Gripen prototype, the history of software in aviation is dismal. If a civil engineer built a bridge that collapsed, he'd be ruined. A software engineer builds his bridge again and again - hundreds of times - and when it finally stands up on its own there's a big party.

Thankfully physical modelling like Il-2/SoW has a better record than most, but many large software projects exhibit not just a lack of competence but a lack of understanding of the most basic precepts of engineering. It's not just that many big IT projects end up non-functional, they start out with designs that couldn't function in the first place. Computer Science grads need to be taught the difference between provable and non-provable designs and how to test ideas.

dduff

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by dduff442

From Mariner 1 via Ariane 5 to the SAAB Gripen prototype, the history of software in aviation is dismal. If a civil engineer built a bridge that collapsed, he'd be ruined. A software engineer builds his bridge again and again - hundreds of times - and when it finally stands up on its own there's a big party.

Thankfully physical modelling like Il-2/SoW has a better record than most, but many large software projects exhibit not just a lack of competence but a lack of understanding of the most basic precepts of engineering. It's not just that many big IT projects end up non-functional, they start out with designs that couldn't function in the first place. Computer Science grads need to be taught the difference between provable and non-provable designs and how to test ideas.

dduff

Unfortunately programmers as a profession are not subject to the industry self regulation and/or government certification that governs the conduct of architects, engineers, lawyers, doctors, surveyors, accountants and other professions.

The software industry is more akin to book or music publishing then any of the more traditional "professions" .

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Azimech

Can you believe carmakers wish to delete the physical connections between steer-wheels and pedal-brakes? I'm no luddite, but this goes too far.

+1 to that. Hydraulic brakes are so simple and reliable... Perhaps a good reason to change it is if you have a completely automated braking system, but my experiences of ABS have been poor, with it degrading braking on surfaces other than smooth bitumen roads. I'll never forget the ~2003 camry that chattered it's way into an (empty) intersection, after we started braking side-by-side coming down a wet road on a slight hill. My '83 car stopped without issue. Traction control is another story of mis-automation. Try a gravel road/driveway on a moderate incline and it struggles.

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Unfortunately programmers as a profession are not subject to the industry self regulation and/or government certification that governs the conduct of architects, engineers, lawyers, doctors, surveyors, accountants and other professions.

The software industry is more akin to book or music publishing then any of the more traditional "professions" .

The law makers might actually have to understand the programming process to try to regulate it... Or the government will outsource the writing of the regulations YET AGAIN and force people to PAY to find out what they are required to do.

Regulations are an interesting topic, I think what prevents a lot of mistakes within engineering are the numbers of people that check the designs, which is often the exact opposite with programming. I don't see a reason to impose regulations on non-safety critical programmers though.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by julian265

+1 to that. Hydraulic brakes are so simple and reliable... Perhaps a good reason to change it is if you have a completely automated braking system, but my experiences of ABS have been poor, with it degrading braking on surfaces other than smooth bitumen roads. I'll never forget the ~2003 camry that chattered it's way into an (empty) intersection, after we started braking side-by-side coming down a wet road on a slight hill. My '83 car stopped without issue. Traction control is another story of mis-automation. Try a gravel road/driveway on a moderate incline and it struggles.

Well, actually ABS decreases braking distance - on any surface other than on dry tarmac.

I remember following experiment, which involved braking in snow, with and without ABS, with and without winter tires.

ABS vs conventional, winter tires:
ABS<conventional

ABS vs conventional, summer tires:
Conventional<ABS

The latter is explained by the conventional wheel locking up, building a wedge of snow in front of the tires which increases friction.
The ABS however is confused, because then summer tires can't get any grip on the snow - and the ABS doesn't want to let them slip, as result the brake stays open...

Is it possible your camry had shitty tires?

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by dduff442

From Mariner 1 via Ariane 5 to the SAAB Gripen prototype, the history of software in aviation is dismal. If a civil engineer built a bridge that collapsed, he'd be ruined. A software engineer builds his bridge again and again - hundreds of times - and when it finally stands up on its own there's a big party.

Thankfully physical modelling like Il-2/SoW has a better record than most, but many large software projects exhibit not just a lack of competence but a lack of understanding of the most basic precepts of engineering. It's not just that many big IT projects end up non-functional, they start out with designs that couldn't function in the first place. Computer Science grads need to be taught the difference between provable and non-provable designs and how to test ideas.

dduff

That's quite funny, but is it a fair comparison? People have been been building bridges for 1000's of years, and they all do practically the same thing. A single piece of software can do 100's of different things, many of them that have never been done before.

[dduff442]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

That's quite funny, but is it a fair comparison? People have been been building bridges for 1000's of years, and they all do practically the same thing. A single piece of software can do 100's of different things, many of them that have never been done before.

Mmmm... depends on your definitions of 'do' and 'things'. Modern structures are complex and require careful analysis regarding the transmission of stress to the ground, possible resonance due to wind or earth tremors etc.

The claim that computers do things that have never been done before is dubious... Alan Turing determined universally exactly what computers could do. Other mathematicians determined things that computers could *not* do -- NP complete problems etc. I don't know a massive amount about any of this, but its fair to say that Turing spoke a totally different language to software engineers.

It's reasonable to question the fairness of the jibe I made -- usually nobody need die because a computer programme crashes, unlike with collapsing bridges. Some of the excuses made by the industry don't stand up to criticism, however.

Taking the internet as an example, it was built by electronics and fibre optics specialists and jpeg/mp3 etc (all basically the same tech) made it fast, cheap and economical. Microsoft and Netscape, OTOH, bequeathed us javascript, popups and security holes. Even when I think of the internet myself I think software, but it's an illusion. The hardware basically always works reliably but its invisible. The software types control the branding and somehow come away with all the cash...

dduff