egsc_h17 says
This comment betrays a lack of understanding of safety critical software systems design. I wouldn't expect you to have an understanding of same unless, like myself, you had spent several years studying the topic. If you have not done so then perhaps you could avoid making ill informed sweeping statements about my profession.
FWIW, I have been doing design, development, and analysis of fault-tolerant, fail-soft, and never-fail electronics, software, computing architectures and real-time systems since the days when transistors were large enough to trip over and software came in the form of wires and holes. One of my patented designs for testing, diagnosing, and analyzing complex systems has generated more than a trillion US$ of product manufactures in applications ranging from complex LSI circuits to global distributed computing networks, with the total growing by more than a hundred billion $$ this year. Along the way, I have developed a very large number and wide variety of mission-critical electronic products, real-time control computing systems and applications and have planned, supervised or officially reviewed development of many hundreds more. I am also, for several decades, a pilot and aircraft owner-operator, and moderately familiar with the design-life-support cycle of commercial aircraft.
egsc_h17 says
I would be more concerned by many of the mechanical and electrical systems than I am about the software. Pilots tend to blame every glitch "on the computers" when in reality the vast majority of issues are caused by transducer failures or even a simple misunderstanding of how to use the system. Such problems can equally affect hydromechanical aircraft. As far as I'm aware there has never been a FBW failure in a commercial aircraft that has resulted in loss of critical control systems. The number of tech problems due to software are totally eclipsed by mechanical and electrical problems.
The arrogance, shallowness, and evident miscomprehension of the problem embodied in this (foregoing) comment brilliantly underscores a systematic failure to grasp the concept of Systems design for the real world.... where mistakes have irreversible consequences and everyone involved must assume TOTAL responsibility for all possible outcomes. How reassuring... to know one's life hangs on a thread devised, designed, delivered by a shop full of clever snitty self-obsessed primadonnas.
On the surface of it, one would say you appear to be an exemplar of the exact problem to which I have referred. The problem is under-scrutinised and under-tested design experimentation by sanctimoniously self-assured technicians who feel that all problems have been solved, the world is perfect; the current technology of choice will always save the day. Probably you believe this because you have been recognized as competent in your job and your designs have always worked - or appeared to work - properly up til now.
Too much confidence, fueled by the appearances of success, is bad for the judgement and bad for the soul, however. Let us all cross fingers and hope you will never confidently send a load of customers to sleep with the fish.