The article specifically says that the contractors were working on 'Display" and "test" software. NOT flight control software. I really see no problem with this. An engineer at $150/hr should not be making GUIs.
It's in the first row of the document, some call it title: "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits". Nothing out of context here
The businesses which have tail risks leading to high number of deaths should be properly regulated including procedures for minimising costs. Government intervention should not be restricted by producing only some standards (prudential supervision) because it's not enough. I understand that the name of article sounds a bit like click bait and smells with populism (after all its Bloomberg) but with projects moving back and forth between outsourcers and Boeing it's definitely not good.
Go to the cafeteria of a major car manufacturer, and you'll find 9 out of 10 "engineers" from India, especially TCS (They Copy Software). As you say, it's a culture of agreeable liars and passive-aggressive backstabbers. But what's even worse is the American executives who hire these offshore firms. Regards, PTR
I don't care if yer the best software engineer in the universe. If QA finds a bug in your code, they note it. It is up to the project manager to then decide if the bug is worthy of sending it back to the programmers/engineers to fix. If so, then after they try to fix it, it goes back to QA. At least, that is the way it SHOULD work. While the project manager has final approval of the current copy of the code, they act upon, or neglect to act upon, the QA findings. QA is the true key in all this. If the programmers are sloppy, yer project takes forever. If they are keen, it takes less time to get the project out to the market.
My experience with QA in aerospace hasn't been positive. Most of them don't know enough about what they are supposed to deem safe. Unfortunate, but that's the state of affairs.
... Like just a couple of days ago, the FAA or EAA (whatever they're called) found another bug in the MAX software that would not allow the autopilot to disengage in case of some emergency? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!?! You MUST release control of the plane to the pilot if the pilot thinks the plane is in danger. WHAT MORON THOUGHT OTHERWISE IS A GOOD IDEA?
70% of all plane crashes account for pilot mistakes. Some plane control MUST be "outsourced" to to automatic software because pilots are not supermen to process correctly all incoming data in stressful situation
Anyone long this stock? Who knows where it'll drop if another plane crashes... Why invest in this when there is HON and LMT?