[Default] On 28 Feb 2020 07:24:20 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
[email protected] (scott Ford) wrote:

>Mike,
>
>Reminds me of this whole Agile process that’s being used. Incomplete
>thinking, not like a lot of old timer Sysprogs, who had to think about ,
>installation, testing, implementation in production, impact on users and
>backup.

DF/EF comes to mind and Jamie Yates of IBM describing a situation of
clients calling with a SEV 1 problem when they didn't have one because
they would by the time they got a call back.  After installing DFP, my
feeling at the time that DFP stood for Damn Fragile Product, a
sentiment at least some of my compatriots at SHARE agreed with.  The
PE chains were something else.

Clark Morris  
>
>Boeing sounds piecemeal ..
>
>Scott
>
>On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:42 AM Ray Pearce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Orlando Sentinel says:
>>
>> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
>> countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
>> that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We
>> continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all
>> readers with our award-winning journalism.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Schwab
>> Sent: 28 February 2020 02:19
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: OT Boeing flight software
>>
>>
>> https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/os-bz-boeing-safety-commercial-crew-20200226-bgvthodnjzgmlc36hsxcaopahu-story.html
>>
>> Boeing didn’t perform full end-to-end test of its astronaut capsule
>> before troubled mission, ‘surprising’ NASA safety panel.
>>
>> Critically, the panel learned early this month that Boeing did not
>> perform a full, end-to-end integrated test of Starliner in a Systems
>> Integration Lab with ULA’s Atlas V rocket. The test typically shows
>> how all the software systems during each component of the mission
>> would have responded with each other through every maneuver — and it
>> could potentially have caught the issues Boeing later experienced in
>> the mission.
>>
>> “It’s pretty exhaustive. You gotta do that,” said Christopher Saindon,
>> a former member who ended his tenure on the panel in mid-February.
>> “That was somewhat surprising to us on the panel. There were certainly
>> gaps in the test protocol.”
>>
>>
>> It was software that ultimately did fail Boeing when it flew Starliner
>> on a Dec. 20 mission intended to dock with the International Space
>> Station. The capsule’s internal clock was 11 hours ahead, causing it
>> to miss critical maneuvers and fly into the incorrect orbit. Then,
>> communication issues potentially caused by cell towers in the area
>> blocked Boeing from sending a command to rectify the orbit. Starliner,
>> the company determined, wasn’t going to be able to reach the space
>> station.
>>
>> But in the process of bringing it back down and re-checking its
>> software, the company caught yet another issue that could have caused
>> Starliner to collide with its service module when the two separated
>> prior to the capsule’s return to Earth. Teams were able to correct the
>> issue before to the capsule’s return on Dec. 22, but the multitude of
>> problems have led NASA to call for a full re-verification of Boeing’s
>> software — a process that will take analyzing about a million lines of
>> code.
>>
>> Software issues are also plaguing another arm of Boeing, which is
>> dealing with the fall out of problems with its 737 Max airplanes that
>> led to the deaths of 346 people and has grounded the planes.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
>> Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>> --
>> This e-mail message has been scanned and cleared by Google Message
>> Security
>> and the UNICOM Global security systems. This message is for the named
>> person's use only. If you receive this message in error, please delete it
>> and notify the sender.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to