BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Paper detail

Candidate Software Process Flaws for the Boeing 737 Max MCAS Algorithm and Risks for a Proposed Upgrade

By reasoning about the claims and speculations promised as part of the public discourse, we analyze the hypothesis that flaws in software engineering played a critical role in the Boeing 737 MCAS incidents. We use promise-based reasoning to discuss how, from an outsider's perspective, one may assemble clues about what went wrong. Rather than looking for a Rational Alternative Design (RAD), as suggested by Wendel, we look for candidate flaws in the software process. We describe four such potential flaws. Recently, Boeing has circulated information on its envisaged MCAS algorithm upgrade. We cast this as a promise to resolve the flaws, i.e. to provide a RAD for the B737 Max. We offer an assessment of B-Max-New based on the public discourse.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
Jan A. BergstraMark Burgess
cs.CY
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Like0Dislike0Score 0

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Save to reading list0
Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Jan A. BergstraMark Burgess

Institutions

No institution affiliation has been imported for this paper yet.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form
Log in to review

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form
Log in to comment

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.