[SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]

[Mike Ellims]

> With the established history of date/time roll-over issues, shouldn't any date be viewed with suspicion during design safety analysis appropriate defensive design measures put in place?

 

The question is why?

I know this issue is documented in at least one book.

Did any of the programmers/coder on this even know about previous examples?

 

 

From: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Andy Ashworth
Sent: 04 May 2015 13:55
To: M.Pont at SafeTTy.net
Cc: The System Safety List
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]

 

Why wait until testing? With the established history of date/time roll-over issues, shouldn't any date be viewed with suspicion during design safety analysis appropriate defensive design measures put in place?

 

Andy

Sent from my iPhone


On May 4, 2015, at 08:49, Michael J. Pont <M.Pont at SafeTTy.net> wrote:

Matthew:

 

“On the other hand I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that the Boeing 'bug' was found by running a long duration simulation, not by an airliner falling out of the sky. So perhaps thanks is due to the Boeing safety or software engineer(s) who insisted on a long run endurance test and who might have actually learned something from history?”

 

OK – but maybe next time we can ask them to do this testing before the aircraft goes into service …

 

Michael.

 

Michael J. Pont

SafeTTy Systems Ltd.

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20150504/1ba07c3a/attachment-0001.html>