The underlying concept behind MEQUAVIS simulations could have easily been used along with a small budget from the client to not only detect and prevent this type of disaster, but to stress test it and give new solutions or point out even further issues.
While yes, the actual simulation software that would have been needed to uncover this issue would have had to have been developed. The point is that if Boeing had been a client, and had provided us with a fee to develop them an iterated simulation of their aircraft. We could have modeled their software running in a virtual environment where the instruments of the plane in the simulation did not have access to the control mechanisms of the weather.
Basically, we could have virtually flown these airplanes in the equivalent of a Microsoft Flight Simulator that has been modified to iterate out every possible combination of sensor and computer combination in the various weather situations and elevations....
This issue would have been detected. What's even worse is that it sounds like the issue was detected without the use to this technology and was merely swept under the rug and hidden by "extra" software patches which then failed when faced with an inexperienced pilot such as what happened overseas.
So even if we didn't need MEQUAVIS simulations to detect this issue, we could have used it to uncover internal corruption. Which is something in this day and age is actually needed when the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing in a company. One evil person doing evil things doesn't make the company evil but turning a blind eye to it possibly happening when you have the means to watch for it is the same thing as being evil directly...
ie, if all the paperwork at the company says everything checks out and there are no issues worth addressing at this time, but yet the simulation iterations come back with some red flags. You may have an ethics/corruption issue in your company, or your company is just evil and you should quit and find new work elsewhere. This would also allow companies to head off disastrous PR issues before they climaxed. ie, someone at Boeing thought they could patch this problem with more software... A simulation iteration system would have shown that the patches would have also failed given some extended time frame of functioning... And even a greedy corrupt businessman would have made different decisions than what were made...
Not implying anyone consciously made any evil choices at Boeing, just that the system that is in place allowed for an evil choice to be made without thinking... They got lucky a US plane didn't go down... This is the kind of thing that happens when Pi is off by a couple millionths, etc. ie, with the moon landing being missed by about 20km... So they rounded pi up by .003 from the officially recognized number which is arguably not the correct value based on different possible ways to computer Pi... But now I am getting off track
Anyways, I know I have been quiet lately. Working on the AI certification system with the IEEE ECPAIS team... Had some internal team issues with NanoCheeZe as well. Still working things out :)
Anyone interested in helping out is more then welcome to reach out!!!!
btw, here's a few highlights about the Boeing case:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50101766
-Boeing employees exchanged instant messages about issues with the automated safety system on the 737 Max as it was being certified in 2016.
-Boeing 'misjudged 737 Max pilot reactions'
-Boeing to pay bereaved 737 families $144,500 each
-Europe will not accept US verdict on 737 Max safety