From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,82c2596e4584d057
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: root@mihalis.demon.co.uk (root)
Subject: Re: Ariane 5 Failure - Summary Report
Date: 1996/08/01
Message-ID: <afwghskw.fsf@mihalis.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171300482
x-nntp-posting-host: baesema5.demon.co.uk
sender: root@mihalis.demon.co.uk
references: <31F60E8A.2D74@lmtas.lmco.com> <31F629B8.5FFB@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: very little to be seen
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <838748001.3682.0@assen.demon.co.uk> john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) writes:
[SNIP]
   Having read the report, I don't consider it to be a programming error,
   it was a design and management error. It sounds like whoever designed
   the system didn't pay enough attention to the requirements, and
   whoever was managing it didn't pay enough attention to its conformance
   to the requirements.
[SNIP]

Agreed.

Electronics Weekly (UK freebie) put it as a "Mindset Error" (can't
remember exact phrase right now). I respect their judgement and I
think it about sums up the whole thing rather neatly.

Chris Morgan

chris.morgan@baesema.co.uk