Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pilot example probably isn't the best one.If a plane with that design was nonetheless deemed airworthy by the FAA, pilots would absolutely be expected to know the correct operating procedures for that plane. Look at the "unusual" choice of averaging inputs from the pilot and co-pilot that helped lead to AF 447. It's very reasonable to argue it's bad design, but it was the responsibility of the pilots to know how…
Again, this was a completely undocumented (and unintentional) race condition. There was nothing in the manual stating that "the machine will do bad things if you try to change the mode twice in less than 8 seconds". Averaging of control inputs was a documented, intentional design choice. Being "expected to know the correct operating procedures" doesn't extend to "know how the machine works better than its designers"…
Re: Worst Computer Bugs in History: Therac-25 (2017)
#111Right, I meant that the issue was not responding safely to a malfunction. If it was undocumented, the operator should have paused the operation and attempted to contact the manufacturer. I don't blame them for their response necessarily (in the same way I don't think the programmers were actually guilty of a crime), but I think that should have been the main takeaway from this.