Software Bug or Deliberate Deception?

You are asking the wrong question. Of course the results can be duplicated when random tests are performed. The question is, what is the purpose of the test, and then under what circumstances is the test(s) performed. A test facility in no way resembles "real world" scenarios, "battlefield conditions" if you will. The purpose of the test is to determine if a subject vehicle will perform in a certain way under specified circumstances. And it did!! Remember the film Apollo 13? NASA asked Grumman what could they (NASA) expect of the Lunar Module? Grumman answered as best they could, the module met or exceeded each of the parameters specc'd in the contract(s). No one could possibly answer the questions asked of them. Turns out the specs were well designed. I would never expect to see the numbers printed on the window. I don't drive that way, in that environment. Also, I'm not a "hypermiler".

So they sold engines that passed tests, performed well, are economical to operate, and have a long MTBF. What more can anyone ask.

"What more can anyone ask."

We could ask that the auto makers build cars that produce the same relative results in real world driving with regard to air pollution as they do when tested, without CHEATING!

You must know that these cars spewed pollution like crazy when not being tested.

Sure, they passed the test, but lawyers and accountants "drove" the engineers to CHEAT for profit.

If the people who worked on the space program used the same unethical practices as VW, or (insert your favorite modern profit driven company here) we would have never gotten to the Moon.

I worked on military/spy satellites in the the 70's and 80's and AFAIK everyone gave their best effort and never considered fraud and deception.

Well said. But please remember that between the customer and the the engineers, there is a branch called marketing. It is their task to spin the facts to suite the objectives of their program managers.

Thank you for the prompt response. Tell me, did a "bean counter" or attorney ever ask you to "cut corners" on a contract or order you to buy substandard parts? I have never, ever heard of a software attorney or a design engineer accountant, have you? They are called "software engineers" for a a reason, as well as mechanical engineers not mechanical accountants. That being said, name one attorney or accountant involved in Fukishima, Chernobyl, Bhopal, or Discovery. IIRC Challenger was authorized by a marketing type at Martin Thiokol. In addition a vehicle that gets 40 MPG Hiwy and 30+ city is not "spewing" much of anything, and that is a far more "real world" than any testing facility. Certainly nowhere near as much as your average L6 or LR4 sitting in the Grand Union parking lot in Bridgehampton, NY with the engine running to keep Fido cool. There is a distinct possibility that no engineer has been able to design a well performing efficient engine that gives 40 MPG Hiway, has a long MTBF, and is priced less than the Space Shuttle. BTW Accountants did give us Enron and Worldcom, but went to prison, unlike the "engineers" in my examples. Well the guys at Chernobyl may be sunbathing in Siberia.

No, no one asked the engineers I worked with, nor me, to ever cut corners AFAIK.

I never used the terms, "software attorney or a design engineer accountant". Those are your terms. You will never convince me that upper management was not aware of this trickery and deceit.

Of course I can not speak to Fukishima, Chernobyl, Bhopal. Neither can you.

As an aerospace materials engineer for 20 years during the time of Apollo/Space Shuttle, I can indeed speak to the Challenger disaster. I watched it live on TV.

Elastomers, as those used by Morton Thiokol to build the booster seals, have a high expansion/contraction mechanism due to heating/cooling. They also lose their ability to seal at colder temperatures as the cross section decreases and they harden.

The Challenger launch was not the first cold weather launch where the seals leaked. It was the coldest launch, ever, with the attendant deadly result.

Although I heard this at the time of the disaster, I have never been able to find any public evidence that there was at least some political pressure to launch on that day because the president wanted to be able to talk about the teacher in space.

There was company pressure, to be sure, because the launch had been scrubbed a number of times already and at least one Thiokol engineer strongly opposed the launch.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant "software attorney and engineer accountant" as tongue in cheek to your comment blaming Attorneys and Accountants for cutting corners. My point was the software was not designed by an attorney, and an accountant didn't design the engines, the blame for this lies elsewhere. And I agree that management was well aware of this. That is why I made the statement "I know nussing........".

I too have heard the rumor of political pressure, but IIRC the actual go ahead was made by a marketing type from M.T., their engineer staff wouldn't sign off on it.

My parents were visiting friends on the west coast, they had seen numerous night launches from their home in Sarasota, they immediately knew something bad had happened, Dad was a CPA BTW.

As for the Moon shot(s) have you heard the "evidence" about them being faked? There are several in my circle down here who absolutely believe we never made it. The most compelling reason is the inability to survive the Van Allen belt. There is a compelling argument on Wiki about how to survive the encounter, but they are still not convinced. I know get a new circle.........

Granted, the software was no doubt a conspiracy to defraud/cheat/defeat the testing process.

I'm disappointed that people who call themselves engineers were involved.

Finally, during the heyday of the Apollo program there were over 3,000 employees at the Motorola Government plant where I worked.

We did no work other than government work for the military, NASA and the CIA.

The prospect of involving the thousands of people who worked on these projects in a deception is impossible to imagine.

The Van Allen Belts are survivable, I think there is ample proof of this as well.

Lyn there are "Engineers" and there are Engineers, same with any other profession or occupation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to weed out the bad in any sort of interview or testing process. I agree with your analogy of trying to keep a secret among 3000 people, it is only possible if 2999 of them are dead, and the last one is a blind, deaf quadraplegic mute. Wiki is the only source I found that I was able to understand about surviving the Van Allen Belt, again the topic only comes up after several bottles have been consumed, and I no longer drink.

BTW, I would buy one them in a heartbeat, but they would never get through Customs. Even though the only thing more fraudulent than this software is our "testing" facilities.

We don't test brakes, tire wear, lighting, none of that extraneous nonsense. They put a "magic" garden hose in the tailpipe. This magic hose is able to discern the number of cylinders, engine temp and engine RPM as well as any emissions. The engine must be running, though I'm tempted to turn it off next time. Mind you, they never pop the hood, to connect a tach lead or any other sensor. They don't even bother to see if the CEL light is operational!!! But hey, it's only 11 bucks USD.

Best, its been another informative discussion.

If anyone is interested, it has already been found out that several other car companies are using the exact same tricks.

Also, that several truck companies, were identified, some time in the 90's to be doing exactly the same, by a department in the US government, so its not a "new" trick and if the US government was REALLY interested, they could have "fixed" the problems years before, by changing the rules, changing the tests, but didn't!

The only question I have, is why didn't the US rules and regs get changed to prevent cheating? (if that is what it was?)

Also, like Watergate, wasn't it some journalists who actually "discovered" the problems? (From memory only! ) But not the US government....

Also, were the regulations actually written to require that the cars did not emit NOX when under test, or for any time when driving?

Due to not seeing here the rules and regs concerned, I cannot say either way myself!! But there may be "leeway" in the way the rules were written, who knows?

My apologies, I appear to have not been sent a lot of updates last year, not only this blog!

As you probably know already, VW have made a massive error with their motor management.

Even though several other companies have been found doing the same, this does not excuse VW to my mind.

It knocked 27 Billion Euros off their stock and many have lost their jobs.......

I just caught up with any old friend of mine from college who does programming for various companies. He said the solution was simple: open source. He said you could see fairly quickly if the code was doing a dirty. Whilst open source may not be quite applicable then perhaps at least opening the code to the relevant authorities would be a good choice?