When aerospace headlines report a software failure, the implication is often that poorly programmed code is to blame. The truth is more complicated. In most high-profile cases, the software did exactly what it was programmed to do — but within the limits of incomplete requirements, corrupted data, faulty sensors, or unvalidated commands.
These failures often trace back to the environment in which the software was built: teams stretched too thin, deadlines that left no margin for thorough testing, or programs forced to make trade-offs under budget pressure. When time, expertise, or resources are constrained, hidden risks accumulate until they eventually surface in flight.
Viewed this way, software rarely fails in isolation; it fails because the system around it does. Treating these events as symptoms rather than root causes allows the industry to uncover the lessons that matter most. The following blog looks at aerospace failures through this lens and explains how Performance helps original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and Tier-1 suppliers safeguard programs and ensure successful outcomes.
Examining High-Profile Failures
NASA’s review, Historical Aerospace Software Errors Categorized to Influence Fault Tolerance, examines 55 aerospace incidents and underscores an important point: software failures rarely originate in the code itself. In fact, 85% produced erroneous outputs rather than simply crashing, and only 16% were tied to traditional programming mistakes. Most traced back to systemic issues: 40% stemmed from missing requirements or logic, 16% from configuration data errors, 15% from sensor inputs, and 11% from operator commands.
Each case was assessed not only for its symptom — erroneous or silent — but also for whether a reboot could have restored function, whether missing code played a role, and whether the failure reflected an “unknown-unknown” that had not been anticipated.
To illustrate, the table below shows how NASA’s classification framework applies to four recent, high-profile aerospace incidents. It makes clear that none of these failures were the result of poor programming, but instead reflected deeper gaps in requirements, validation, or system-level safeguards.
Boeing 737 MAX MCAS (2018–2019)
Two back-to-back tragedies—Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302—were triggered by repeated activation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control system, which responded to erroneous angle-of-attack readings by pushing the aircraft into a fatal dive. Though the software behaved as coded, the design rested on flawed systemic assumptions: it accepted input from a single sensor, lacked redundancy, and did not integrate pilot override capability. These gaps reveal deficiencies in hazard analysis and human-factors engineering, rather than purely technical defects.
Further examination of Boeing’s broader organizational environment highlights significant cultural and governance influences. The decision to certify the 737 MAX as a derivative model—rather than as a new design—reflected pressure to reduce costs, minimize training burden, and accelerate time-to-market. Engineers reported developing at double pace, under “go-go-go” pressure, while oversight from senior leadership focused more on financial outcomes than engineering quality. At the same time, the reporting structure shifted, requiring top engineers to report first to divisional business leaders and only secondarily to the chief engineer. This weakened direct technical oversight at the highest levels.
In the wake of these cultural and oversight shortcomings, Boeing introduced software updates that sought to address vulnerabilities within the MCAS system. The new configuration requires cross-checks between both angle-of-attack sensors and blocks activation if the inputs differ by more than 5.5 degrees. It also limits each elevated angle-of-attack event to a single input and ensures pilots retain ultimate control by allowing manual override of stabilizer trim. These enhancements were validated through extensive analysis, lab testing, simulator sessions, and test flights in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Association (FAA).
Airbus A400M (2015)
In May 2015, an Airbus A400M crashed during its first test flight in Seville, Spain, killing four crew members. According to reporting by the German newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategist Marwan Lahoud explained that the crash was due to a “quality issue in the final assembly” of the aircraft’s software.
Investigations later revealed that Airbus—and European safety authorities—had been warned months earlier about a potential installation vulnerability. In late 2014, engine-makers flagged the possibility that software installation errors could erase critical engine data without alerting technicians. Despite this warning, the failure to adequately address it proved fatal.
Additional reporting from The Manufacturer speculated that engineers—facing intense production deadlines—may not have completed sufficient software checks, adding another layer of systemic pressure that left the aircraft vulnerable.
International Space Station (ISS) Nauka Thruster Incident (2021)
In July 2021, just hours after the Nauka module docked with the ISS, its thrusters unexpectedly fired. NASA initially reported that the station had tilted by about 45 degrees, sharing that estimate publicly on X (formerly Twitter). However, NASA Flight Director Zebulon Scoville later clarified that the actual displacement was far more severe: the ISS spun roughly 540 degrees before controllers regained stability. The rate of rotation was slow enough that the crew did not feel it, and no lasting damage occurred, but the scale of the anomaly was significantly greater than initially communicated.
According to the Russian Federal Space Agency, Roscosmos, “Due to a short-term software failure, a direct command was mistakenly implemented to turn on the module’s engines for withdrawal, which led to some modification of the orientation of the complex as a whole”. This statement confirmed that the thruster firing resulted from a misapplied command rather than a fault in the programming itself.
Voyager 2 Communication Loss (2023)
In July 2023, NASA inadvertently lost contact with Voyager 2—a spacecraft now over 15 billion miles from Earth—due to a misdirected command. The instruction caused the probe’s high-gain antenna to tilt approximately two degrees off its target, misaligning its signal from Earth’s Deep Space Network and severing communications for 14 days. Although the spacecraft functioned correctly in executing the command, the outcome highlighted a critical lapse in command validation.
During the blackout, mission engineers leveraged NASA’s Deep Space Network—particularly a powerful antenna in Canberra—to send a high-powered “interstellar shout” in hopes the probe would receive it despite the misalignment. The attempt was successful: contact was restored on August 4, and messages began flowing again.
Collective Lessons
These incidents reveal a consistent pattern: failures often attributed to “software issues” were, in reality, manifestations of systemic vulnerabilities. Incomplete requirements, weak validation, and inadequate integration were common threads, and in many cases organizational pressures—compressed schedules, lean resources, or governance decisions—amplified those risks.
Importantly, such vulnerabilities are not inevitable. With disciplined engineering processes, robust validation strategies, and a stronger focus on system-level safeguards, they can be anticipated, mitigated, and prevented. Preventing the next software failure requires not only technical rigor, but also the organizational discipline to prioritize safety and reliability at every stage.
Performance’s Comprehensive Approach
With more than 25 years of proven experience, Performance delivers end-to-end engineering and testing solutions that help customers succeed across commercial aviation, defense, space, and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM). By combining deep expertise in systems, software, hardware, and testing, Performance develops, integrates, and certifies safety-critical and mission-critical solutions that meet the highest standards. Trusted by leading OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers, Performance is the partner you can count on to bring your next program to life.
Recognized as a Preferred Supplier, Performance has completed more than 500 successful programs with a team of over 450 engineers. This track record demonstrates a deep understanding of certification challenges, complex integration, and the rigorous demands of safety-critical programs.
Custom Software Development
Performance provides full-lifecycle software development services, from requirements definition and architecture through coding, integration, verification, certification, and deployment. Our engineers are experienced across all DO-178C Design Assurance Levels (DALs) and offer extensive capabilities in embedded systems, safety-critical architectures, advanced tool development, and certification support. This breadth enables us to scale from highly focused project components to large, complex program contributions.
Just as importantly, we know that software reliability depends on disciplined processes. Performance emphasizes requirements traceability, structured design reviews, and iterative integration with continuous validation. By applying rigorous verification and robust configuration management, we help customers avoid the systemic gaps—in requirements, testing, and integration—that too often derail safety-critical programs. From supporting a new platform to upgrading legacy systems or recovering a challenged program, our disciplined approach ensures software that is certifiable, reliable, and mission-ready.
Engineering Hardware and Testing Excellence
Performance helps aerospace customers seamlessly navigate hardware development with full-lifecycle DO-254 engineering services, backed by decades of expertise and proven results. Our dedicated teams transform aerospace concepts into reality, delivering certifiable, high-reliability hardware that meets the industry’s most demanding standards. With products flying today and capabilities spanning electronics, FPGA, and mechanical design, Performance is trusted by leading aerospace organizations to deliver results without compromise.
But building the hardware is only part of the mission. Equally critical is rigorous testing and validation, which ensures every system performs under real-world conditions. Performance designs and develops custom, automated test stations purpose-built to validate safety-critical systems with confidence.Our test solutions simulate realistic environments, reduce costly aircraft trials, and accelerate system integration and certification. On a recent program, our automated test approach reduced manual test effort by up to 90%, dramatically improving efficiency and reliability.
Together, these integrated hardware and testing capabilities mean Performance supports the entire lifecycle—from requirements through design, prototyping, validation, certification, and deployment. With a state-of-the-art hardware lab at our new Phoenix headquarters, expanded resources, and some of the industry’s most seasoned engineers, we provide the technical depth, flexibility, and discipline required to ensure mission success.
Engineering Confidence Into Every Program
The aerospace failures highlighted in this blog make one lesson clear: program success isn’t determined by code alone but by the discipline applied throughout the entire program lifecycle. For aerospace organizations, that means working with a partner that not only understands the risks but has a proven track record of preventing them.
That is exactly what Performance delivers. By uniting software, hardware, systems, and testing expertise under one roof, we help our customers prevent costly missteps, accelerate certification, and deliver solutions with confidence. Our ability to quickly integrate with customer teams allows programs to maintain momentum without the delays of ramp-up time, saving both time and money while reducing risk. With 25+ years of experience, 500+ successful programs, and a reputation as a trusted Preferred Supplier, Performance is uniquely positioned to ensure your next mission is defined by success—not setbacks.
Performance is the partner you can count on to turn reliability into reality. Let’s start your next success story today.
