Here's how you can correct common mistakes made by aerospace engineers.

Design flaws in aerospace engineering often arise from gaps in testing or oversight. Tackling these issues demands a meticulous review of design specs against actual performance data. When discrepancies pop up, dive deep with root cause analysis. This might mean revisiting CAD models, running more simulations, or building prototypes to see how things fare in the real world. Keeping it real, fixing these flaws isn’t just about tech tweaks; it's about a relentless commitment to precision and safety. A hands-on approach and continual learning are key. Don't just fix; understand and improve.

Choosing the wrong materials in aerospace can lead to disastrous outcomes. To fix this, reassess the essential properties for your application—think tensile strength, temperature resistance, and weight. Dive into material databases and explore alternatives that better fit your design needs. But don't stop there. Stress tests and simulations are crucial to confirm your new material's suitability. It’s not just about swapping materials; it’s about ensuring they can handle the job under real-world conditions. Precision here means safety up there.

Software bugs in aerospace systems can spell disaster. To tackle these, adopt a thorough testing protocol—unit, integration, and system testing are musts. Track changes with version control systems to make rollbacks smooth if needed. Peer reviews and static code analysis are also vital for catching snags early. It’s not just about finding bugs; it's about preventing them. A rigorous, layered approach to testing ensures software reliability, keeping everything running smoothly and safely in the skies.

End to end, back to back testing is so crucial to validate the big picture results. This can identify bugs inherent in any software, especially when it comes to custom aerospace code. Even better is if there is an independent system (like an older platform, or an independently created code to do the same thing. Those may be impractical, expensive and hard to identify, but when you have them you can find bugs that sat in your software for years.

As Ben Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. The more complex the design, the more important it is to test early for the most stressful conditions. Otherwise, you’re likely to get stuck the unfortunate position described by with John Bergman’s quote of “ there’s never enough time to do it right, but there’s always enough time to do it over”

Inadequate testing in aerospace can let critical flaws slip through. To enhance your testing, create detailed plans that cover all possible scenarios. Use both static and dynamic methods, and don’t shy away from simulating extreme conditions your components might face. Regularly review and update your protocols to integrate new findings and tech advancements. Testing isn’t a one-and-done deal; it’s an ongoing process of refinement. Stay ahead of the curve to ensure every part of your system performs flawlessly when it counts.

Maintaining a transparent channel of communication for regular feedback during the every phase of the project is critically important. At least two briefs during the day; morning and afternoon shifts transition can translate shift objective clearly to each team member. The advantage of having regular feedback helps in correcting the mistakes timely as done by the colleague engineers. Post shift briefing based on day's outcomes can also help in guiding engineers in the right direction thus mitigating the chances of errors. Reviewing documentation also helps in identifying the errors on time. All the more, concerns and suggestions of team members must be listened and discussed to maintain a healthy work environment; free from possible errors.

Effective communication is a must in aerospace projects. To bridge gaps, set up clear channels and protocols for information sharing. Regular meetings, thorough documentation, and using collaborative tools can keep everyone aligned and informed. Create an open environment where team members feel comfortable voicing concerns and suggestions. It's not just about talking—it's about listening and ensuring everyone's on the same page. Clear, open communication can make the difference between project success and failure.

Despite being a heavily regulated industry the Boeing 737MAX8 fiasco was an eye-opener. This happened and will happen again if the passengers' input is not taken into account. There is a disconnect between the aircraft regulators and the aircraft passengers or the end-users of the product. The manufacturers, regulators, operators, logisticians, airline owners etc. have stakes in the design and manufacturing process except for the passengers. I don't know how but in order to avoid future such like debacles (737MAX8) the passengers should be brought in as regulators as they are the ones who will pay the ultimate price.

It is human nature to want to carry out tasks in the quickest, easiest and most repeatable manner. This can be dangerous if the actions are not in compliance with the relevant regulations. Work with your engineers in an honest and open forum to understand what, if any, processes are not being followed and importantly, why. If their ‘process workarounds’ still meet the minimum requirements of the regulation, consider updating your work process to ensure the whole team are back in synch.

Forget the other subsections to this Article. There is ultimately one factor which wholly captures all issues. That is that communication must always be open with humility and confidence. There should be no hierarchal considerations, no second guessing, no fear, no insecurity. Anyone should be allowed to question and everyone must be not only willing to be questioned, but grateful for it. If everyone is grateful that their colleagues are willing and able to capture their mistakes without fear or retribution, nothing will get hidden, missed, or covered up.

Make multi-purpose products but do not try to add excessive purposes to the product e.g. NH90 helicopters. Countries which bought this product are gradually returning it to the OEM as it is incapable of delivering the so many purposes that it has been designed to fulfill.

It is highly unethical if a OEM over claims product features (capabilities, performance, application etc etc) just to make a sale, to say the least!