Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbus A380 Under Fire

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the u.s.-laws-that-aren't-so-bad dept.

jose parinas writes "The security of the Airbus A380 jetliner is questioned by a U.S. Engineer that faces arrest and bankruptcy in Austria. A year ago, Mangan told European aviation authorities that he believed there were problems with a computer chip on the Airbus A380, the biggest and costliest commercial airliner ever built."

26 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This story will never get off the ground.

  2. easy by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take chip, look for problem, if exists fix and replace. It isn't like they would have to rebuild the whole plane.

    1. Re:easy by Cylix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except now the chip has to be recertified for aviation.

      In effect, the article states it has already been modified and there was some sentiment that it really should be re-certified yet once again.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  3. Autopilot by Cthefuture · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The story about the plane losing pressure then flying on autopilot before crashing is interesting. Doesn't the plane know it has lost cabin pressure? If it's on autopilot why can't it reduce altitude so the people can regain consciousness? Hell, why can't it just declare an emergency and automatically land at the nearest airport after receiving an OK signal from the airport that it's safe to land.

    We have all this technology but it's implemented by idiots.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:Autopilot by david.given · · Score: 5, Informative
      They were trying to take off, and the enhanced autopilot decided they were trying to land and took over, so it got about 100ft off the ground and started heading back down, off the end of the runway and into a forest. Nice large fireball too.

      Sorry, that's incorrect.

      What you're talking about here is Air France Flight 296. There's a full description on the link, but the short version is that the pilot tried to throttle up because the plane was too low, and the fly-by-wire system overrode him due to a fault. Nothing to do with the autopilot at all --- autopilot landings are quite common these days.

      (There's also been a lot of controversy about that accident, because there are a number of irregularities with the investigation indicating that the evidence has been tampered with. Check out this link for more information.)

      (Oh, yes; only three people died, although about 50 were injured.)

    2. Re:Autopilot by Colbalt+Blue · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are way off on what pilots use autopilot for. On most commercial flights these days the pilot rarely touches the yoke after takeoff. He enters all headings, altitudes, speed and vertical speed settings into the autopilot and the computer takes care of it for him. In my plane I can enter my entire flight plan into the computer before taking off, engage the autopilot at 500 feet off the ground and not touch anything except the radio until the computer has me lined up for a landing at the destination airport.

    3. Re:Autopilot by rv8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. There are already multiple possible failures that could cause a depressurization (cabin window failure, door failure, engine rotor burst, crew error, etc). The design requirements call for systems to alert the crew if the cabin altitude exceeds normal values, and there must be oxygen masks that they can don within 5 seconds. The operational requirements call for the crews to be properly trained in the use of these masks, etc. So even if this chip has a problem, it doesn't necessarily create a new safety issue. Of course, the problem, if it exists, should be corrected.

      2. Some business jet aircraft do have an autopilot mode that will automatically descend the aircraft if the cabin altitude exceeds a certain value (several Cessna Citation models, some Gulfstream models, latest Bombardier Global Express, etc). These aircraft often cruise at altitudes up to 51,000 ft, which is quite a bit higher than the maximum altitude for the A380 (apparently 43,000 ft, but typical cruise altitudes will be lower than that). The smaller cabin volume of the business jets mean the cabin depressurizes much quicker, given a similar failure.

      --
      Kevin Horton
    4. Re:Autopilot by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 4, Informative

      but the short version is that the pilot tried to throttle up because the plane was too low, and the fly-by-wire system overrode him due to a fault.

      If there was a fault anywhere it was in the engine. The pilot claims it didn't spool up fast enough, it may have suffered a stall. The official accident report concluded he simply applied throttle way too later (some conspiracy theories say the FDR was hacked by 3s to make it look like he left it too late). That said, even if that claim of the captain's was true he still furked in several other ways, which led him to be flying 30ft off a runway, when he had intended to be at 100ft (and he would never have hit those trees then..).

      Ie, it was definitely compound pilot error (as is often the case), and possibly a (what should have been) problem with an engine. "Computer overrides pilot and flies into trees!" is catchier though, but simply not true - no matter how many times people repeat it.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    5. Re:Autopilot by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, don't forget that the cockpit oxygen masks drop down before the main cabin

      Cockpit masks don't "drop down" - They're a far more robust (and bulky) construction than the el-cheapo plastic cup+bag things the passenger cabin has, and anyway the space above the pilots tends to be occupied by switch gear and breakers. They're stowed within easy reach of each pilot (to the side, under the seat).

      - the cockpit pressure sensor is pegged at a higher level, so that if there is a slow leak, the pilots can don their masks early and do a more controlled descent.

      Lower level surely you mean (be it in terms of altitude or barometric pressure). I'll have to ask to find out if this is true, it doesn't ring true at all with me though.

      modern aircraft are fitted with ground avoidance radar (what causes the 'whoop-whoop, pull up!' scenario).

      The radio altimeter you mean? The one which provides highly accurate relative readings, but only when you're reasonably close to the ground (ie within 1 or 2k feet)? I've never heard it called "ground avoidance radar"...

      But, as for the plane landing itself... well, we're still a fair way off with that one. Airports have to be equipeed with differential GPS beacons that allow the plane to determine its position down to about half a metre.

      Ok, now I know you're definitely not a pilot but a troll. If you were a pilot you would know that ILS and auto-land systems have existed since at least the 1960's which can guide an aeroplane to within 50ft or so of the runway and that more recent ILS (since the 80s or so? i don't quite know, maybe before then) can bring the aeroplane to 0ft. You'd also know that ILS uses two polarised planes of radio waves - GPS doesn't come into it at all.

      You, sir, are a troll. Mods: please undo parent's "interesting" moderation.

      (FWIW, my father *really* is a retired commercial aviation pilot).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  4. Offer by mysqlrocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TTTech has offered to drop its legal action against Mangan, court records show, and pay him three months of severance, if he retracts his statements.

    This doesn't sound like much after all he's been through.

    --
    Bradley Holt
  5. Pure propaganda, or whatever... by antek9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's just hope at least slashdot does keep its hands out of the propaganda war already started between Boeing (US) and Airbus Industries (EU). It's a dirty economical struggle, its about jobs and profits in the US, or jobs and profits in Europe. And because of that, plus the military aspects of aircraft research and development, both companies are, and will always be heavily funded by the respective governments.
    Keep that in mind before making mindless posts about A. vs. B. . Thanks for your time.

    --
    A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
    1. Re:Pure propaganda, or whatever... by niXcamiC · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA! It says that both Airbus AND Boeing are going to be useing this new chip. It seems like people go out of their way to trash stories, when they have no idea what there talking about.

      --
      Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
    2. Re:Pure propaganda, or whatever... by Thu25245 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since the beginning of Airbus vs. Boeing (Indeed, since Boeing vs. Lockheed vs. Douglas) there has been one rule:

      Don't impugn the safety of the competitor's aircraft.

      By and large, these huge, competitive companies have all followed that rule. They bribed, called in political favors, exaggerated, waged huge PR campaigns against their competitors...but nobody at Airbus claims that a 737 is unsafe, and nobody at Boeing claims that an A320 is unsafe. Because everybody knows that passengers don't know squat about aircraft, and that the flying public only flies because it has faith that all flying machines are equally, perfectly, safe.

      There have been a few minor skirmishes over the years, several having to do with the number of engines needed to safely carry a plane over an ocean. But all of the players (which is, both of them now) have largely refrained from saying "The other guy's planes will fall out of the sky!"

      If this is a Boeing PR move, it's a dangerous and stupid one.

  6. He violated the judges orders too by br00tus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The story begins with a portrait that tries to paint this fellow sympathetically, and I normally would look on him sympathetically. He goes to the government and complains about problems he perceives, and he gets fired. The events transpire, and eventually a judge tells him to be quiet. By now this is out in the public - he is an American with a family in a foreign city and if he had a need to do something he did it. But then he violates the judges order and begins posting about this on a blog? It makes me think there's something more to the story, or as aviation consultant Weber says "There is something really unusual about this case in the sense that there is this hard standoff between Airbus and the individual, it doesn't make any sense to me." It doesn't make sense - him violating a judges order doesn't make sense, them filing criminal charges doesn't make sense. There seems to be something more at work here. I'll read more about this, but both parties are acting unusual to the point where I am really on neither side, whereas normally I suppose I would be on his side.

  7. Oddities in the article. by Chmarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article claims that a failure in the chip could open valves that would cause rapid decompression.

    There is NO WAY a valve could open up far enough to cause that kind of decompression. It would take several minutes to equalise with the outside air.

    The article also claims that such depressurization would cause uncomciousness 'within seconds'.

    Well, at 45,000 feet, you have 15 seconds of useful conciousness. Most craft cruise at around 38,000', where you'd have a full minute of useful conciousness... PLENTLY of time, in both cases, for you to put on supplemental oxygen masks.

    There may well be problems with that chip, but the article really hypes up the fear factor. Typical of today's journalism: just repeat what others say, dont even bother making your own analysis, and you can't be sued.

    1. Re:Oddities in the article. by Yoohoo+Ladies! · · Score: 4, Informative

      A slow decompression is even more dangerous than an explosive one because hypoxia can sneak up on anyone without them realising it. It takes a very special person to recognise the symptoms of hypoxia when they're not looking for them specifically.

    2. Re:Oddities in the article. by Chmarr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree. However, there are other systems in the aircraft that detect the low pressure, and THESE cause additional alerts, plus the oxygen systems to activate.

      In addition, a slow 'leak' gives the pilots great time for an emergency descent. Give me a slow leak over a fast one anyday.

  8. Very strange reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really strange reporting. For starters, they don't even get basic facts right, e.g. they report Airbus was "owned by Dutch and British companies", when in fact it is owned by EADS (80% share, French/German) + BAE (20%, British). They also keep calling it a problem between Airbus and Mangan, when the actual events (as per their own article) seem to only involve Mangan and his former employer, TTTech. Airbus doesn't seem to have any involvment in this.

  9. Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read the article again. This chip didn't "get through." According to the whistle blower, the company forged his signature on documents approving the chip. If true that means they knew about the problem and tried to cover it up.

  10. Speaking as a Civilian FAA Representative by StressGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FAA and European agencies are pretty close to each other on regulations...a good thing since we fly big commercial aircraft in each others airspace all the time. The rest of the Airbus fleet is type-certificated in the US, I can only assume they wish the same for the A380.

    In this country, you're not going to put an "off the shelf" anything in a commercial aircraft unless it's gone through appropriate approval processes. You can't change the color of the fluid in the compass bowl without PMA approval.

    Furthermore, if they want thier TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet), they will need to, among other things:

    1) Fully ground test the operation of the depressurization valves

    2) Ground pressurization test the aircraft

    3) Test the pressurization systems in flight

    [Reference: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25, Subpart D, Paragraphs 841 and 843]

    Bypassing the approval process for a component is a serious charge. However, given that a gigantic double-decker commercial aircraft has "new and novel" written all over it, something just doesn't quite compute here.

    Smells like a propaganda war, but I'll keep my eye on it.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  11. My reactions by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My first reaction was the expected "Oh my god! This consciencious guy is getting royally screwed!" and I immediately felt for his situation and could only hope to be as honorable.

    But after reading the article and the other Slashdot opinions, I too think there's a lot that needs to be revealed before we can form an opinion about this.

    Ultimately, we should hope that all the facts are revealed in this case and quickly. If there's a problem, it should be fixed and let this thing move on. If there's not, then I hope the true motivations are revealed as well. But I don't want to see this problem disappear under secrecy and then read about some horrible terrorist attack that was actually a system malfunction in disguise.

  12. Re:ROFLMAO by afaik_ianal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It doesn't seem all that silly to me..

    > > Doesn't the plane know it has lost cabin pressure?
    > No. It's a plane.
    We could replace the word "know" with "detect", and lose the patronising response altogether.

    > > If it's on autopilot why can't it reduce altitude so the people can regain consciousness?
    > Because it's on autopilot. The captain set the autopilot's target altitude, turned it on,
    > and then keeled over. The autopilot held the altitude as long as it could.
    So change the way autopilot works, which is what the OP was getting at. Clearly, something can be improved here: The fact that a plane will happily fly until it runs out of fuel, when it could probably have detected that the chances of the pilots being concious were remote at best is a part of the plane that could be designed much better.

    > > Hell, why can't it just declare an emergency and automatically land at the
    > > nearest airport after receiving an OK signal from the airport that it's safe to land[?]

    > And if it has to crash land, it can go for a nice long trip to the plane hospital, and
    > maybe the plane doctor will give it a nice lollipop! Yeah, that sounds good.
    Why the sarcastic answer on this one? Auto-landing is used all the time - see http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48 2344 for more info.

    Now admittedly, the accident refered to in the article happened on a Leer Jet, so they are unlikely to have the same technology as a commercial liner, but I don't think the post was deserving of your somewhat harsh response.

  13. One of the tough things about engineering by SimJockey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've gone up against a client (big multi-national oil company) who disagreed with me on what was required for a refinery safety system I was designing. I wanted a pretty elaborate and redundant system to take care of what I will admit was a remote contingency. However it is my job to consider remote contingencies, it was what they hired my company for. But they really balked at what I was proposing.

    As much as engineers like black and white solutions, there is a lot of grey out there. In my case, I saw the deficiencies one way, they saw them another. The scenario couldn't be practically tested and the academic research on the topic was spotty and a lot of it was unpublished internal data. I ended up putting together reports with experts from two continents to convince this client that there was a problem they weren't seeing.

    Standing up on something like this is a lonely place to be. Like the article, I live with the thought of what I do can kill people if I am wrong. Makes me real cautious. But people who I report to are often non-experts, and occasionally they believe things irrationally (to me anyway) and it takes a lot of convincing to get them to see the my side. And hey, I am wrong sometimes too. But to stand up to a company that is paying your paycheque and say that you will not sign off on a design because you believe there is a problem, all the while they are screaming at you that we are behind schedule and over budget, makes for a truly shitty day at work. You get all sorts of pressure to let things go "good enough". Takes a lot of backbone and confidence for a technologist to stand up to economic pressures. We tend not to care as much for the dollars as we do for safety. I admire whistleblowers for this.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
  14. Re:The next concorde? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the company forged his signature on internal certifications should be enough to throw the burden of proof on the company.

    It's not a fact. It's a claim made by Mangan that no doubt will come up during trial. If this can be proven, then it's a really bad mark against the the company.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  15. Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a question of a $500 vs $50 part in a plane that costs a couple hundred million. I would be quite amazed that any company in the modern litigious world would forge a signature to get a part as critical to safety as this one passed when knowing that the part was sketchy.

    Airbus didn't forge his signature, that would be the company who makes the $50 part.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  16. Still... by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's an American (as am I, just for the record) so people might think that he's a Boeing spy. If this guy can spread even a little doubt about the safety of the A380's safety, it could end up making hundreds of millions of dollars for Boeing. There is a lot of espionage in the Aerospace industry.

    This isn't just a disagreement, someone is lying here, and with geopolitical stakes what they are, who knows...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.