Slashdot Mirror
Computer Error Caused Qantas Jet Mishap
highways sends word that preliminary investigations into a Qantas Airbus A330 mishap where 51 passengers were injured has concluded that it was due to the Air Data Inertial Reference System feeding incorrect information into the flight control system — not interference from passenger electronics, as Qantas had initially claimed. Quoting from the ABC report: "Authorities have blamed a faulty onboard computer system for last week's mid-flight incident on a Qantas flight to Perth. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said incorrect information from the faulty computer triggered a series of alarms and then prompted the Airbus A330's flight control computers to put the jet into a 197-meter nosedive ... The plane was cruising at 37,000 feet when a fault in the air data inertial reference system caused the autopilot to disconnect. But even with the autopilot off, the plane's flight control computers still command key controls in order to protect the jet from dangerous conditions, such as stalling, the ATSB said."
"About two minutes after the initial fault, (the air data inertial reference unit) generated very high, random and incorrect values for the aircraft's angle of attack," the ATSB said in a statement.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most modern aircraft have an inertial navigation system and a seperate angle of attack transmitter protruding from the plane? Why no redundancy?
The incident was the fourth involving Qantas planes in two-and-a-half months[read TFA for the other 3 incidents]...
The plane's French-based manufacturer has issued an advisory on the problem and will also issue special operational engineering bulletins to airlines that fly A330s and A340s fitted with the same air data computer, the ATSB said.
Does Qantas' aircraft maintenance suck or does Airbus' quality control suck? Do both suck?
;)
Finally, shame on the PR guys for blaming passenger electronics. Maybe it's a feature, not a bug...in case any government decides that they want to make another 9/11
...until you get all the bugs worked out of those systems. And unfortunately, lessons of these kinds are often paid in tragedy. These passengers should consider themselves lucky that the pilots reacted so quickly.
Not trying to be too flippant, as I can scarcely imagine the complexity of trying to create what essentially needs to be an infallible system in such a complex problem space. As a programmer, thinking about putting my life in the hands of a computer program scares the living hell out of me. The whole issue is that computers, by and large, lack "common sense", and are prone to accept garbage input without question.
Apparently, this was caused by "a malfunctioning computer". Isn't there sort of redundancy check on anything that could cause the computer to send the plane plummeting toward the earth? One faulty computer can cause this? I'm sure the article is over-simplifying the problem, but still...
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Cheapest way to experience zero G? Go along to your nearest glider/sailplane club and have a trial lesson. If you ask nicely, some of instructors will give you an aerobatic flight (loops, wing-overs, stalls, but not spins).
If the cable breaks during a winch launch, at a couple of hundred feet, you go zero g in order to recover. The motto is that if the mud (on the floor) floats around your face then you got it about right, whereas if it plasters itself on the canopy then you were too enthusiastic.
Before you go solo (which you can do at age 16/15/14 depending on where you live) you have to be able to repeatedly demonstrate that you can recover from cable breaks and also from a spin started at 1000ft in which you are descending at 100ft/s.
Not an experience you will forget.
So what if they do make such claims?
If all it takes is a kid with a gameboy to bring down the Airbus then their entire fleet should be grounded.
The aircraft systems design would be completely unsafe as there are far more powerful transmitters in any urban area.
No, in truth, Airbus planes would be raining from the skys if it were indeed susceptible to such interference. It would have never been certified.
But more important, why did the controls not respond to the pilots? Why would the computers be programmed to prevent a Stall in an *diving* aircraft?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If the pilots lost consciousness they would lose control of the aircraft and may slump on to the controls and put the plane into an unsafe course.
The computers put the plane INTO a dive to prevent a stall they *thought* was taking place.
In this case the pilots attempted to abort the 'safety' maneuver but the computer decided that the pilots through incompetence or perhaps incapacitation did not actually intend to kill all aboard and took the action it thought was necessary.
put the jet into a 197-meter nosedive.
the assholes who refuse to keep their seatbelt fastened while seated quickly
Actually I think a lot of the people who got hurt in this case were either in or waiting for the toilet. One could ask why the toilet doesn't have seat belts and why you have to stand to queue for the loo.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Most active cell phones won't cause problems. Hell, I've accidentally left my cell phone on while flying IFR and I didn't notice a thing. The track on flightaware didn't show any problems either.
The problem is that we don't know for certain that the cell phone is working properly. This is why we have regulations such as 14CFR91.21 and policies that below 10,000 AGL, you may not operate any instruments.
A quick look at NASA's ASRS database shows 9 entries concerning potential interference from portable electronic devices. So this isn't just an academic concern. Several of these entries indicated that the reporters had seen these sorts of issues before, but that it hadn't been reported.
When the flight crew tells you to shut off your toys before landing, gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any here) SHUT IT OFF! The risk of a screw-up is not yours to take. You can scream and holler at the flight crew about the injustice of denying you ten more minutes on your crack-berry once you're safely in the terminal building. Until then, their word has the full force of Admiralty Law. Shut it off or they'll do it for you.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6_d6yck "Blimey!"
Auto-pilot can make mistakes. But humans make mistakes much more frequently. We are all safer if we turn the piloting of heavy machines over to computers. That California train wreck never would have happened if we had taken the emotional, error-prone sack of meat out of the control system.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Interesting side note. The equipment companies developed aluminum grade crossing gates, but the railroads preferred the wood or fiberglass ones for legal reasons. After a crash, you can find the fragments in the front of the car to prove it ran through the barrier before being hit by the train.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.