Slashdot Mirror
Software Glitch Caused Crash of Airbus A400M Military Transport Aircraft
An anonymous reader writes: A software glitch caused the crash of an Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, claims German newspaper Der Spiegel (Google translation). The accident, which happened in Seville on the vehicle's first production test flight on 9 May, killed four crew members. Airbus is investigating the system controlling the aircraft's engines. The early suspicions are that it was an installation problem, rather than a design problem.
"I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback."
"You call this a glitch?! We're scheduled to begin construction in 6 months. Your temporary setback could cost us 50 million dollars in interest payments alone!"
If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times. Llamas can't fly!
Epic BSOD
The accident, which happened in Seville on the vehicle's first production test flight on 9 May,
They WERE testing the plane. cant know about the bugs until the real world tests
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Somewhere, an OWS protest is missing their idiot.
ONE_IN_FAILURE_RATE = 50000000; //Ted: reduce by 10 every time management claims they need to increase reliabilty
//TODO: Ted, MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE THIS BEFORE SOMEONE ACTUALLY FLIES.
if(left_engine_running && (rand()%FAILURE_RATE == 0))
When my roommate had Comcast for cable and Internet, we always knew we would have trouble whenever a Comcast truck drove through the neighborhood. One day a technician installed something into the box out front. That killed our Internet service. Took a month to convince Comcast that the problem was outside in the box and not inside between the chair and keyboard. When they finally sent a technician out, he discovered that the last technician installed the bypass filter backwards.
Devops is all the rage these days but I think I'd rethink that if it means going up on a live jet test.
There's nothing but wild speculation what happened in that crash, but most of it focuses on the severe weather the plane was passing through. And this is the second time in two days you posted the same comment anonymously; what's your point?
The wording is somewhat ambiguous. It was the first flight *of that specific aircraft*, not the first flight of an aircraft of that kind.
People died nevertheless.
... mission critical software quality is more about good old staff discipline than about traditional software skills.
And in this very specific instance, I'm very curious.
Aircraft manufacturers tend to overlook mission software skills, that are becoming more significant than their core business. Guess what happens next...
"Production test flight" means they have a design (that would already have been extensively tested) and that they are testing that specific plane to make sure it was made in a way that corresponds to that design.
You can't go wrong with Boeing, a far superior product.
Oh yeah the Osprey sure was 100% trouble free.
When it comes to the lowest common denominator, Boeing and Airbus shit all over their customers. Hey it's the price of globalisation no ?
Just reformat and reinstall.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Yes, without other evidence, it would just be pure dumb luck. If you have a problem with that, go back to religious school. Nobody said that rational thinking was supposed to be easy, or that it wouldn't conflict with your intuition or preferences.
He hacks planes right?
Isn't an "installation problem" by definition a design problem?
Aren't we passed the days of process not being part of design?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I used to work for a company that developed equipment and software that was sold to Airbus. I am hoping this was not one of ours. We were always cognizant of the consequences of any software failure in the air. The testing was extensive. We need to see what the final report says. If it was installation problem, that is more like a mechanic using the wrong bolt, than a bolt being faulty.
We're gonna need a bigger QA department...
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey crashed 4 times during testing killing 30 crew members. The previous Airbus crash in testing was in 1994, if you want to go that far back there was a fatal Antonov An-70 crash in 2001, also due to engine problems. New aircraft sometimes crash as the bugs are worked out, the 787 was just lucky that none of the incidents were fatal.
All modern planes except light GA aircraft have engines have fully computer-controlled engines, it's called FADEC and it's what makes them efficient, reliable and much safer (in general). Sometimes these have bugs, particularly on new engine designs.
It was a pre-delivery flight. That's BAD. Big bugs such as this one that causes the motherfucking engines to motherfucking quit should have been spotted earlier.
Don't mind me... i'm just a cranky old guy against the cramming of more motherfucking computers on these motherfucking planes.
I'd love to have someone point me out an event in which these systems actually saved the day, cause i can't think of one.
Some thing appear to have been lost in translation.
According to most other English language sources, apparently this A400 had a new software release that enabled it to control the fuel tank trim during some new types of maneuvers. It appears that some bug in this software triggered a situation where fuel was actually cut-off from the engines or perhaps the engines shut-off leading to a temporary engine stall (which proved to be unrecoverable). It's not clear exactly what happened yet, but I think they are close to ruling out a defect in the installed ECU (electronic control unit) itself, but not the software running on it.
Scott Adams' Falacy #24: IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it’s not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can’t tell if they cause hives.
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey crashed 4 times during testing killing 30 crew members.
You got me; I'd totally forgotten about the V-22 Albatross ;-)
All modern planes except light GA aircraft have engines have fully computer-controlled engines, it's called FADEC...
Of course they are. I wasn't taking a cheap shot a software-controlled planes in general, I was taking a cheap shot at French software engineering--sorry I wasn't more clear about that...
Last year the VSS Enterprise crashed during a test flight, killing the co-pilot Michael Alsbury.
how a "problem with installation, or other defect" can manage to "spread to other aircraft"? Seems like pretty odd wording for a problem that seems not to have been caused by a virus or worm...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
"Airbus Defence and Space has today (Tuesday 19 May) sent an Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) to all operators of the A400M informing them about specific checks to be performed on the fleet.
To avoid potential risks in any future flights, Airbus Defence and Space has informed the operators about necessary actions to take. In addition, these results have immediately been shared with the official investigation team."
What exactly was the contents of the (AOT). What specific checks were required. Is this related to the 248 day rollover bug in the Boeing 787 generator control units (GCUs)?
Statement regarding Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) to A400M operators
Those V-22s are doing well helping out in Nepal after the earthquake. The seem to have the bugs worked out.
It was a pre-delivery flight. That's BAD. Big bugs such as this one that causes the motherfucking engines to motherfucking quit should have been spotted earlier.
Don't mind me... i'm just a cranky old guy against the cramming of more motherfucking computers on these motherfucking planes.
In a previous life, where you black? And where you forced to fly on a plane with snakes on it? Just curious.... ;)
Since it was the first flight, the EULA popped up, and the crew made the mistake of hitting "decline" instead of "accept"?
The early suspicions are that it was an installation problem, rather than a design problem.
If installation is a problem then it is designed wrong.
Those V-22s are doing well helping out in Nepal after the earthquake. The seem to have the bugs worked out.
They also used them in the recent Delta Force raid in Syria that. They seem to have performed very well.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When installing the software, they just ran the install as a regular user, rather than "Run As Administrator".
Ironically, no FADEC software is French. However, I presume you masturbate to Boeing planes without until now knowing that they're designed exclusively on French software (CATIA by Dassault Systems).
Exactly who is responsible for this kind of software bug?
The coder who wrote the code?
The functional spec writer?
The QA tester who didn't catch it?
The test scenario scripter?
The manager who oversaw the development process?
The QA manager?
The stakeholder who OK'd the move to production?
The project manager who co-ordinated the project?
The CTO of the company who funded the effort?
Or should they all be criminally liable, thus diluting the responsibility of any one person so that no one person is actually liable?
I sense a stone-thrower in a glass house here...
Sent from my ENIAC
This will be easily resolved -- they just need to train folks in the assembly process to uncheck the box next to "Install SafeSecuritySuite" during the install.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I'm sure the code type checked perfectly!
(/me runs for shelter)
Boeing planes crash before they have been built *scnr*
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
> A software glitch caused the crash of an Airbus A400M military transport aircraft
No. A software glitch caused engine fuel supply problems in an Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, which then crashed because of the crew's folly. That is, they tried to turn back and reach the airport for an emergency landing. That is completely anathema, the first thing taught as a taboo to aspiring pilots! Turning back without sufficient and reliable thrust can only result in loss of speed and the plane will slide sideways, all the way down into the soil, ending up as a fireball. Ever so many pilots die because of this, blinded by an impossible desire: to land an expensive airplane in distress without any damage.
(Actually the A400M caught a high voltage power pylon as it was turning back, that's another big risk, the obstacles already behind your back may not have been memorized and then you turn back, running into them...)
The proper solution is to continue in as straight a line as possible, soar as far as you can on the minimal or no engine power available and land belly up in a field. In 90% of cases the airframe can be repaired and the risk of disaster is averted. Remember, that every lost airplane can be replaced at some cost, but the victims remain dead and won't be resurrected for who knows how long. (Lord Jesus said only his Father knows when the Last Day will take place.)
Yes, that was a cheap shot. I deal with French engineers on a daily basis and I am not under the impression that they should perform worse than their American equivalents.
In fact, our subcon has a French FAE working very hard to fix all the regressions and firmware bugs produced by H1B workers in Silicon Valley.
According to an article in Spiegel Online three of the engines shut down during takeoff.
There were also claims that much of the software was written by underpaid inexperienced developers and there was high turn over due to a high pressure environment.
Why is Snark Required?
You couldn't have picked a worse example. The V-22 Osprey isn't a jet aircraft. The V-22 is also the first type of aircraft of it's kind, you're comparing apples to orangutans.
Parent and grandparent - tell that to the Marines. An Osprey had a "hard landing" (hah!) in Hawaii May 18. One Marine was killed and 21 hospitalized. There was a pall of black smoke rising from the "hard landing".
What makes you think the probability of this specific problem happening is dependent on the size of the plane?
They are both turbo-props.
...or something like that.
(name withheld by request)
Parent and grandparent - tell that to the Marines. An Osprey had a "hard landing" (hah!) in Hawaii May 18. One Marine was killed and 21 hospitalized. There was a pall of black smoke rising from the "hard landing".
Should also tell that to the service members who are killed or injured in (by comparison) quite frequent helicopter mis-haps? We're talking about crashes and hard landings in aircraft that have long, long histories of service. Shit happens when you're trying to land a big heavy machine with spinning rotors - happens with fixed-wing aircraft, too.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I understand you're angry, but does it make sense to expend energy on being angry or on learning? If you learned more on this subject you would not only not be angry, but have improved your knowledge. These systems save the day every single day, as without them our modern planes simply couldn't fly, and they stop pilots from making human mistakes frequently. Newspapers and websites won't get any readers if they have a news story for every single flight which didn't end unexpectedly in a mountain, in the sea, or in a fireball. It's a common mistake to think that because you don't hear of something happening that it is not happening, and if one thinks it does, they're only going to wander further and further from reality.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Hyper-complex software, sensor arrays, and mechanical systems will fail. They will always fail; humans cannot anticipate all errors, all possible combinations of factors that can cause death and destruction. Humans can't build autonomous complex systems (no, really, they can't. We've barely started making such things) that can't fail. In this case, can't say that a human pilot or a mechanical backup would have made a dfference, but as the world goes forward, gleefully firing truck drivers and converting cars into remote-controllable computer complexes, such things will be so commonplace as not to be worth reporting. Which will feed back our certainty that all is well. It isn't.
An anecdote can be defined as "evidence we don't want to hear about."
Airbus created the first commercial craft that were completely computer controlled. QED: they go boom often, and we hear about them often. It's not the brand, it's the belief that computers are the best and only solution in every system case, voting machines to cars to pacemakers to trucks to planes. Those systems will fail spectacularly because the paradigm is to treat them like PCs, updated frequently to fix endless streams of errors, when they should have been working correctly in the first and only place. Computers are "infinite" machines - they can be operated in an infinite number of ways, and that is really bad news when you are trying to control a simple and finite process. We are over-complexifying systems because we can. Every nail gets the same hammer. Bad engineering and it will fail.The question is whether the computer-addicted generation will be able to understand what the problem is.
The Osprey is a step child. Airbus was never any good, and it shows, a hodgepodge of junk built by people who hate each other. You know those damn people don't even give the pilots something as fundamental as an 'angle of attack' indicator? What the fuck? They may as well have painted over the windows and taken out the compass, too. Those things fly on pure luck! And besides, the Boeing is much more comfortable and quiet. I always feel safe on a Boeing. I liked Lockheed (L-1011) even better, a wonderful machine, as sensibly built as any airplane that big could be, but... it wasn't meant to be.
Europe gave us the Spitfire and the Harrier, that's about it... the Spitfire, Harrier, and the Concorde, nothing more... yes, the Spitfire, Harrier, Concorde, and Piaggio...
Other malfunctions have happened in other plane systems, one resulting in the plane shaking the passengers around like dice. All three computers received the same input and made the same mistake. The question is: can we understand that we've overcomplexified systems to the point that they are too unstable to use? We made the same mistake with cars and roadways in the past century once; we kept doubling down on the system's complexity as the carnage mounted, and to this day, we think the answer is better cars rather than toss the original solution out and make something simpler. We're addicted to complexity. MAkes more money, for one thing.
Dead is dead.
... Sounds like it is the design equivalence of the 'pilot error' excuse. Not that pilots or mechanics don't make mistakes. I think they are less than we seen blame placed on the laps (in the case of pilots, normally deceased pilots)
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Citation required.
From the top of my head I can recall a crashed F22, a crashed Saab Gripen and lots of crashed V22s. The last one alone killed something like 30 people at minimum during development.
Yeah FREEDOM FRIES !
George, the prosecutor still waits for you in Nuremberg !
Also, how are these power generator ecus on the 787 doing ? I hear they need a reboot after 200 days or so.
Just because some spainiards cannot properly flash ecu software does not mean the ecu software is wrong. It means they are fucktards.
Also "configuration mess-ups" happen quite often in aerospace, because aircraft are probably the most complex machines man has ever designed.
"I am not under the impression that they should perform worse than their American equivalents"
"a French FAE working very hard to fix all the regressions and firmware bugs produced by H1B workers in Silicon Valley"
"American equivalents" you say?
Was für eine Scheisse, Ami !
Apparently Boeing now emulates Microsoft in hiring shitlobbers.
We've regularly ignored the KISS principle for decades now...
Scott Adams' Falacy #24: IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it’s not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can’t tell if they cause hives.
Wrong, the only population you are concerned with is you, and every test of that population shows 100% response to the stimulus.
Stop eating strawberries.
With this very unfortunate A400M disaster, when will people finally accept the fact that although technology can be very impressive, the rush to accept technology as the end all/be all for everything in one's life is very dangerous and very foolish. Time to jump off the band wagon.
Example is Scott Adams' example of the faulty reasoning, I should have added quotes.
They are both heavier-than-air flying machines. Well done, Captain.
As the other AC pointed out, the V-22 and the A400M engines work on the same principle - a turbine engine (basically a jet) drives a shaft which turns a rotor (V-22) or a propeller (A400M). In other words it's as much of a jet as the A400M.
The V-22 also not the first of it's kind, although it is the first to have been built in large numbers. It's direct ancestors were the Bell XV-3 and XV-15 (two of each built), and it has a civilian cousin, the Bell/Agusta/AgustaWestland BA609. There have been a number of other tiltrotor and tiltwing designs built and flown successfully, by Bell and other companies. The A400M is a known concept as far as the aircraft itself goes, but the engines (TP-400) are a completely new design built especially for it, partly because there was (until the TP-400) no western turboprop that powerful.
Oh! So sorry! Feeling left out?
The V-22s in Nepal are working well. It was the old reliable UH-1 that crashed.