Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Glitch Caused Crash of Airbus A400M Military Transport Aircraft

Posted by Soulskill on from the complexity-breeds-failures dept.

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.

120 comments

  1. Don't vote for any president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Vote for King Frosty The First, King of the Frost, Royal first-poster!

  2. Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Just too irresponsible to push software with a critical bug like that.

    1. Re:Irresponsible. by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful
      FTFS

      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
    2. Re:Irresponsible. by Alien1024 · · Score: 2

      The wording is somewhat ambiguous. It was the first flight *of that specific aircraft*, not the first flight of an aircraft of that kind.

    3. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People died nevertheless.

    4. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yes we all know the lame excuse about real world testing. It is clearly a question of practibility. Even third world designers/ programmers/ engineers eventually are forced to face the question --
      Am I about to kill somebody? The answer is hidden by Laziness, stupidity,ignorance and greed. In that order.
        Sometimes muslims are invlved, that's when people start to wake up, otherwise you're just another outrageous statistic on some cocksuckers resume.

    5. Re:Irresponsible. by sribe · · Score: -1

      They WERE testing the plane. cant know about the bugs until the real world tests

      And yet, somehow, in modern times, it's only Airbus whose planes crash during testing and kill crews. But I guess since we don't have a statistically meaningful sample size of computer-controlled jets doing that, it's just coincidence that they're both Airbus, right? Just pure dumb luck...

    6. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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.

    7. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    8. Re: Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're gonna need a bigger QA department...

    10. Re:Irresponsible. by Xolotl · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Irresponsible. by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Irresponsible. by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Irresponsible. by sribe · · Score: 1

      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...

    14. Re:Irresponsible. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Last year the VSS Enterprise crashed during a test flight, killing the co-pilot Michael Alsbury.

    15. Re:Irresponsible. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Those V-22s are doing well helping out in Nepal after the earthquake. The seem to have the bugs worked out.

    16. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.... ;)

    17. Re:Irresponsible. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      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.
    18. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

    19. Re:Irresponsible. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Boeing planes crash before they have been built *scnr*

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    20. Re:Irresponsible. by Plammox · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    22. Re:Irresponsible. by fnj · · Score: 1

      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".

    23. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are both turbo-props.

    24. Re:Irresponsible. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      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.
    25. Re:Irresponsible. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotes are not evidence.

    27. Re:Irresponsible. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      An anecdote can be defined as "evidence we don't want to hear about."

    28. Re:Irresponsible. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re:Irresponsible. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      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.

    30. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    31. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    32. Re:Irresponsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    33. Re:Irresponsible. by rezme · · Score: 1

      "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?

    34. Re:Irresponsible. by rezme · · Score: 1

      We've regularly ignored the KISS principle for decades now...

    35. Re:Irresponsible. by Lew-the-nerd · · Score: 1

      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.

    36. Re:Irresponsible. by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Example is Scott Adams' example of the faulty reasoning, I should have added quotes.

    37. Re:Irresponsible. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      They are both heavier-than-air flying machines. Well done, Captain.

    38. Re:Irresponsible. by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      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.

    39. Re:Irresponsible. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      The V-22s in Nepal are working well. It was the old reliable UH-1 that crashed.

  3. Dick, I'm very disappointed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "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!"

    1. Re:Dick, I'm very disappointed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice .... but the damn thing can't handle the stairs.

  4. What stupid Republican-style logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    They decided to kill using an installation problem rather than a design problem. I'm sure the families of their victims feel much better now just as I feel better that some white guy beat my mother to death with a hammer rather than an axe. No, it doesn't fucking matter and the journalist is a jerk for giving them a platform for which to speak this nonsense. It's pure hatespeech.

    1. Re:What stupid Republican-style logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere, an OWS protest is missing their idiot.

  5. what about MH-370 and airasia 8501? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    what about MH-370 and airasia 8501?

    Airasia has reports of them doing a hard reset of the system right before the crash.

    MH-370 has talk of hacking / remote control.

    1. Re:what about MH-370 and airasia 8501? by tomhath · · Score: 2

      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?

    2. Re:what about MH-370 and airasia 8501? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You've read his comment over two separate days and still don't get the point? TRY AGAIN TOMORROW. Idiot.

  6. NSIS strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times. Llamas can't fly!

  7. Hasefroch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Epic BSOD

  8. TODO comment by ckatko · · Score: 5, Funny

    ONE_IN_FAILURE_RATE = 50000000; //Ted: reduce by 10 every time management claims they need to increase reliabilty

    if(left_engine_running && (rand()%FAILURE_RATE == 0))

    //TODO: Ted, MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE THIS BEFORE SOMEONE ACTUALLY FLIES.

    1. Re:TODO comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. If I had mod points you'd have them.

    2. Re:TODO comment by devilspgd · · Score: 2

      They shouldn't have laid off Ted.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  9. Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      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.

      it wasn't backwards, it was Comcastic!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Let me guess you paid a toll both for the problem report call and probably another fee for the "technician" visiting.

    3. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      why didnt you just open the box and fix the filter?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Up on the pole with the high voltage lines? I don't think so. Besides, we didn't know what the problem was until the second technician told us.

    5. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      ahh, got you. by me they are all ground level

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by jmv · · Score: 2

      Similar here. One day the connection went out and I called tech support. I told them it was probably related to the technician I had just seen in the neighborhood. They couldn't even track that there was a technician around, so they couldn't help at all. Eventually (with tech support on the phone), I just opened the door and yelled "are you the one that took down my connection?" to the technician outside and he shouted back "yes". Cause identified.

      --
      Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
    7. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to mean this in a nice way - you really should stop assuming people are like you, and that their experiences and situations are like yours. It's leading you to make incredibly incorrect assumptions in every single thread I see your comments in. Seriously. Every single one. I wish the best for everyone, even you (as we seem to have different opinions on many things), so I thought I'd point that out.

    8. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A Comcast technician once knocked on my door, who noticed that I haven't signed up for their wonderful service when I got an apartment without a roommate, and offered to turn on the basic service for $250 in cash. Uh, right.

    9. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Too many points of failure. Too complex a system.

    10. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Not to worry - the high voltage lines are at the top of the pole; phone and cable lines are attached lower down.

      That is, they are where ever I've lived.

    11. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That might be the case in my Silicon Valley neighborhood. The vast majority of overhead cables are now underground. Utility poles along some major thoroughfares take longer to get rid of.

    12. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of overhead cables are now underground.

      The mind boggles.

    13. Re:Installation Issue - Try telling Comcast that! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you got a point. I think sometimes we all forget not everyone lives a similar life to us.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  10. Devops by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Devops is all the rage these days but I think I'd rethink that if it means going up on a live jet test.

  11. Buy American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You can't go wrong with Boeing, a far superior product.

    1. Re:Buy American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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 ?

    2. Re:Buy American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    3. Re:Buy American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was für eine Scheisse, Ami !

      Apparently Boeing now emulates Microsoft in hiring shitlobbers.

    4. Re:Buy American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! So sorry! Feeling left out?

  12. Let's not forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 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...

  13. No problem by nytes · · Score: 1

    Just reformat and reinstall.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  14. Where was Chris Roberts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He hacks planes right?

  15. Installation problem? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    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.
    1. Re:Installation problem? by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      Isn't an "installation problem" by definition a design problem?

      Aren't we passed the days of process not being part of design?

      Depends. Did whoever follow the process? The design/process should make it easy, but the world is always inventing better idiots.

    2. Re:Installation problem? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously.
      If your shit can be installed wrong and lives depend on it being installed correctly, it's designed wrong.

    3. Re:Installation problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking this myself. If it can be installed in such a manner that it causes the plane to crash, perhaps the design of the widget needs to be changed so that it CAN'T be installed that way.

    4. Re:Installation problem? by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      We aren't inventing better idiots. Designers continually fail by underestimating the ingenuity of idiots.

      Don't think anyone would be stupid enough to plug it in backwards and pound it in with a hammer? You've just underestimated the idiot.

      Designers and engineers are generally too logical to see all the failure paths that someone could take because they don't make the assumption that it will be installed upside down or with a hammer. It's the simple illogical design processes that prevent these extreme events, such as making the part fit in only one direction (sizing the part such that it cant physically fit or be connected) or such as USB C making it fit either direction. These design strategies appear to make the design illogical or more expensive for no logical reason so they aren't implemented by the logical engineer/designer. But these illogical processes are how you prevent the ingenuity of idiots from getting the better of you.

    5. Re:Installation problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think anyone would be stupid enough to plug it in backwards and pound it in with a hammer? You've just underestimated the idiot.

      My mother did just that with a PS2 keyboard. She was surprised when it didn't work, rather than just trying to align the pins with the holes and giving it a push.

    6. Re:Installation problem? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is someone's cue, apparently mine, to mention Murphy's Law, since this is to what it originally applied. The term was coined after Murphy incorrectly connected a wiring harness. Since the same connectors were used and in the same genders in two places on the harness, it was possible to connect it wrong, and therefore he did. The rest is history.

      If it can be installed wrong, then the installer sucks (software) or the hardware design sucks (hardware).

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Installation problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your assumptions are somewhat naive - +1 for the slashdot-populist-anger though.

      Aircraft are not plug-and-play systems, like your home computer or tablet. They consist of miles of wiring and cabling, as well as hundreds of sensors, on board electronic computers and mechanical fail-safes from many different suppliers all over the world. For these reasons (as well as technological and environmental issues) not every single computer from every single company talks on the same hardware interface, or uses the same protocol. Sometimes, signals between devices are best suited to be analog, and sometimes it's digital. Sometimes the bus is serial, and sometimes it's Ethernet-based (e.g. AFDX).

      Any modern airframer (like Airbus or Boeing) will have drawing and schematics on where a particular device is to be installed and how each pin of each device's connector (including power, inbound and output communication buses) should be wired to the rest of avionics. But, I would assume, that in this case someone made a mistake in the final assembly and someone else in quality assurance dropped the ball by not catching it.

      Designing and integrating everything into a modern aircraft is one of the most complex tasks an engineer can experience. It's super complicated - But that does not mean that is "designed wrong".

      Sometimes, people just make mistakes.

    8. Re:Installation problem? by PPH · · Score: 1

      You would think so. But the areospace industry is a major practitioner of keeping design and manufacturing processes seperate. And that has been getting worse in the last few decades.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Installation problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Depends. Did whoever follow the process?

      I've had that kind of process. "Don't make mistakes" can be the "process".

      My personal favorite is DNS configuration tools which never verify the new configurations before deploying them, they just edit and restart DNS. "it's chef managed, so it's always right!!!" It took me a *year* to get the changes published upstream that would check the configuration *before* restarting DNS.

    10. Re:Installation problem? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot. You can put fuel in any aircraft that may have small amounts of water and it would potentially cause a fatal crash. In fact it has done so. You can install breaks wrong, but just forgetting to install them at all, you can get tire pressure wrong, ..etc. You cannot make a thing that is impossible to somehow use, install incorrectly or otherwise break.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re:Installation problem? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot.

      "Your" should be "you're"

      You can install breaks wrong, but just forgetting to install them at all,

      brakes
      but should be maybe by?

      Don't call someone else an idiot, then make basic errors in grammar, it is very rude, and makes you look like more of an idiot.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:Installation problem? by delt0r · · Score: 0

      And your a gramma Nazi.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    13. Re:Installation problem? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one calling people idiots while not being able to spell basic words.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Installation problem? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Or it was an iTunes EULA and it took them an hour to click through 132 Next Page buttons...

    15. Re:Installation problem? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot. You can put fuel in any aircraft that may have small amounts of water and it would potentially cause a fatal crash. In fact it has done so. You can install breaks wrong, but just forgetting to install them at all, you can get tire pressure wrong, ..etc. You cannot make a thing that is impossible to somehow use, install incorrectly or otherwise break.

      You're an idiot. Just because you can fuck something up doesn't mean that things should be designed to allow it, allow it silently, and allow it while allowing the thing to run as if it were done correctly.

      Life-critical systems should be as resistant to user error as possible.
      Life-critical systems should prevent improper installation, warn/alert/make lots of noise when installed improperly, and avoid catastrophic failure at all costs.

      In this case, they shouldn't have been able to install shit incorrectly, the shit should have told them it was installed incorrectly, and the plane should have refused to fucking move because it should have known shit was installed incorrectly.

    16. Re:Installation problem? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It does mean it's designed wrong.
      If each critical component isn't checking and reporting its own status, and if there isn't a way for the operator to see the status of all components, and if the plane lets you fucking fly it with bad or unknown component status, then you've fucking fucked up your fucking design.

      Nothing's foolproof, but that doesn't excuse basic sanity checks for critical components. This fuck up worse than NASA/Lockheed losing the Mars orbiter in 1999 due to metric/imperial units.

    17. Re:Installation problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a little dirty secret: Configuration errors happened in the aircraft industry and the user community since aircraft were built. Thousands of people were killed by this.

      My father killed some guys as a Luftwaffe mechanic this way. But guess what ? It was war and nobody had time to check his work, even though he reported some hydraulics which he did not knew how to connect. They talked of putting him in front of a war tribunal, but that was just talk. He continued to maintain Ju88s, He111s, Ju52s and the like. Organizations take risks. Sometimes these risks REALIZE.

      Get yourself some Schnaps, Whiskey or Vodka and deal with it, boy. Maybe the ethanol someday makes you a man.

  16. C-17 by amightywind · · Score: -1

    The Boeing C-17 never had problems like this, and it is a lot larger.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:C-17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the probability of this specific problem happening is dependent on the size of the plane?

  17. a new software release, not a sw install problem by slew · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  18. Can someone tell me, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Can someone tell me, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

      Windows Update?

    2. Re:Can someone tell me, by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Until they know what the problem was, they're all at risk. If it's a maintenance mistake or bad series of parts, it could wind up applied to other aircraft and the failure only waiting to happen there, as well.

  19. Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) to all operators by nickweller · · Score: 2

    "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

  20. Installation problem? by dacut · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since it was the first flight, the EULA popped up, and the crew made the mistake of hitting "decline" instead of "accept"?

  21. Buck passing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  22. Bmofd down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    series of exploding may also want We strongly Urge HERE, PLEASE DO Apple too. No, Join GNAA (GAY SUCCESSES WITH THE

  23. Run As... by Lyttek · · Score: 1

    When installing the software, they just ran the install as a regular user, rather than "Run As Administrator".

  24. Irresponsible of who?? by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Irresponsible of who?? by louic · · Score: 1

      Who cares? People died and everything should be done to prevent a similar accident in the future. If that indeed involves a single person making a mistake, he will probably have learned from it and never make such a mistake again. Blaming someone will not make the problem go away.

    2. Re:Irresponsible of who?? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Who cares? People died and everything should be done to prevent a similar accident in the future.

      Oh, man, I'm glad you're here to tell us how policy making and risk assessment works. Let's just ground all flights of all planes forever. The least we can do is everything.

    3. Re:Irresponsible of who?? by louic · · Score: 1

      Indeed if you take my reaction and that sentence out of its context it sounds stupid. But you can also try to understand the point I am making here. The first post talks about this being an "irresponsible" push of software, and an interesting reply follows about *who* is responsible, and *criminal* liability. So my (logical, I think) reaction is simply to say "who even cares about criminal liability at this stage, let's find the problem and solve it". It is also very well possible that nobody made mistakes or can be held responsible.

  25. Just a training problem. by uncqual · · Score: 1

    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 /.
  26. Type checks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the code type checked perfectly!

    (/me runs for shelter)

  27. Wisdom, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > 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.)

  28. What they are saying over at YCombinator by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    The discussion at YCominator has some very interesting comments.

    According to an article in Spiegel Online three of the engines shut down during takeoff.

    The fatal crash of a brand new A400M military transporter was found to be caused by technical issues. According to information from SPIEGEL ONLINE, three of the aircraft's engines were shut down due to software problems, directly after takeoff.

    The cause of the crash of a brand new type A400M military transport aircraft appears to have been identified. According to information from SPIEGEL ONLINE, the engineers from Airbus Military discovered a software problem in engine control unit, that supposedly caused the simultaneous shutdown of three engines.

    The investigation produced a clear result: Shortly after the test aircraft took off, the three engines had received conflicting commands and subsequently cut all power.

    The pilots, who were testing the A400M, could not have done anything, according to Airbus sources. They still attempted to steer the 45m long plane back to the airport in Seville, but could not control it any more. The aircraft struck a power pole, slammed into a field and burnt completely.

    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?
    1. Re:What they are saying over at YCombinator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The typical subcontracted software developer ins such projects makes 2000-3500 Euro per month.

  29. It was Chris Roberts! by Dr.+Zim · · Score: 1

    ...or something like that.

    --
    (name withheld by request)
  30. Too much automation in the wrong places by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Too much automation in the wrong places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullttastic statement. If properly done modern electronics, sensors and electric actuators are much safer than ANYTHING else. That is because you can have infinitely high levels of reliability. Software does NOT age, only the hardware. If you have the "perfect algorithm" you can build hardware with arbitrary levels of reliability (mainly by means of redundancy in ecus and sensors).

      Of course the key phrase is "properly done". There are lots of frauds in this business, but in aerospace the frauds seem to be weeded out sooner or later.

      The A320 and Jäger 90 flight management software has killed nobody to date. Idiot pilots have, though. Same with Space Shuttle and many other avionics software.

      Software can do things which are very hard to impossible to perform using hydraulics, pneumatics or analog computers. Think of "anti-stall" or "ABS". Probably the ABS brake saved your life more than once.

      And the design process has nothing to do with the shitty accounting stuff your develop.

  31. Re:a new software release, not a sw install proble by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    Dead is dead.

  32. sounds like by servant · · Score: 1

    ... 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."
  33. Software Glitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.