Gesamt
← Back to Squawk list
Airbus confirms software configuration error caused plane crash
An executive of Airbus Group has confirmed that the crash of an Airbus A400M military transport was caused by a faulty software configuration. Marwan Lahoud, chief marketing and strategy officer for Airbus, told the German newspaper Handelsblatt on Friday that there was a "quality issue in the final assembly" of the components of the aircraft engine. (arstechnica.com) Mehr...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
In the case of ECUs controlling the engines, I feel like they need to have an emergency-power setting that directly bypasses all the software and goes right to the burners. The B-17 and others had an emergency position on the throttles that was wired shut. If you needed power, and you needed it now, you could shove the throttle up hard and break the wires. You would get the power but at the expense of the life of the engine. I'll bet the poor pilots on the A400 wish they had had such an emergency override.
You're going back to a whole set of different controls. There are no cables to use to by-pass the computer or engine ECU. It's there in the software as long as someone doesn't take it out with another command. It sounds like that's what happened in this case. The pilot called for power and the programer over wrote the command. Didn't we just go through this with a Boeing problem if you left he batteries on too long, like 6 months. A clock somewhere in the system wouldn't reset and everything would shut down. You can only hope the clock doesn't stop at fl 40.0 somewhere over the mid Atlantic. Now, darn it Wilbur, I told you...
I think you missed my analogy. As an engineer that has worked on control systems, it would be easy to create a command protocol that completely bypasses or overrides any ECU commands and in fact, it would be surprising if one didn't already exist. Yet, to be completely fail-safe, it needs to have a mechanical interface (button, handle etc) that when activated, completely and utterly overrides the ECU and commands full power without regards for any other input or control. The B-17 analogy was just that. Full manual throttles in airliners have been gone for years.
Yeah, even old cars with gen1 ECMs had a WOT switch that would do all sorts of fun things. Wouldn't *bypass* the ECM, but tell it to just dump more gas down the pipe for "military thrust" acceleration. :D
And speaking of cars, there's the MISRA coding standard. Wonder if there's any equivalent for planes (or if it's used similarly for any vehicular control).
And speaking of cars, there's the MISRA coding standard. Wonder if there's any equivalent for planes (or if it's used similarly for any vehicular control).
A "software error." Wow. How do they explain that to the widows? How do you Aviate when the airplane won't allow it? Boeing products might be a bit more uncomfortable to fly on a day-to-day basis, but when the sh*& hits the fan, I want full control of the airplane and I want it now. I can't believe Airbus is selling a warplane without triple systems redundancy as well as manual over-ride. I hope they learn from this costly lesson.
"...the finding means that Airbus will be able to avoid a complete redesign of the A400M's..."
Obviously there has been NO lesson learned. Why do you stop at "war plane"? Don't pax deserve the same safety margins as troops, equipment and ordinance? I repeat my site of AF447 when a computer glitch so confused the flight crew that everyone on board went to the "happy hunting ground" after suspected 4 minute flat spin. I said it to Orville and I said it to Wilber, 'don't make this thing too complicated, someone else is going to have to drive it'.
Obviously there has been NO lesson learned. Why do you stop at "war plane"? Don't pax deserve the same safety margins as troops, equipment and ordinance? I repeat my site of AF447 when a computer glitch so confused the flight crew that everyone on board went to the "happy hunting ground" after suspected 4 minute flat spin. I said it to Orville and I said it to Wilber, 'don't make this thing too complicated, someone else is going to have to drive it'.
Mark, I do believe that passengers deserve all the best. My point is that a warplane has the probability of also sustaining damage or might find itself in a situation where you need "war emergency" power and you need it now or nothing else is going to matter anyway.
And my point is that power and performance may be needed at any moment in any flight of any aircraft, not just a "war bird". I'm not trying to be pissy, I just don't believe that designed performance capability is unique to military aiircraft.
Im just glad this engine is only on the A400M...and I agree with you 100%..you would think they learned with AF447 but I guess not...personally...fly an aicraft using a stick and rudder, not some Gameboy joystick!
As I understand the article, the problem wasn't with the engine(s) but rather the software of the ECU. I don't know the protocols of the aircraft manufacturer, in this case Airbus,. for reviewing the software controlling what we refer to as fly by wire, only one of many routines for the control unit.
Each engine has its own ECU and I believe what happened is the engines to main ECU configuration software experienced a glitch..computers are not infallible and putting wayy too much trust in them to fly an aircraft is plain wrong...your little analogue earlier said it all " I said it to Orville and I said it to Wilber, 'don't make this thing too complicated, someone else is going to have to drive it'."
Every once in a while I get both clever and right. Thanks
Your post makes sense since the engines are an off the shelf item. I have to think that the guys at Boeing have the same difficult interface problems where engines are concerned
Your post makes sense since the engines are an off the shelf item. I have to think that the guys at Boeing have the same difficult interface problems where engines are concerned
The thing is, the engines are custom made only for the A400M so this "software glitch" should not have happened...and u r welcome
A limited production run, to be sure. If they can't keep them in the air, production will be further limited.