Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

translate.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#11

Post by mhandley »

Here's Airbus's statement on the Alert they sent to operators:

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.

The AOT requires Operators to perform one-time specific checks of the Electronic Control Units (ECU) on each of the aircraft's engines before next flight and introduces additional detailed checks to be carried out in the event of any subsequent engine or ECU replacement.

This AOT results from Airbus Defence and Space's internal analysis and is issued as part of the Continued Airworthiness activities, independently from the on-going Official investigation.

They're asking for a one-time check to be performed on the ECU. If it's just a software bug, normally a one-time check wouldn't reveal whether or not that bug could trigger. So, obviously they've found something they're concerned about, but it seems to me to be a bit early to say as Spiegel Online do that software caused the crash.

In any event, one of the flight recorders was only just sent off to the manufacturer: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world...

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#12

Post by hydrogen18 »

tirant wrote: post #7

I am not surprised at all. There are a lot of contractors involved in the development of the software for the A400M, and they are basically competing for price and employing undergraduates making below €18K/year, which they replace every few months due to burnouts and bad working conditions. Projects get continuously delayed, and key people barely stay more than a couple of years.

I thought that 'lowest bidder wins' was an American phenomenon? Certainly, Boeing and others have figured out how to game the system here in the states and abroad.

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#13

Post by JshWright »

mhandley wrote: post #11

Here's Airbus's statement on the Alert they sent to operators: 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 i…

Or it seems like the problem may have been a known (or suspected) issue with an old firmware, and the check is to make sure the firmware is above a certain version (which would also explain why the check would be necessary on any replacement ECUs).

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#14

Post by VMG »

hydrogen18 wrote: post #12
tirant wrote: post #7

I am not surprised at all. There are a lot of contractors involved in the development of the software for the A400M, and they are basically competing for price and employing undergraduates making below €18K/year, which they replace every few months due to burnouts and bad working conditions. Projects get continuously delayed, and key people barely stay more than a couple of years.

I thought that 'lowest bidder wins' was an American phenomenon? Certainly, Boeing and others have figured out how to game the system here in the states and abroad.

> I thought that 'lowest bidder wins' was an American phenomenon?

Why should it be?

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#15

Post by Piskvorrr »

lucaspiller wrote: post #8
bhaak wrote: post #4

There are not many details about why exactly the three engines stopped working and it's not yet officially announced. This article has been written with "information Spiegel Online received". Two translated quotes: "The investigation yield a clear result: Shortly after the lift-off of the test machine, the computers send conflicting commands to the three engines which then powered off." "Soon after the crash, experts…

> So, not much information why the computers sent conflicting commands and also why the engines power down in such a situation. I think shutting down the engines is probably the safest option when this sort of thing happens. You could argue they should stay in the present setting, but what would happen if one engine were at 0% and another 100%? Most aircraft are pretty good at gliding even without power, and I'd assu…

Pretty good at gliding from a high flight level. If you are hitting power poles, you are way too low for gliding an usually-powered aircraft. TS236 and Gimli Glider were exceptionally lucky, IMNSHO.

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#17

Post by tremon »

madez wrote: post #10
tntcl wrote: post #3

So basically the software bug happened, because there are quality problems in the manufacturing street? wtf!?!?

The original speaks of quality problems in the manufacturing plant. This is very general and could include problems in the design phase up to the flashing of the module after assembly of the plane.

I think the OP was reacting to the use of the term "quality problem" to describe a catastrophic failure leading to loss of human life. At least, that was my response when reading that quote.

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#18

Post by alandarev »

Software contractor for Airbus and Rolls-royce here.

All safety critical software (every piece of code ran on-board is safety critical the least) in aerospace needs to pass the DO-178 standard [1].

That is far more serious than standard unit tests you are used to in node.js applications. Generally speaking, to develop a piece of code under that standard it takes 20% of time to write the code, and 80% to testing, and enormous amount of documentation (that is optimistic estimation, usually worse).

Quoting speaker from DO-178 training course I attended:

   People often ask us. "How do we know the standard works?"
   We give this answer: "We do not know. But there have been zero crashes due to software issues since introduction"
If this crash confirms the cause to be a software bug, that is something much bigger than an airplane crash - a huge punch to the whole federal aviation administration.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#19

Post by bottled_poe »

tirant wrote: post #7

I am not surprised at all. There are a lot of contractors involved in the development of the software for the A400M, and they are basically competing for price and employing undergraduates making below €18K/year, which they replace every few months due to burnouts and bad working conditions. Projects get continuously delayed, and key people barely stay more than a couple of years.

Have you been involved with the engineering of aircraft control systems, or are you just speculating?

Re: A400M Airbus Flier crashed because of software issues

#20

Post by driverdan »

tirant wrote: post #7

I am not surprised at all. There are a lot of contractors involved in the development of the software for the A400M, and they are basically competing for price and employing undergraduates making below €18K/year, which they replace every few months due to burnouts and bad working conditions. Projects get continuously delayed, and key people barely stay more than a couple of years.

Source?
Post reply on HN