Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the data-dump dept.

A military plane crash in Spain was probably caused by computer files being accidentally wiped from three of its engines, according to investigators. Plane-maker Airbus discovered anomalies in the A400M's data logs after the crash, suggesting a software fault. And it has now emerged that Spanish investigators suspect files needed to interpret its engine readings had been deleted by mistake.

This would have caused the affected propellers to spin too slowly. The aeroplane crashed near Seville, during a test flight on 9 May, killing four crew members on board. Several countries that had already accepted deliveries of the plane - including the UK - grounded them following the accident. However, Airbus has announced it plans to fly one of its own A400M aircraft at the Paris Air Show next week.

The latest revelations about the investigation were first reported by the Reuters news agency.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33078767

[Also Covered By]: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-airbus-transport-crash-caused-by-wipe-of-critical-engine-control-data/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 12 2015, @02:19PM

    by sjames (2882) on Friday June 12 2015, @02:19PM (#195402) Journal

    I already knew the whats, what I want are the whys. WHY didn't the engines have limp home ability (nobody cares how efficient they were during the crash). Why did they think it was OK to lock into idle in spite of the pilot's urgent commands to throttle up? It throttled well enough to get the plane in the air (and into danger) after all. Why no "good enough" table that can't be erased?

    Instead, they chose to rely on humans not making an error that only becomes visible when it's too late.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 12 2015, @03:20PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 12 2015, @03:20PM (#195423) Journal

    You pose many good questions, as I acknowledged in my previous post. However, at some point it becomes ineffective to try to use technology to detect something that should never happen. All that is being achieved is adding additional weight to the aircraft. But I expect that someone is doing some serious rethinking about this particular incident.

    Instead, they chose to rely on humans not making an error that only becomes visible when it's too late.

    Unfortunately, that is the situation on every aircraft flying today. The majority of aircraft crash because of human error - which is always spotted 'too late'. Even when there was a technical failure, there is often a human who did not understand the signs and indications that he is seeing, and who might have been able to take a more appropriate action if he had.

    • (Score: 2) by TK on Friday June 12 2015, @03:47PM

      by TK (2760) on Friday June 12 2015, @03:47PM (#195428)

      I don't see any weight added by running a little extra code during boot

      IF (param_torque != 0)

      --
      The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:31AM

      by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:31AM (#195593) Journal

      Actually, MOST errors a human can make in aircraft maintenance does become evident prior to causing a fatal crash, even if they may cause a really scary moment or result in an unscheduled landing. Or at least the physical activity involved adds a sense of gravitas to it for the workers. That's always a problem in the digital realm, too often the trivial and unimportant feels no different than something truly world changing as far as the UI goes. That makes it very important to minimize the opportunities for human error to cause disaster. It is, after all a bit hard to see a software fault on a visual inspection.

      The few lines of extra code may technically carry mass, but you won't find a balance sensitive enough to measure it, especially at the scale of an aircraft's mass.

      As a point of contrast, if you hose the ECU in your car, it will either not start in the first place or it will go into limp home mode (with the check engine light indicating the problem). It will NOT let you drive to the middle of nowhere and then refuse to run.