Airbus technology defects
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Didn't Airbus employ 5 different companies to write the FBW software for the A320 family? I believe on the B777 all the flight control software is written by the same company. I know which I think is the more sensible approach.
A4
A4
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
egsc_h17 says
This comment betrays a lack of understanding of safety critical software systems design. I wouldn't expect you to have an understanding of same unless, like myself, you had spent several years studying the topic. If you have not done so then perhaps you could avoid making ill informed sweeping statements about my profession.
This comment betrays a lack of understanding of safety critical software systems design. I wouldn't expect you to have an understanding of same unless, like myself, you had spent several years studying the topic. If you have not done so then perhaps you could avoid making ill informed sweeping statements about my profession.
FWIW, I have been doing design, development, and analysis of fault-tolerant, fail-soft, and never-fail electronics, software, computing architectures and real-time systems since the days when transistors were large enough to trip over and software came in the form of wires and holes. One of my patented designs for testing, diagnosing, and analyzing complex systems has generated more than a trillion US$ of product manufactures in applications ranging from complex LSI circuits to global distributed computing networks, with the total growing by more than a hundred billion $$ this year. Along the way, I have developed a very large number and wide variety of mission-critical electronic products, real-time control computing systems and applications and have planned, supervised or officially reviewed development of many hundreds more. I am also, for several decades, a pilot and aircraft owner-operator, and moderately familiar with the design-life-support cycle of commercial aircraft.
egsc_h17 says
I would be more concerned by many of the mechanical and electrical systems than I am about the software. Pilots tend to blame every glitch "on the computers" when in reality the vast majority of issues are caused by transducer failures or even a simple misunderstanding of how to use the system. Such problems can equally affect hydromechanical aircraft. As far as I'm aware there has never been a FBW failure in a commercial aircraft that has resulted in loss of critical control systems. The number of tech problems due to software are totally eclipsed by mechanical and electrical problems.
I would be more concerned by many of the mechanical and electrical systems than I am about the software. Pilots tend to blame every glitch "on the computers" when in reality the vast majority of issues are caused by transducer failures or even a simple misunderstanding of how to use the system. Such problems can equally affect hydromechanical aircraft. As far as I'm aware there has never been a FBW failure in a commercial aircraft that has resulted in loss of critical control systems. The number of tech problems due to software are totally eclipsed by mechanical and electrical problems.
The arrogance, shallowness, and evident miscomprehension of the problem embodied in this (foregoing) comment brilliantly underscores a systematic failure to grasp the concept of Systems design for the real world.... where mistakes have irreversible consequences and everyone involved must assume TOTAL responsibility for all possible outcomes. How reassuring... to know one's life hangs on a thread devised, designed, delivered by a shop full of clever snitty self-obsessed primadonnas.
On the surface of it, one would say you appear to be an exemplar of the exact problem to which I have referred. The problem is under-scrutinised and under-tested design experimentation by sanctimoniously self-assured technicians who feel that all problems have been solved, the world is perfect; the current technology of choice will always save the day. Probably you believe this because you have been recognized as competent in your job and your designs have always worked - or appeared to work - properly up til now.
Too much confidence, fueled by the appearances of success, is bad for the judgement and bad for the soul, however. Let us all cross fingers and hope you will never confidently send a load of customers to sleep with the fish.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if one firm was used for the 777, different computers using different programming languages and software platforms were still used.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since none of my patented designs are likely to have generated a trillion of anything (which of course proves the value of your opinions) and since I did not intend this to degenerate into a personal attack, I'll bow out now and get back to some other shallow arrogance I have to take care of before dinner.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since none of my patented designs are likely to have generated a trillion of anything (which of course proves the value of your opinions) and since I did not intend this to degenerate into a personal attack, I'll bow out now and get back to some other shallow arrogance I have to take care of before dinner.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft which suffered from aileron 'snatch' in some icing conditions was just one. Look up the political expression "plausible denial". When the reports are locked away in a 'Schublade' and nobody else is aware....dead bodies and fragmented aircraft parts in the frozen ground near Roselawn, Indiana. Any agency or government can have the motivation to cover something up, not just the French.
However, you have it seriously wrong when you mention the Roselawn ATR 72 accident in the same breath. In that case, (and while the French DGAC certainly didn't shine by its cooperation with the NTSB investigation), there were a number of factors which conspired to cause that accident;
1/ The aircraft was flown in freezing drizzle (a heavy icing condition for which it had not been certificated) at the wrong IAS, with the wrong flap setting
2/ It was flown in the hold in these conditions (when the crew should have elected to leave heavy icing asap)
3/ They apparently had not Level 3 anti-icing ON throughout
As part of the accident investigation, ATR sent one of their own aircraft (before its delivery to Alitalia Express) to Edwards AFB, where it was flown by a test crew behind a KC-135 spreading water over the ATR 72's airframe in icing conditions to reproduce those experienced by the ill-fated Roselawn aircraft. While ice did accumulate on some parts, it was mostly shed by the anti-icing when used properly, and the test aircraft did not experience any serious control difficulties or depart from controlled flight. These tests, may I add, were requested, conducted, validated and published by the FAA.
The source of the Roselawn crash was traced to a ridge of ice forming in frizzing drizzle (a known freak icing phenomenon) behind the de-icing boots, therefore disrupting the airflow over the ailerons. While not specifically requested by the FAA, ATR decided to extend the de-icing boots over a larger part of the wing chord to prevent re-occurence.
All current operators of ATRs have very strict and specific anti-icing procedures which when correctly adhered to, make the ATR no less safe in icing conditions than any other turboprop aircraft (Dash 8, Fokker 50, Saab 2000, Casa 235/295, Do-328, etc).
If it really was unsafe in icing conditions, would ATRs be routinely used by airlines in, say, Alaska, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Italy or New Zealand to name but a few?
Cheers
Last edited by FougaMagister; 21st Nov 2006 at 23:09. Reason: Edited for spelling
Greetings FougaMagister: My criticisms were for the US FAA, not any foreign government department or aircraft industry etc. A serious problem can happen with any aircraft.
I read a bit in "Aviation Week & ST" about ATR icing test flights behind the KC-135 after Roselawn. I was mistaken and certainly did not understand the ATR's procedures. My impression was that our "friends" at the FAA covered up, or kept very silent on some critical information.
Your well-informed, objective response was interesting and appreciated.
Merci beau coup. Now it is time to review systems on a "steam-gauge " jet which has a basic rudder etc and no automation.
I read a bit in "Aviation Week & ST" about ATR icing test flights behind the KC-135 after Roselawn. I was mistaken and certainly did not understand the ATR's procedures. My impression was that our "friends" at the FAA covered up, or kept very silent on some critical information.
Your well-informed, objective response was interesting and appreciated.
Merci beau coup. Now it is time to review systems on a "steam-gauge " jet which has a basic rudder etc and no automation.
Arrogance
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO - thanks. The NTSB's report on the Roselawn accident is an interesting read, which chastises the DGAC and the FAA for their lack of oversight in the certification process more than the aircraft itself. It can be found on http://www.aviation-safety.net/index.php
I didn't mean to be abrupt, I just get tired of hearing the words "ATR" and "icing" always associated in the same sentence... When I found the aircraft to be a sound design (if a bit heavy in roll, and with a user-unfriendly AFCS).
Whether or not turboprops really are more prone to airframe icing is debatable; they usually don't have the luxury of being able to fly above the icing level...
Cheers
P.S: sorry for thread creep!
I didn't mean to be abrupt, I just get tired of hearing the words "ATR" and "icing" always associated in the same sentence... When I found the aircraft to be a sound design (if a bit heavy in roll, and with a user-unfriendly AFCS).
Whether or not turboprops really are more prone to airframe icing is debatable; they usually don't have the luxury of being able to fly above the icing level...
Cheers
P.S: sorry for thread creep!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CV
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To paraphrase an old saying: "It is better to keep your fingers off your computer keyboard and let people think you are a fool, than to use them to confirm their suspicions."
In the wrong hands anything can be lethal. Just watch pink panther movies.
In the wrong hands anything can be lethal. Just watch pink panther movies.
I'm sad the egsc_h17/arcniz bunfight descended into personal abuse and then huffy withdrawal from the fray. Their obviously expert but contradictory arguments were getting to an interesting stage. In particular, egsc said
As far as I can tell, arcniz did not offer any contradictory evidence. I wonder, do you have any, arcniz? If you do, I for one would very much like to see it. If you don't, doesn't that rather weaken your argument that
airsound
not stirring, honest......
As far as I'm aware there has never been a FBW failure in a commercial aircraft that has resulted in loss of critical control systems. The number of tech problems due to software are totally eclipsed by mechanical and electrical problems.
FBW software systems are known to have saved aircraft, but are yet to be proven causal in any production hull loss. That makes our record infinitely better than almost every other aircraft system.
Just imho.
FBW software systems are known to have saved aircraft, but are yet to be proven causal in any production hull loss. That makes our record infinitely better than almost every other aircraft system.
Just imho.
The problem is under-scrutinised and under-tested design experimentation by sanctimoniously self-assured technicians who feel that all problems have been solved, the world is perfect; the current technology of choice will always save the day.
not stirring, honest......
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware there has never been a FBW failure in a commercial aircraft that has resulted in loss of critical control systems.
Small point, but there was this one:
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id...11X11781&key=1
It was an experimental system, though.....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, not too many years ago, "Aviation Week" stated that original records from TWA maintenance revealed that BEFORE the 727 flown by Hoot Gibson rolled into a dive over Michigan, there had been uncommanded LE slat problems...again, from dates before that famous incident.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you? It is referred to as 'dissimilar redundancy' so one error will not manifest itself in other programs. Also different chips.
IF you were to study the FBW control system, you would see that different chips and different software is controlling different surfaces so a lot can go wrong before you lose (or 'loose' as is often the word used on the net
) control. Not a bad idea.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small point, but there was this one:
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id...11X11781&key=1
It was an experimental system, though.....
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id...11X11781&key=1
It was an experimental system, though.....
BM
PS The aviation industry(military or commercial) is not the subject of this question.
Last edited by BlooMoo; 26th Nov 2006 at 21:48. Reason: emphasis
WileyDog3:
It is certainly possible, although a TWA pilot told me that the specific procedure was unknown to TWA 727 pilots, and it was research at Boeing Aircraft which produced that procedure. A large corporation has, compared to a pilot, unrestricted resources with which to defend its reputation and even more money at stake: all of this creates a huge incentive to produce or fabricate a possible theory. Hoot and his crew also counter-sued the NTSB (!), from what I remember.
If the NTSB was ever totally objective about all investigations, that is news to me. Of course they are "provided" data from the aircraft builder, among the many other sources. But they seem to always do a far better job than the USAF investigation of the "King 56" case: C-130 4-engine rollback, due to syncrophaser glitches. An article on some website about the unnecessary crash stated that Air Force investigators must attend a 3-day school, then they are accident experts, and their conclusions can be final.
The article in Aviation Week stated that the same exact B-727 ship (aircraft) number had suffered from uncommanded slat (a Douglas term )/leading edge flap problems before the major incident happened.
It is certainly possible, although a TWA pilot told me that the specific procedure was unknown to TWA 727 pilots, and it was research at Boeing Aircraft which produced that procedure. A large corporation has, compared to a pilot, unrestricted resources with which to defend its reputation and even more money at stake: all of this creates a huge incentive to produce or fabricate a possible theory. Hoot and his crew also counter-sued the NTSB (!), from what I remember.
If the NTSB was ever totally objective about all investigations, that is news to me. Of course they are "provided" data from the aircraft builder, among the many other sources. But they seem to always do a far better job than the USAF investigation of the "King 56" case: C-130 4-engine rollback, due to syncrophaser glitches. An article on some website about the unnecessary crash stated that Air Force investigators must attend a 3-day school, then they are accident experts, and their conclusions can be final.
The article in Aviation Week stated that the same exact B-727 ship (aircraft) number had suffered from uncommanded slat (a Douglas term
)/leading edge flap problems before the major incident happened.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 27th Nov 2006 at 03:57.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Africa
Age: 40
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Defects
All aircaft have defects in relation to the ones you are not flying..(in general)
A boeing pilot for one can see the defects in airbus, where the airbus pilot would see the same in boeing????
The decussion sould not be abouts there defects? but rather there differences in design and performances...(cockpit flows etc)
A boeing pilot for one can see the defects in airbus, where the airbus pilot would see the same in boeing????
The decussion sould not be abouts there defects? but rather there differences in design and performances...(cockpit flows etc)