Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain [Archive]

ORAC

10th May 2015, 05:06

SEVILLE, Spain — An Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, which had been ordered by Turkey, crashed Saturday near the Seville airport, killing four crew members and gravely injuring two other crew members, Airbus Defence and Space said.

"We confirm that there has been an accident with an A400M in Sevilla," Airbus Defence and Space said in a statement. "Airbus is devastated to confirm that of a total crew of six on board we have lost four of our crew members in the accident," the company said. "Two other crew members are currently in hospital in a serious condition".

All the crew members are Airbus employees and are Spanish, the company said.

"We express our deepest sympathy. They were fellow countrymen," said Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Reuters reported..........

fincastle84

10th May 2015, 05:54

On Wednesday I was driving down the A303 past Boscombe Down & saw an RAF version flying an approach. It's now subject to a precautionary grounding.

atakacs

10th May 2015, 07:24

Any idea about the nature of this flight? Test? Acceptance?

toffeez

10th May 2015, 08:09

Airbus Military is calling it a "first production flight". While that's not very clear, it was probably a first flight: handover from Production to Flight Test.
The customer did not seem to be involved.

pax britanica

10th May 2015, 09:26

I know this is a military only type but its a big beast of a plane . I know that Mil flying can have a higher risk than civilian but not that much higher in transports in peacetime.
So where are the pages and pages of theorising and speculation that a accompany any significant civil accident.
Not making light of things at all , far from it, this still cost the lives as no doubt dedicated aviation people just wondered why such a radical difference, these guys were professional pilots just the same.

212man

10th May 2015, 09:57

G-ARZG

10th May 2015, 09:58

Perhaps post 7 is, sensibly, being observed? ?

PFR

10th May 2015, 10:07

Amen to that G-ARZG

Mickj3

10th May 2015, 10:19

Courtney Mil

10th May 2015, 10:57

Mickj3,

I think 212man's post was more specific than you have inferred. His remark could apply equally to non-professional pilots. But this is neither the time nor the place to get into personal indignation. Think of the crew and family for now.

212man

10th May 2015, 11:30

Actually, I amended very quickly after posting it, and removed the reference to pilots, so not sure why you haven't seen that. Sorry for the unintended offence Posted by 212man. quote "Because, in the main, the pages on this forum are frequented by professional pilots, not a bunch of knob-heads".

I have thought hard about replying to 212mans post but feel that I must. I object to the arrogant inference that if one is not a pilot one is a knob-head. 212 has demonstrated that at least one pilot fits into that category.

Very sad event in Spain, RIP to all those involved.

Trumpet_trousers

10th May 2015, 12:33

Posted by 212man. quote "Because, in the main, the pages on this forum are frequented by professional pilots, not a bunch of knob-heads".

I have thought hard about replying to 212mans post but feel that I must. I object to the arrogant inference that if one is not a pilot one is a knob-head. 212 has demonstrated that at least one pilot fits into that category.

Very sad event in Spain, RIP to all those involved.

Thanks to all for the lack of wild theorizing and speculation. The Airbus Defence and Space website, and indeed the Airbus website, both tell you everything that is factually known thus far. Names are known to me, and I have lost 4 professional colleagues with a further 2 VSI. As a close, multinational team on the project it is a tragedy that is felt across the company. I am sure the names will be made public in due course by the company. I will not be revealing them on here, or via PMs out of respect to the families.

airsound

10th May 2015, 13:10

I must say, I admire Airbus' handling of this. I was busy with other things, and the first I heard of it was a press release from them.

In their second release, they used the phrase "devastated to confirm ..... we have lost 4 of our crew ...."

Not your usual corporate 'communication', I think.

Not only that, but each email included the names, phone numbers and emails of no less than seven people to contact if necessary.

Dignified way to behave.

airsound

Wycombe

10th May 2015, 13:32

I noticed a Bmi Regional Embraer hot-footing it down from Bristol to Seville yesterday (on FR24)....not a usual route, so I suspect related?

These things happen so rarely these days that they are the more shocking when they do, RIP and speedy recovery to those involved.

SteveRosenberg

10th May 2015, 16:52

Media have reported that the crew reported a technical problem. Has there been any indication that they stated the nature of the problem?

Also, many sources are now reporting that both flight recorders have been found. We should have some pretty solid information in a day or two.

pax britanica

10th May 2015, 17:10

Well I guess I got an answer from 212 man-although not phrased in a very professional way cpnsidering the rational reason he gives.

I don't disagree with the gist of his answer , personally although I read some Mil threads of interest to me I don't look at them enough to form an opinion about whether they are not read anything like as widely as some of the 'main' ones.

susier

10th May 2015, 18:27

Shocking accident. All best wishes to those affected. I really hope the poor chaps who were hurt, will be on the road to recovery very soon.

God bless.

JanetFlight

10th May 2015, 18:29

Besides this being a military plane, i would humble ask...is this also equipped with a similar CVR & FDR like in the civil ones, or something similar?
A true sad tragedy...may all rest in peace and to those two other occupants may could recover fast. JF

ian16th

10th May 2015, 19:14

Very selfless act on their part.

I hope that the Spaniards have an equivalent to the George Medal, or possibly a George Cross.

It seems that one was earned.

Tashengurt

10th May 2015, 20:23

Saw my first A400m only a few weeks ago. My youngest was very impressed by it.
My condolences to all affected by this. I hope those injured recover quickly and we'll.

Courtney Mil

10th May 2015, 20:28

Wycombe, pax britanica and SteveRosenburg,

Did you miss trumpet trousers' posts? A request from fellow PPRuNers for some dignity. So why not leave the speculation alone and drop the personal indignation? Leave it for another place and a another time.

fgrieu

10th May 2015, 20:33

There's a report of multiple engine failures attributed to one of the survivor of the crash.

A400M: Überlebender berichtet von Triebwerkschaden - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/a400m-ueberlebender-berichtet-von-triebwerkschaden-a-1033103.html)

automatic translation to english:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwirtschaft%2Funternehmen%2Fa 400m-ueberlebender-berichtet-von-triebwerkschaden-a-1033103.html&edit-text=&act=url

oldchina

10th May 2015, 20:51

Fully agree. No doubt seconded by the whole Airbus class of 1994 (A330)

Wycombe

10th May 2015, 21:16

Come again, Courtney? You would not see me speculating around the accident itself, or any other. Further indignation at your accusation at this point would not be appropriate either.

Courtney Mil

10th May 2015, 21:22

Wycombe, my unreserved apologies. I have looked back at the posts and have it completely wrong. Sorry, with deepest respect.

Courtney

Trim Stab

11th May 2015, 06:41

The Spiegel reports that the flight programme in Toulouse will continued as planned, so I suppose Airbus already know the cause of the problem. Are the RAF aircraft still grounded?

Thomas coupling

11th May 2015, 08:45

Whilst respecting the sad loss of fellow professionals, Pprune IS the place to discuss thoughts, causes, whatever provided it is within the bounds of decency. That is the beauty of Pprune and if anyone thinks otherwise - "Where have you been for the last 20yrs on Pprune".:ugh:

Causes / assumptions: bring it on.............................................

Hey, this is aviation - sh*t happens :mad:

Less Hair

11th May 2015, 08:51

It can't be wrong to share some technical news and informed thoughts. However we should better just avoid the usual blame game and respect the privacy of those involved.

Courtney Mil

11th May 2015, 09:14

I agree, Less Hair. I think it was the speculation and blame stuff he's asked us to lay off. News is good, I hope.

John Farley

11th May 2015, 09:55

For there to be any survivors in any crash it suggests to me that the aircraft was under control at impact and that the rate of descent was modest. If you like there was an attempt at landing in open country because height could not be maintained.

BEagle

11th May 2015, 11:50

TT, mate - terrible news.

If you're reading this, I've left a message on your (new) Spanish cellphone no.

Less Hair

11th May 2015, 12:38

German newspaper "Die Welt" reports three engines failed right after takeoff. Problems likely not related to engine hardware but to fuel control system.

(german language)
A400M-Absturz: Drei von vier Triebwerken ausgefallen - DIE WELT (http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article140777948/Drei-von-vier-Triebwerken-des-A400M-ausgefallen.html)

BRE

11th May 2015, 13:09

So in order to show customers that Airbus puts trust in the A400M, the head of the military plane division, Alonso, will join the next test flight as a flight test engineer.

I do hope that they have already isolated the fault to something that could happen only in that one brand new airframe and not in the rest of the fleet. It reminds me too much of the British minister of agriculture who had a hamburger in public to convey his trust in British beef when the BSE crisis was rampant.

Skeleton

11th May 2015, 13:19

Horrible news. RIP to those that have been taken.

Lets just leave it to the investigators before second guessing what decisions Airbus have, or are taking in light of this accident.

Madbob

11th May 2015, 13:43

JF re your post above. I agree; here is an aerial photo showing what looks like a reasonable ground slide and the burnt out remains of what looks like a fairly intact fuselage/airframe. Without the fire, they perhaps could have got away with it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEkdO-ZWEAAGtvi.jpg:large
Photo credit AirLive.net

All very sad and my thoughts go to the families of those killed and my best wishes go to the two surviving crew; I hope they are out of danger and in time make good recoveries.

MB

Lonewolf_50

11th May 2015, 20:47

All engines failed during T/O due to fuel contamination.
So was the fuel rotten at the depot?
Did someone forget to do the MRO on the A400M's tanks as the need to be cleaned regularly?
Indeed, only the Armée de l'Air is in denial.
French A400M crews refuse to fly but this has been censored by the French boot-licking media making Pravda blush.
The A400M is a failed version of the AN70.
Winerhofer: arriving at your conclusion based on your intro about fuel contamination (do you have inside info nobody else has?) is an example of a flawed logic train. 'Bus bashing may be your hobby, but sometimes it is best to beat that drum in a more tasteful fashion.
That photo from Madbob: ouch. :uhoh:
Glad anyone got out of that alive, sad more didn't.

Trumpet_trousers

11th May 2015, 20:59

Winnerhofer, I suggest you turn your horse through 180 degrees.

Courtney Mil

11th May 2015, 21:08

Winnerhofer,

You crass, insensitive, trolling idiot. Please don't do that here. Especially not now.

Lonewolf,

Didn't mean to tread on your toes there. Agree with your post totally.

Courtney Mil

11th May 2015, 21:13

Lets just leave it to the investigators before second guessing what decisions Airbus have, or are taking in light of this accident.

Nice idea, but fat chance here. Notice how all the experts leap up from their sofas with all the answers when disaster strikes? People that have no valid input to this forum until vultures are called in to circle.

tdracer

11th May 2015, 21:25

Is six the normal crew for first flight of a new production A400M? That sounds like a lot to me (based on my Boeing experience were first flights are 'min crew').:confused:

Courtney Mil

11th May 2015, 21:31

Who knows, tdracer? Should we guess what that particular flight was? Shall we guess what those people were doing? Do you expect anyone here to be able to answer your question?

Write to Airbus and ask them.

Trumpet_trousers

11th May 2015, 21:39

tdracer/Courtney,
No problem: 5 crew would be the absolute minimum - a first-flight profile is typically ~5 hours, with hardly a minute wasted and a high tempo workload throughout the whole aircraft. Even a well coordinated crew would find it difficult to complete the full profile in less time.
6 onboard is not unheard of - acceptable for the extra person for training purposes, but in general, yes, the crew is kept to a minimum, for reasons that are, sadly, obvious.

NutLoose

11th May 2015, 22:05

My sincere condolences to the families involved and those that lost colleagues and friends, on a side note, one does hope those firemen and people attending the site are wearing proper masks etc as burnt carbon fibre is deadly.

Courtney Mil

11th May 2015, 22:23

Winnerhofer,

Où avez-vous appris le français? Peut-être pas en France, je pense. S'il vous plaît arrêter d'essayer de faire des ennuis.

Si vous regardez mon profil, il devrait être évident que je ne connais personne impliquée dans cet incident. Maintenant, vous travaillez dehors.

dartmoorman

12th May 2015, 00:37

Sad for the loss of lives - crashworthiness of a composite aircraft is there in a photograph - will have to see if it made any attempt to land which in a rough field it claimed to be able to do - the fire seems to have reduced the whole aircraft to nothing ...... :ugh:

glad rag

12th May 2015, 02:53

Heartfelt condolences to all affected by this terrible event,

L'image tragique, mais la preuve est évident à voir...

ORAC

12th May 2015, 05:29

Dartmoorman - early reports stated it struck the pylon and power cables you can see in the background of the early crash photos.

Hempy

12th May 2015, 07:16

Winnerhofer, take your agenda somewhere else. Thank you.

Trumpet_trousers

12th May 2015, 10:28

Just to be absolutely clear: The flight in question was crewed, and always would be crewed, by ADS personnel exclusively. The fact that all the crew were Spanish nationals is not surprising, seeing that the majority of personnel in ADS Flight Operations are Spanish. On any other day, it could have been a mix of nationalities, depending on who was available on the day - it was the luck of the draw.
To suggest, (if my schoolboy French is correct) that your 'friend' had the opportunity to fly on the fateful flight, and refused, is disingenuous in the extreme, and is grossly disrespectful to those professionals who perished doing their job. In over 6 years working in ADS Flight Operations I have never heard of, or indeed encountered, any Commandant being 'seconded' to ADS or for that matter, Airbus. ALL ADS and Airbus Flight Test crews are full time employees of both companies. For your information, I have flown with customer crew members of all nationalities during various tests and flight trials, and I can assuredly say that your views would be met with incredulous disbelief by those same people.

If you have issues with the A400M, then as others have suggested, please take your narrow minded ramblings elsewhere. This is neither the time, nor indeed the place for such smug grandstanding. If necessary, in the spirit of free speech, start another thread but please stop posting here.

BEagle

12th May 2015, 10:56

Winnerhofer, I commend Trumpet_trousers for the civility of his response to you, having just lost some very close colleagues in this tragedy.

AD&S has committed to the maximum transparency of its accident inquiry, so might I ask that you refrain from any further contribution to this thread and that you wait for the actual cause to be identified, rather than posting further ill-founded speculation.

BigFrank

12th May 2015, 11:18

Apart from the tragic loss of life, one [though only one] of the most striking element of this accident from the point of view of non-professionals resident in Spain, was the rhetoric of the Spanish government.

Everyone from PM Rajoy down stressed the vital importance of a thorough, reliable, rapid and open investigation with the results of this investigation to be published. And, though this was not stated explicitly, these results to be acted on.

For those of us obliged by geography to rely on Spanish actions in aviation matters, the words ring very hollow indeed in the light of the continued Spanish refusal to acknowledge, still less act upon the recommendations of the Irish Air Accident investigation into the fatal accident in Cork a few years ago where the failures of the Spanish authorities to control companies and pilots under their jurisdiction was central to the deaths involved.

Sadly for my own personal safety outlook at least, I for one am far more inclined to believe actual continued historical Spanish lethargy above Spanish political rhetoric.

(I would have much preferred to post this on the main boards rather than on the frankly obscure "Military aviation aircrew" boards, ¡ but the main boards have been locked on this topic !)

Trumpet_trousers

12th May 2015, 11:29

There are elections imminent in Spain.... make of that what you will.

Skeleton

12th May 2015, 13:46

Winnerhofer, I commend Trumpet_trousers for the civility of his response to you,

Beagle, I fully agree with your remark but I suspect there are a host of people sitting on the sidelines biting there tongues out of respect for TT and his request.

Winnerhofer, you keep quoting in French, here is a good old RAF one for you, you need to take your agenda and bog off elsewhere.

MATELO

12th May 2015, 14:10

An A400m test flight from Toulouse into Seville will be on finals in the next couple of minutes.

Rengineer

12th May 2015, 16:20

crashworthiness of a composite aircraft is there in a photograph
Actually, just for the sake of clarity, the A400M fuselage is made of aluminium, which appears to have been totally consumed by fire. The composite wings and tailplane appear to have resisted slightly better. In any case, it'll be a few months before the accident investigation can tell us anything about the crash survivability aspect.

It is in any case a sad day for us and a reminder we still have a lot to learn to make flying safer.

ORAC

13th May 2015, 05:17

AFP: SEVILLE, Spain — Airbus on Tuesday carried out the first test flight of a new A400M since one of the military transport planes crashed in Spain over the weekend, killing four people............

Onlookers and journalists applauded as the huge transport plane landed at Seville airport at 4:35 p.m (1435 GMT) after doing a loop above the runway.......

MATELO

13th May 2015, 09:19

loop above the runway.......

:eek::eek:

Would love to have seen that.

KiloB

13th May 2015, 09:22

Suspect it is a translation of 'Orbit'
KB

sandiego89

13th May 2015, 12:47

Surely there must be some early facts and theories by now? Yes I know there is an investigation going on, and my deepest respect to all involved.

Was there an uncommanded engine roll back?

fgrieu

13th May 2015, 13:04

source:
Investigators Encounter Difficulty Extracting Data From A400M Flight Recorders | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/investigators-encounter-difficulty-extracting-data-a400m-flight-recorders)

The recorders have been transfered to Paris. French General Bruno Caïtucoli, head of BEA's defense division, reports "technical issues in reading the system". That's using an extracting system provided by the French military Direction Générale de l'Armement.

We don't even know if the FDR, CVR, or both, are affected.

BEagle

13th May 2015, 13:30

sandiego89, AD&S has committed to the maximum transparency of its accident inquiry.

So we should now wait for the actual cause to be identified, rather than encouraging people to post the sort of ill-founded speculation which frequently bedevils the Rumours and News website, when every lunatic and spotter comes up with ridiculous comment following airline accidents.

Hempy

13th May 2015, 13:57

loop above the runway.......

:eek::eek:

Would love to have seen that.

fRtOGJTqjkQ

Jackonicko

13th May 2015, 14:13

I ask this tentatively, and without wishing to arouse a storm of 'let's wait for the official report', does anyone know which crew positions survived (e.g. pilot in command and co-pilot, or another crew combination).

Feathers McGraw

13th May 2015, 15:08

The reports of the local farmer(s) helping those that survived escape seems to indicate that they exited via the cockpit windows, that would suggest cockpit crew. I see now that Aviation Week says otherwise, so it looks like the previous report I saw was inaccurate in this respect or that I misinterpreted it.

Very sad event.

Trumpet_trousers

13th May 2015, 15:13

Lovely memorial service yesterday evening in Seville Cathedral, a fitting send off for the 4 guys. It was also nice to see so many friends and colleagues who were flown down from Toulouse on a company A350 especially for the service.

Trumpet_trousers

13th May 2015, 15:26

Engine, Fuel System Focus Of A400M Crash Probe | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/engine-fuel-system-focus-a400m-crash-probe)

ORAC

13th May 2015, 16:03

sandiego89, AD&S has committed to the maximum transparency of its accident inquiry.

Spain withdraws permit for Airbus A400M test flights (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/spain-withdraws-permit-airbus-a400m-104349975.html)

MADRID (AP) -- Spain has withdrawn its permission for test flights of Airbus A400M planes still in production until an investigation determines the cause of a crash last weekend near the southern city of Seville that killed two pilots and two flight test engineers, the defense minister said Tuesday.

Defense Minister Pedro Morenes said all precautions must be taken. "It's not a good idea for those planes in the production phase and about to do tests to fly without knowing what really happened with the (crashed) plane," he said on Onda Cero radio. Morenes said the permits were being temporarily removed by Spain's National Institute for Aerospace Technique, which means that planes in the final stages of assembly in Seville will not be able to carry out test flights.

An Airbus statement said it was too early to say how this would affect the delivery schedule for the planes. "We are working very closely with the military authorities as well as our customers to manage this situation," the statement said.........

The southern Andalusian justice department in Seville said the judge in charge of the crash probe, Ana Rosa Curra, had placed a secrecy order on investigations, meaning no details would be released officially for the time being.

Despite the problems, Airbus said it successfully conducted a test flight Tuesday of a similar model to the one that crashed. The plane flew from Toulouse, France and landed safely at Seville about two hours later, the company said. The Spanish withdrawal of flight permission only affects A400Ms that are destined for delivery to customers, not Tuesday's test flight, which is a plane that belongs to Airbus itself as one of its five test planes, according an Airbus official who was not authorized to speak publicly because of company protocol.........

Busbert

13th May 2015, 16:12

Could this possibly be another case of Superabsorbant Polymer migration from a blown filter monitor element on fuel bowser truck? It fits the pattern.

sandiego89

13th May 2015, 20:17

Trumpet_trousersMemorial service
Lovely memorial service yesterday evening in Seville Cathedral, a fitting send off for the 4 guys. It was also nice to see so many friends and colleagues who were flown down from Toulouse on a company A350 especially for the service

So glad to hear that TT.

Thomas coupling

13th May 2015, 21:44

Was that actually a loop. The camera angle in the video shows it not to be a loop exactly...more of a steep return to target perhaps?

Courtney Mil

13th May 2015, 22:40

Thomas, no it wasn't, but I don't think it was posted as the loop after take off. Just an example of what the 400 can do. Still bloody impressive for a big aircraft.

olandese_volante

13th May 2015, 23:01

I concur that it's often difficult to exactly understand what one's looking at in this type of shots as one doesn't have any reference (aka "where's the horizon") but I believe it actually was a "reverse half Cuban Eight" which is described as:

from level flight pull up to about 45 deg, half roll, downward 5/8 loop back to level flight

BEagle

14th May 2015, 08:20

The mis-translation of 'loop' from the original Spanish and the irrelevant posting of that A400M Farnborough video has, regrettably, brought out the spotters. I watched that display; it was merely a steep wingover with about 100-110° of bank and has absolutely nothing to do with the Sevilla accident.

Why a journalist would wish to find out which crew members were able to leave the aircraft I do not know either - those of us who do know will not be disclosing that information either on this thread or via PM....

Would those swapping childish insults please desist from doing so. Thanks.

ORAC

14th May 2015, 09:10

Spain Shifts Airbus A400M Crash Probe to Military (http://www.wsj.com/articles/spain-shifts-airbus-a400m-crash-probe-to-military-1431530819)

LONDON—Spain has shifted responsibility for the crash probe of an Airbus Group NV A400M military cargo plane to the military, as investigators begin to tap information from the aircraft’s black boxes.

The Spanish crash investigation will now be led by the military, a Defense Ministry spokesman said Wednesday. He wouldn’t explain why the military has taken over from the transport ministry’s civil aviation accident team that was initially put in charge.

Hempy

14th May 2015, 10:22

Beagle,
The mis-translation of 'loop' from the original Spanish and the irrelevant posting of that A400M Farnborough video has, regrettably, brought out the spotters. I watched that display; it was merely a steep wingover with about 100-110° of bank and has absolutely nothing to do with the Sevilla accident.

Courtney is spot on :ok: ...to wit;
Thomas, no it wasn't, but I don't think it was posted as the loop after take off. Just an example of what the 400 can do. Still bloody impressive for a big aircraft.

I apologise if my 'irrelevant' posting offended your sensibilities. I didn't claim it was related in any other way than as an example of the aircrafts performance envelope after doubt was shed after ORACsafter doing a loop above the runway.......

Have a whiskey and a lie down, old son. People might think you are becoming a little pretentious..

Feathers McGraw

14th May 2015, 10:30

My apologies that I seem to have provoked heated discourse, had I seen the Aviation Week link posted by TT earlier then I would not have posted what I did, I immediately edited my original post to state that my suggestion was incorrect.

Sadly even first-hand accounts can be misinterpreted, I did not intend to speculate.

Nemrytter

14th May 2015, 11:10

You seem a little miffed that this thread hasn't run the usual course of page after page of mindless drivel, wild speculation and outlandish theories from armchair theorists and FSX players. I note we also have a locked thread on Jet Blast about why this thread is different.No: I simply think that Courtney Mil's attitude stinks.

Also, you misinterpreted my comments in the other thread (probably as they're poorly written). I'm happy to see a lack of wild speculation and uninformed nonsense by FSX'ers but this is a discussion forum. Stamping on any form of discussion is counterproductive. I guess the problem is finding a way to allow those with useful insight to post their thoughts while simultaneously stopping the FSX team from posting their stuff.
Anyway that's probably a discussion for another thread. Apologies if I caused any offense, I was wound up by CM's attitude.

Trumpet_trousers

14th May 2015, 19:12

Latest factual information here:
A400M accident: Update number 2 (http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/a400m-accident-update-number-2/)

KenV

14th May 2015, 19:19

Latest factual information here:
A400M accident: Update number 2 (http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/a400m-accident-update-number-2/)

From the linked article:
"Airbus Defence and Space owns five A400M test aircraft of which three are currently in service and the other two have been retired. "

Anyone know why those two test birds were "retired"? Were they non-flying test articles?

Trumpet_trousers

14th May 2015, 19:35

Anyone know why those two test birds were "retired"? Were they non-flying test articles?
MSN1 and MSN3 are retired, both having completed their respective flying roles in the flight test program. MSN1 is in Toulouse and either has, or shortly will, go on public display. MSN3 is in Seville, and has had some items 'spares recovered' to keep the remaining 3 test airframes flying.

Valiantone

14th May 2015, 23:30

KenV

Boeing has retired most of the 787 test fleet and has already placed several in museums including one at Pima.

R.I.P to the guys that sadly died. I hope the survivors make a full recovery.

V1

fgrieu

15th May 2015, 09:39

A400M Crash Adds To Airlifter Program?s Woes | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-crash-adds-airlifter-program-s-woes)

It states both pilots are among the casualties. It ends with second-hand reports and speculations on the cause of the accident.

chuks

15th May 2015, 10:52

In this morning's German paper it read that all four engines cut shortly after departure with the aircraft at a height of around 500 meters. There was no source for that report, though.

There's strong local interest in this story because the German A400Ms are based not far from here, at Wunstorf. Too, Airbus is an important local employer.

Local papers have already covered such A400M issues as the lack of operational readiness of the type, and the program's negative impact on the financial performance of Airbus, so that if it turns out that there's some further, serious technical problem that shall come to light, that should see local coverage beyond the usual level for the crash of a military aircraft.

sandiego89

15th May 2015, 12:36

So on the 400 would a transition from TOGO thrust to climb thrust be done via a manual pull on the throttle quadrant, or via setting speed on the autopilot? I imagine the transition to climb thrust would be at about the listed altitude of 500M.

I am not speculating, just trying to understand how the system works.

Sandy Parts

15th May 2015, 16:55

Given the strong feelings in evidence on this thread, I'd suggest it may be worth the OP renaming this thread and adding "condolences only" to the title. Another thread could then run to cover the interest in the cause of the incident. This solution had been tried and tested on previous sad events.

El Grifo

15th May 2015, 16:57

Or start another titled "Condolences Only "

El G.

FTE Pruner

15th May 2015, 17:58

sandiego89

Since you neither know how the A400M auto-throttles work, or what the TOGA power setting is called, I suspect you aren't going to get very far diagnosing the cause of the crash, even if you did have the FDR traces to hand.

I don't mean to sound rude, but it is rather frustrating that when someone has very politely requested people avoid speculation, principally because there are members who frequent this forum who are directly impacted by the incident, people carry on regardless.

NutLoose

15th May 2015, 21:42

Sigh...
I wish people would desist in this mindless guessing game and speculation, have some respect for the fact that people in this thread were and are close to those involved.

jonw66

15th May 2015, 22:01

Can not understand how they don't get it Nutty
Best to the survivors.
John

Trumpet_trousers

15th May 2015, 22:38

May I suggest that those commenting on WINNERHOFER follow his lead and delete posts referring to Winnerhoffer.
...assuming it was HIS lead, and not that of the Mods? My posts remain regardless.

D-IFF_ident

16th May 2015, 03:03

I had the honour of operating with some of the gentlemen involved in this tragedy and offer my sincere condolences to their friends and families.

A sad event made slightly bitter on PPRune by those who consider themselves so important that they attempt to 'score points' and speculate on cause from a point of ignorance, rather than respect both a tragic loss and an ongoing process of formal investigation.

P6 Driver

16th May 2015, 07:53

Not a criticism but I sometimes wonder whether it would be best for anyone connected to a tragic event like this, or to any personnel directly involved with it to avoid viewing the thread/s altogether.

It's unlikely in many cases that a thread on PPRuNe will throw learned insight into what happened or how an incident developed, but is more likely to contain pure speculation and a certain degree of disrespect.

OK, it's a rumour network, but boundaries of common sense and good taste often seem to be crossed and it might just be better to wait for the official reports to be published. Just a thought.

Less Hair

16th May 2015, 09:02

Will the spanish military investigators publish any report someday or is this accident now out of any public view? Considering it's a major european aircraft program it would be nice to get a little more info on what has happened.

Genstabler

16th May 2015, 09:06

I'm sorry but I don't buy into the view that speculating in a rumour network on the possible causes of a tragic accident are necessarily insensitive and disrespectful. Informed or uninformed input and speculation is a key element in a network such as this, provided it does not cross the line of good taste and manners. Policing that is a key responsibility of the moderators.
If those posters who have a personal interest in the event are going to be upset by what is posted, please don't read the thread and perhaps open a separate condolences thread.

BEagle

16th May 2015, 09:17

Genstabler wrote: Informed or uninformed input and speculation is a key element in a network such as this....

I firmly disagree. Uninformed fruitcake and MSFS-geek comments continue to plague Rumours and News every time another airline accident occurs; fortunately that hasn't happened on this thread - apart from some idiot comment about aerobatics....:*

Hopefully it'll stay that way.

Hot and Hi

16th May 2015, 09:35

My condolences to the families of the deceased and those who knew them personally.

Over the years I found - and long before I registered as a member - that the new and archived threads are a formidable source of aviation related information. Not all, but often, this information emerges from the discussion around accident causes & circumstances.

I find it unnecessary if contributors are ridiculed when their questions show lack of complete technical understanding. Hey, he was asking a question, and those who are in the know may respond! :D

It is understandable that those who are close to you, are closer to your heart, and the fate of those who are far away, stir lesser sympathy. That's just our human nature. But isn't it hypocritical to supress open discussion under the pretext of respect or military secrecy / code of honour just because the deceased are central European, while in cases of far-away incidents (read: Turkish, Asian, ...) the debates are boundless and don't refrain from - rightly or wrongly - patronising remarks about the safety or other culture in other countries?

Personally, I am not more or less affected by this accident than by any other aviation accident. Being a pilot myself, it is close to my heart even without having known the deceased. Therefore, I want to know what happened, in the interest of aviation safety and with the hope to be able to at least learn something from this tragedy. In this sense I would hope the open discussion on all technical and human/CRM aspects of the operation of the A400M as well as the accident sequence may continue.

jonw66

16th May 2015, 10:43

Hot and Hi
I am sure Trumpet Trousers will be more than happy to satisfy your curiosity as and when he feels the time is appropriate, until then lets just wait.
Best
John

twochai

16th May 2015, 12:05

This was a civil aircraft, Type Certificated by the civil regulator: http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA-TCDS-A.169_Airbus_A400M-04-17072013.pdf

This was not a military accident deserving of secrecy because it might give a foe advantage on the battlefield. It was crewed by civilian employees of the manufacturer's flight test organisation. Deference to those individuals on ths forum who may have personal connections with the unfortunate crew members should always be respected when there is an accident. However, respect does not warrant a blanket prohibition on discussion of the technicalities.

This is a civil industrial accident with potentially significant implications for aircraft design, manufacture and quality assurance. Secrecy can only feed unfounded speculation. Continued secrecy can only lead to more tears.

ASRAAM

16th May 2015, 12:12

Having read the vitriol directed at a number of posters on this thread so far I am somewhat worried about sticking my head above the parapet. The fact I feel like that is in itself a great pity.

Accidents occur in aviation and most of us have over the years been directly effected by such tragedies.

In days gone by there would always be a crew room discussion about potential causes and most of us would run through every conceivable eventuality. We would not wait for the board of inquiry before doing so.

Many different types of aircraft have commonality in the way their systems operate or even in the components used so any discussion about a problem on a particular type and the best way to deal with it inevitably has a read across and just might mitigate the outcome should something , however unlikely happen to someone else.

I therefore believe that it IS appropriate to discuss potential causes and possible reactions to any accident. Mainly because one day the ridiculous speculation on prune might turn out to be the unheard of problem that I now know the solution to.

Davef68

16th May 2015, 12:13

twochai - the question might be did the aircraft have a civil or military registration? If may be wrong, but I beleive if on the mil register it's the Military authorities that are responsible.

MarkMcC

16th May 2015, 13:07

Yesterday in Madrid, we said an emotional goodbye to Jaime De Gandarillas, the Captain of CASA 423, who was tragically killed along with three others last weekend. Jaime was a devoted father, an extraordinary aviator, and a good friend. Along with Jesualdo, Gabriel, and Manu he will be sorely missed. Their work will go on, and we will uphold the sacred trust between test crews and those who fly and travel on our aircraft. Vaya con dios mi hermano...we will never forget.

sandiego89

16th May 2015, 14:19

hot and high, ASRAAM and Genstabler. Concur, thank you.

Yes I firmly get there was a terrible tragedy, and I no way mean any disrespect to anyone involved. I asked a simple systems related question, trying to better understand a system I am not familiar with. No disrespect, no speculation, no crazy theory, no agenda.

Discussions and questions happen around the globe, in crew rooms, around the coffee pot and yes on forums....but I guess no longer here. I was just talking with my co-workers here about this incident, one currently rated on Sikorsky products, one on a French derived product and we had an interesting talk on FADEC's, thrust levels, mechanical backups, etc. and we had an interesting, respectful, talk on design, procedures etc, but none of us fully understood the 400 systems.

Trumpet_trousers

16th May 2015, 18:15

I am sure Trumpet Trousers will be more than happy to satisfy your curiosity as and when he feels the time is appropriate, until then lets just wait.
You might be waiting a long time - I don't intend to do anything, I will leave it to the very capable people entrusted with the investigation to publish the facts at the appropriate time.

jonw66

16th May 2015, 19:41

Fair play sir lets wait for the enquiry

Trumpet_trousers

16th May 2015, 19:53

IMHO the wait for a cause should not take too long - it is common practice for the majority, if not all, test flights performed by ADS to have telemetry monitoring in realtime. This was the case with the subject flight.

jonw66

16th May 2015, 20:02

Not quick enough for some on here.
I sent condolences last week but it got deleted.
Heartfelt thoughts with you all.
John

twochai

16th May 2015, 20:46

twochai - the question might be did the aircraft have a civil or military registration? If may be wrong, but I beleive if on the mil register it's the Military authorities that are responsible.

I would suggest the thread belongs more appropriately in the Flight Test section of this forum.

haltonapp

17th May 2015, 02:47

It's a rumour network for heavens sake! If you don't like what is said, don't read it! If you want to write letters of condolence, write to the Times. I have no sympathy for people who suffer abuse on their "twitter" account, if you want to live in a glass house, don't be surprised if people throw stones.

Less Hair

19th May 2015, 07:26

One blackbox has been sent to L3.

A400M black box sent to US to seek crash clues: Sources - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/a400m-black-box-sent-to-us-to-seek-crash-clues-sources/articleshow/47331926.cms)

EDLB

19th May 2015, 10:17

Der Spiegel Airbus A400M: Militärmaschine stürzte wegen Software-Problemen ab - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/airbus-a400m-militaermaschine-stuerzte-wegen-software-problemen-ab-a-1034421.html)
writes that faulty software shut down 3 engines. The pilots had no chance.
That is close to the worst thing that can happen direct after take off.

Skeleton

19th May 2015, 10:54

That report is from Spiegel so it must be true. :=

airsound

19th May 2015, 11:11

Airbus Defence & Space has just issued this news release: Statement regarding Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) to A400M 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.

airsound

Brian W May

19th May 2015, 11:20

Thanks Airsound.

So perhaps Spiegel was correct. Poor sods . . .

I much preferred flying aircraft where wires, pulleys, bellcranks and levers were physically attached to the important bits.

For all the 'improvements', flying doesn't seem any more comfortable (I'm paying, walking freight these days).

Furia

19th May 2015, 11:32

From this AOT is worth to remark this last sentence:
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.

I have already seen online media pages reporting that "the cause" of the accident was the ECU using this AOT as reference :ugh:

Brian W May

19th May 2015, 14:38

Of course 'Internal Analysis' is always devoid of any influence from ongoing real-world issues . . .

Having taught some FADEC systems, I was never overly-confident when I heard from the 'nerds' how much 'stray code' there was resident in the software.

We'll see perhaps (depends on how much is suppressed of course), long ago I stopped expecting to be told ALL the facts, even when I was involved.

KenV

19th May 2015, 15:03

Having taught some FADEC systems, I was never overly-confident when I heard from the 'nerds' how much 'stray code' there was resident in the software.

FADEC has been around for literally decades on a wide variety of aero engines. C-17 for example has FADEC engines and fly by wire throttles and it's an over 30 year old design. There is absolutely no reason for a FADEC design to be unreliable.

Brian W May

19th May 2015, 15:30

There is absolutely no reason for a FADEC design to be unreliable.

Correct . . . there isn't.

Trumpet_trousers

19th May 2015, 16:04

There is no reference to FADEC in the quoted AOT

Radix

19th May 2015, 16:19

..........

Backoffice

19th May 2015, 17:21

Are they saying, this brand new aircraft was flying its first flight with updated software ?

thf

19th May 2015, 18:06

Are they saying, this brand new aircraft was flying its first flight with updated software ?

Apparently. Jens Flottau from Süddeutsche Zeitung writes this today, citing "industry insiders" (rough translation by me):

Industry sources said a new software was introduced with the particular aircraft for Turkey that allowed military maneuvers from liftoff. According to reports, this software was faulty and caused during the first flight of the Turkish machine the failure of multiple engines. How many engines have failed exactly and for how long apparently is still not fully understood.

According to this information, the new software allows military maneuvers by changing the so-called trim of the aircraft, by shifting the center of gravity. This is done among other things by pumping fuel from one tank into another. There are indications that this pumping did not work correctly.

Source: sueddeutsche.de: Airbus findet Ursache für Absturz des Militärtransporters (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/airbus-am-airbus-findet-ursache-fuer-absturz-des-militaertransporters-1.2485332)

KenV

19th May 2015, 18:17

A bigger software issue these days is 'supposed' redundancy that actually isn't. Like the Boeing 787 that has 4 generators fail at the same time, because their software has a flaw.

Let's put this "flaw" in perspective.

1. It has NEVER happened operationally, only in the test lab.
2. It will ONLY happen if the system runs continuously for 248 days.
3. The "workaround" to prevent this from happening is to shut down the system before 248 days have elapsed.
4. No one anywhere has ever or will ever run a 787 continuously for 248 days. Conclusion: not a problem in any meaningful sense, but Boeing still notified its users of this "flaw", which was eliminated in the next software revision.

mivens

19th May 2015, 18:37

Aviation Week: Software Cut Off Fuel Supply In Stricken A400M (http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/software-cut-fuel-supply-stricken-a400m)

deptrai

19th May 2015, 19:37

Airbus has been very professional in their media releases, but I think it's clear there are limits to what they can disclose without seemingly preempting the official investigation. Airbus took up development test flights again, so it's also clear to me they have more than a hunch about what went wrong. The speculations of the media remain just speculations, however they don't appear like some of the contrived drivel we usually see. The ECU issues from the AOT may be a random coincidence, but at least those speculations don't blame the deceased. With few exceptions this thread has also been very civilized, and this is what I wanted to express, besides my condolences: my relief that no one (not even armchair investigators, "experts", the media, or posters here) has come up with surreal conspiracy theories, this does restore some faith in humanity.

Brian W May

20th May 2015, 11:02

FADEC
There is no reference to FADEC in the quoted AOT

In my day, the FADEC lived in the ECU (which is mentioned).

FADEC is a generic term for the process conducted by the FCU (now the, more sophisticated Electronic/Engine Control Unit).

glad rag

20th May 2015, 12:40

Let's put this "flaw" in perspective.

1. It has NEVER happened operationally, only in the test lab.
2. It will ONLY happen if the system runs continuously for 248 days.
3. The "workaround" to prevent this from happening is to shut down the system before 248 days have elapsed.
4. No one anywhere has ever or will ever run a 787 continuously for 248 days. Conclusion: not a problem in any meaningful sense, but Boeing still notified its users of this "flaw", which was eliminated in the next software revision.

In your defensive haste you have completely missed the actual point..

..the failure to ensure the fitness/quality of the software...

..and you cannot dispute that.

Oh and it was powered up not run.

Ergo, how long does the battery on your motherboard last?

Mark in CA

20th May 2015, 12:41

Airbus apparently found a "quality" problem in the ECU software that caused an anomaly in engine operations during its own testing in the wake of the crash.
Airbus investigates engine software as cause of troop transport crash | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/airbus-investigates-engine-software-as-cause-of-troop-transport-crash/)

KenV

20th May 2015, 12:47

There is no reference to FADEC in the quoted AOT Indeed. However, we can think of FADEC as a "function". That function resides in the engine's electronic control unit (ECU). Many other functions also reside in the ECU, like thrust reverser control on jet aircraft and prop control on turbo prop aircraft, bleed air control, engine inlet anti-ice, etc.

Separately, it appears that the ECU related AOT is unrelated to the accident. According to the Aviation Week article cited below, a different software controlled system that auto trims fuel in the fuel tanks cut off fuel to the engines. FADEC cannot compensate for fuel starvation.

Another tidbit revealed by the Aviation Week article clears up earlier (false) speculation in this thread about who died and who survived the crash.

aterpster

20th May 2015, 12:48

I hope the crew can override any type of electronic engine control.

Peter H

20th May 2015, 12:55

From 2015 Seville A400M crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Seville_A400M_crash)

Several reports have suggested that as many as three of the aircraft’s four engines failed
during the A400M’s departure from Seville. Airbus is now examining whether the crash
was caused by new management software for the engine-fuel supply, designed to trim the
fuel tanks to permit the aircraft to fly certain military manoeuvres. There appears to have
been a trimming issue, leading to strong banking that was not recoverable and that the fuel
supply was re-established, but not quickly enough for recovery to safe flight.

Interesting, if true.

KenV

20th May 2015, 13:20

In your defensive haste you have completely missed the actual point..
..the failure to ensure the fitness/quality of the software.....and you cannot dispute that.Aaaah, but I DO dispute that. The software was 100% "fit" and "qualified" for flight. It just was not qualified for continuous operation more than 248 days. It was also not qualified to operate in space nor underwater. None are operational conditions of the 787.

Oh and it was powered up not run. Hmmm. Software that is "powered up" is "running", just as a light bulb that is "powered up" is "running."

Ergo, how long does the battery on your motherboard last?Non sequitur, but OK, I'll play. Years.

I can see why folks on this thread worked so hard to prevent the mindless speculation that accompanies every other aircraft accident thread. This attack on another aircraft totally unrelated to the A400 accident is a fine example of such mindlessness where the aggressiveness of the position held is matched only by the ignorance.

glad rag

20th May 2015, 13:32

Aaaah, but I DO dispute that. The software was 100% "fit" and "qualified" for flight. It just was not qualified for continuous operation more than 248 days. It was also not qualified to operate in space. Neither are operational conditions of the 787.

No. This thread is about a fatal accident and as such I will not debate idiotic semantics here.

Lonewolf_50

20th May 2015, 13:32

In my day, the FADEC lived in the ECU (which is mentioned).

FADEC is a generic term for the process conducted by the FCU (now the, more sophisticated Electronic/Engine Control Unit).
Ages ago, I operated T700 engines that used ECU's (and the new ones now have FADEC's, DECU's, and BFD sez I). Black Hawk / Sea Hawk / S-70 family of helicopters. The nice thing about ECU's and DECU's and FADECs is how well they tune/trim fuel flow to keep the engines running smoothly and at best efficiency.

We had a function that was more or less a manual override called "ECU lockout." This allowed the non flying pilot to use the power control lever to bypass the ECU / DECU / FADEC. The engines would be less responsive, sure, but they didn't lose fuel feed.

In the Airbus design philosophy (and for that matter in the Boeing philosophy) for transport aircraft, is there any way to override electronic control of the fuel feed to the engines and control them manually? Granted, it would be a back up mode, and likely not as fuel efficient.

Is it there?

KenV

20th May 2015, 13:42

In the Airbus design philosophy (and for that matter in the Boeing philosophy) for transport aircraft, is there any way to override electronic control of the fuel feed to the engines and control them manually? Granted, it would be a back up mode, and likely not as fuel efficient.

Can't speak for Airbus, but Boeing has no manual/mechanical reversion for engine control on its FADEC equipped aircraft.

Separately, may I ask what is a "power control lever" on the S-70 series aircraft? Is that a twist grip on the collective?

Lonewolf_50

20th May 2015, 13:52

Can't speak for Airbus, but Boeing has no manual/mechanical reversion for engine control on its FADEC equipped aircraft.

Separately, may I ask what is a "power control lever" on the S-70 series aircraft? Is that a twist grip on the collective?
Thanks.

To answer your question: no twist grip on the S-70s. The engine control quadrant is a separate assembly in the cockpit, situated above and slightly forward of the center console, just higher than the pilots' heads. Its features include Power Control Levers (PCL's), emergency shutoff T-handles, fuel selectors (direct, crossfeed, off) starter buttons, etc.
Think of it like two engine throttles between two pilots, like in a lot of multi-engine aircraft, but located on the overhead panel. CH-53 has a similar configuration.

Trumpet_trousers

20th May 2015, 14:03

The fuel supply was re-established, but not quickly enough for recovery to safe flight.
From the Aviation Week article.
If the aircraft had been higher, the outcome may have been different.

BWM and KV: Thanks for the FADEC lesson :ugh:

The crew positions of all 6 onboard, (and the names,) have been in the public domain for at least a week.

KenV

20th May 2015, 14:05

To answer your question: no twist grip on the S-70s. The engine control quadrant is a separate assembly in the cockpit, situated above and slightly forward of the center console, just higher than the pilots' heads. Its features include Power Control Levers (PCL's), emergency shutoff T-handles, fuel selectors (direct, crossfeed, off) starter buttons, etc.
Think of it like two engine throttles between two pilots, like in a lot of multi-engine aircraft, but located on the overhead panel.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback. But from what I'm gathering from your description it sounds like they are indeed like the power levers on a multi-engine fixed wing aircraft. So the pilot is not really controlling fuel flow, he is controlling engine RPM which in turn controls rotor RPM. In the jet (and multi-spool turbo prop aircraft) controlling RPM controls thrust. Fuel flow remains under the control of the ECU/FADEC.

glad rag

20th May 2015, 14:14

Speculation at best....:ugh:

KenV

20th May 2015, 14:25

The cited report is massively flawed.

Airbus has asked its military customers to conduct checks of the software in the electronic control unit (ECU) of the engines.Customers and operators are neither qualified nor even able to "check" the software embedded in any aircraft's control systems.

I hope the crew can override any type of electronic engine control. No, they can't. Electronic engine controls with no manual/mechanic backup have been around for multiple decades and are VERY reliable. Statements that the FADEC/ECU software may have been to blame for this accident are wildly speculative and baseless.

lomapaseo

20th May 2015, 15:04

My read is that the problem is upstream of the engines and their FADECs

is this not so?

My understanding of FADECs in general is that their fail-safe mode "if" they go tits up, is to lock the fuel at the last known values according to aircraft sensors like speed,altitude and temperature.

and as for checking software throughout the fleet, might it be as simple as checking what software versions are displayed ?

I may have some questions but I don't know what the facts really are in this machine.

Lonewolf_50

20th May 2015, 15:42

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback. But from what I'm gathering from your description it sounds like they are indeed like the power levers on a multi-engine fixed wing aircraft. So the pilot is not really controlling fuel flow, he is controlling engine RPM which in turn controls rotor RPM. In the jet (and multi-spool turbo prop aircraft) controlling RPM controls thrust. Fuel flow remains under the control of the ECU/FADEC.
Not quite. The Hydromechanical unit (HMU) controls fuel flow in a course way, the ECU (later DECU) fine tunes it and adds a variety of other features and protections.
In some ways, yes, you aren't using the throttle (PCL) to fine tune the fuel to the engines, since the HMU acts like a governor using thing like NR, Ng, P3, T2, to position the metering valve.

In the LockOut mode, none of the ECU/DECU signals get to the HMU. You are back to using a coarse governor to position the metering valve to get the fuel to the engine. Your NR will vary as you change load, which it doesn't tend to when the ECU/DECU is doing its thing.

Apologies for the digression, gents.
My initial question was answered.

@ Loma:
checking software throughout the fleet, might it be as simple as checking what
software versions are displayed
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that they have already sent their customers maintenance files (diagnostics), which would be loaded into their test/calibration kits (ground based maintenance, not inflight). The maintenance team would perform a check to see if a given install passes the diagnostics.
That's a guess, based on old maintenance experience.

slast

20th May 2015, 16:25

Airbus Press release today re A400:
Statement regarding Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) to A400M operators (http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/statement-regarding-alert-operator-transmission-aot-to-a400m-operators/)

anengineer

20th May 2015, 17:25

I wonder if this might turn any spotlights back on AF296 at Habsheim. I've always questioned how a distinguished captain with over 10,000 hrs could be suddenly so inept as to manage CFIT in good visibility. It couldn't possibly have been a systems fault after all could it......

Tourist

20th May 2015, 18:39

anengineer

Yes, you are right.

If one crash is due to a system failure, then all others on completely different types are almost certainly due to a system error also.

Thanks for clearing that up.

sandiego89

21st May 2015, 00:15

Lonewolf_50:Ages ago, I operated T700 engines that used ECU's (and the new ones now have FADEC's, DECU's, and BFD sez I). Black Hawk / Sea Hawk / S-70 family of helicopters. The nice thing about ECU's and DECU's and FADECs is how well they tune/trim fuel flow to keep the engines running smoothly and at best efficiency.

We had a function that was more or less a manual override called "ECU lockout." This allowed the non flying pilot to use the power control lever to bypass the ECU / DECU / FADEC. The engines would be less responsive, sure, but they didn't lose fuel feed.

Thanks for that Wolf, I was recently discussing this A-400 incident with a current HH-60 pilot and he said the same thing- they were comforted to know that they could mash the levers forward and bypass the electronics/FADEC if need be- a mechanical bypass. Likely part of the legacy inherited from the original post-Vietnam battlefield helicopter requirements.

Torquelink

21st May 2015, 09:49

I hope there's no chance that any element of this software is installed on the ECUs of Airbus civil types . .

Thud105

21st May 2015, 10:32

" If the aircraft had been higher, the outcome may have been different."

A statement that is applicable to practically every aircraft that has ever crashed.

Brian W May

21st May 2015, 10:41

" If the aircraft had been higher, the outcome may have been different."

A statement that is applicable to practically every aircraft that has ever crashed.

Ha ha, that occurred to me as well. Along with 'runway behind you' and 'fuel still in the tanker'.

Oh well, you know what they meant . . .

Trumpet_trousers

21st May 2015, 12:15

" If the aircraft had been higher, the outcome may have been different."
I wrote that in the context of the specific circumstances of the incident in question, i.e. the aircraft had only just taken off, and was ~ 1000' agl

Ha ha, that occurred to me as well.

Glad that you find a fatal crash amusing.

KenV

21st May 2015, 13:03

I hope there's no chance that any element of this software is installed on the ECUs of Airbus civil types . .

Two points:

1. There is zero evidence that the fuel trim software being blamed for this accident resided in the ECU. Usually, fuel system management is handled at the aircraft system level, not at the engine level, so it would seem unlikely this function resided in the ECU.

2. Even if the fuel trim function resides in the ECU, the A400 uses an engine used by no other aircraft, civil or military. So it would seem extremely unlikely that other types of aircraft would be affected.

KenV

21st May 2015, 13:07

"If the aircraft had been higher, the outcome may have been different."

A statement that is applicable to practically every aircraft that has ever crashed.

Really? I'm quite sure there have been LOTS of aircraft accidents that would have been totally unaffected by altitude.

KenV

21st May 2015, 13:40

Thanks for that Wolf, I was recently discussing this A-400 incident with a current HH-60 pilot and he said the same thing- they were comforted to know that they could mash the levers forward and bypass the electronics/FADEC if need be- a mechanical bypass. Likely part of the legacy inherited from the original post-Vietnam battlefield helicopter requirements.

There is some confusion of terms here.

A FADEC is exactly that: "Full Authority Digital Engine Control". Fuel to the engine is entirely metered/controlled by a digital computer. This function resides in an electronic box often called an ECU, which often has many other functions besides metering/controlling fuel flow. The pilot controls thrust by providing an electronic input to the ECU, which then varies the fuel flow to deliver the thrust demanded by the pilot.

The T700 engine does not have a FADEC. It uses a hydromechanical fuel control system (HMU). The HMU uses many mechanical and analog inputs to meter/control the amount of fuel going into the engine. One of the inputs to the HMU is an electronic unit which provides much finer fuel control and also adds many protections and other features. The PCL can be used to lockout the electronic inputs to the HMU, but the PCL does NOT give the pilot control of engine fuel flow. It only gives the pilots the ability to eliminate the electronic inputs to the HMU. The PCL is NOT a "mechanical bypass" to give the pilot mechanical control of engine fuel flow.

Keep in mind that helo engines are designed to maintain 100% RPM at all times. In a helo the pilot does not change thrust by changing RPM. He changes thrust by changing collective on the rotor system. So the pilot NEVER controls throttle/fuel flow to the engine. He can only control (via the collective) the load put into the engine/drive system and the HMU then controls fuel flow to maintain RPM. There is no link (either mechanical or electrical) between the pilot and the HMU for him to directly control engine fuel flow.

John Farley

21st May 2015, 14:10

Keep in mind that helo engines are designed to maintain 100% RPM at all times. In a helo the pilot does not change thrust by changing RPM. He changes thrust by changing collective on the rotor system

That is so right.

However

So the pilot NEVER controls throttle/fuel flow to the engine.

I cannot agree with that. With all for helicopters I flew in the 60s I had to control the RPM at around max by using a twist grip throttle in the end of the collective. As the years have gone by pilots have been assisted in this difficult task (initially) by suitable mechanical links that adjusted the throttle (roughly) as the collective was moved and latterly by FBW systems which of course free the pilot of the task. How many of the older types are still in operation I do not know, but I am sure there are some.

I mention this just so that tryos do not get confused into thinking the helo world has always been like it is today.

H Peacock

21st May 2015, 14:48

So the pilot NEVER controls throttle/fuel flow to the engine.

Not always so on modern helos either. Many have a system where a collective input does directly modify the fuel flow in order to anticipate the inevitable small change in rotor RPM that will inevitably follow. Why wait for a large increase in collective to cause a subsequent drop in rotor RPM due to the increased load when it can be anticipated directly?

Thread creep I know, but there really is too much aggression/sarcasm on the pages of contributions to this thread.

Tragic as this accident was, I don't see why this particular fatal accident is worthy of any special consideration over other fatal aviation accidents discussed here on PPRuNe. Am I missing something here??

KenV

21st May 2015, 15:38

I cannot agree with that. With all for helicopters I flew in the 60s I had to control the RPM at around max by using a twist grip throttle in the end of the collective. As the years have gone by pilots have been assisted in this difficult task (initially) by suitable mechanical links that adjusted the throttle (roughly) as the collective was moved and latterly by FBW systems which of course free the pilot of the task. How many of the older types are still in operation I do not know, but I am sure there are some.

You are of course correct. I was addressing the H-60 / S-70 family specifically. I even mentioned the twist grip throttle control in my earlier post (#146)

KenV

21st May 2015, 15:42

Not always so on modern helos either. Many have a system where a collective input does directly modify the fuel flow in order to anticipate the inevitable small change in rotor RPM that will inevitably follow.

This system is just one more input to the HMU/ECU. The HMU/ECU still controls the fuel flow, not the pilot.

Tourist

21st May 2015, 17:07

Plus of course many helicopters such as the seaking still have a manual throttle option if the automated system is acting up where you do in fact control the fuel flow.

BEagle

21st May 2015, 17:34

Am I missing something here??

Probably.

Notwithstanding the parallel discussion concerning helicopters, the only salient points we currently have about the A400M accident are:

1. The aircraft suffered a fatal accident.
2. Media reports hint at unofficial industry sources which allude to the loss of thrust from 3 or more engines at low level during the intial climb.
3. The reason for this rumoured loss of thrust has yet to be officially identified.
4. FDR and CVR analysis is ongoing.

As for this specific thread, there has been a clear policy of dissuading every fruitcake and MSFS-geek from the level of wild speculation which so often contaminates the Rumours and News forum.

But I think it's fairly safe to assume that no extraterrestrials were involved......:\

KenV

21st May 2015, 17:44

1. The aircraft suffered a fatal accident.
2. Media reports hint at unofficial industry sources which allude to the loss of thrust from 3 or more engines at low level during the intial climb.
3. The reason for this rumoured loss of thrust has yet to be officially identified.
4. FDR and CVR analysis is ongoing.

Excellent summary. I would add the following:

3. The reason for this rumoured loss of thrust has yet to be officially identified, but the same rumor sources claim it was due to a fuel tank trimming system unique to this specific aircraft and not previous installed on A400s.

It is this last item that started the discussion on FADEC and ECUs, which are likely not involved in a fuel tank trimming system anyway.

Courtney Mil

21st May 2015, 19:30

BEags, very well said. I stand by you on this one.

The vultures and armchair experts always turn up at such times.

Tragic as this accident was, I don't see why this particular fatal accident is worthy of any special consideration over other fatal aviation accidents discussed here on PPRuNe. Am I missing something here??

I doubt you are. I think the groundswell of opinion against the folk that turn up here every time there's an accident to post ludicrous speculations (for God alone knows what reasons) has done nothing other than piss us all off for a long time. Maybe it took a single request from a single poster to prompt us all to try to put a stop to the rubber-necking.

Not "special consideration". The consideration we should give to all such incidents.

Edit: sorry, HPeacock, I did not mean to imply that you are one of those that come here to speculate. I was addressing two issues in one post and failed to separate the two.

BV234driver

21st May 2015, 22:44

What is the benefit of tank trimming, and how would this expand the maneuver envelope at takeoff versus any other normal mode of flight? Have read several of the articles, but drawing a big question mark on this one.

Resorting back to fixed wing aero, you'd like the Cg to be near CL as I recall- thus alleviating any control or flying qualities issues... It appears I need a class in how this functions as a benefit- other than doing exactly the above...which I'd assume in a production aircraft you'd thus be at a full or ideal load anyway, and not likely require shifting at takeoff?

Brian W May

21st May 2015, 23:01

I've been wondering why an aircraft would need tactical manoeuvering immediately after take off, then thought about MANPAD etc, so presumably that's why.

What I don't understand is - when an aircraft this large manoeuvers, are they not likely to be positive g rather than negative? So I am at a loss to work out what fuel tank trimming actually means in this context.

Does this cause trimming of thrust to assist the aerodynamics? Care to enlighten me anyone?

ORAC

22nd May 2015, 08:10

AW&ST: A400M Countries Form Monitoring Team, Germany Warns Of Airlift Gap (http://aviationweek.com/defense/a400m-countries-form-monitoring-team-germany-warns-airlift-gap)

SyEng

22nd May 2015, 09:24

Unlike some Airbus types, the A400M does not feature "fuel tank trimming". There is no trim tank in the tail. Neither is fuel pumped laterally (except, if required, under manual pilot control to correct a fuel imbalance). The fuel's path from tank to engine is untroubled by any software. The Wikipedia and Aviation Week articles are a load of bull.

Brian W May

22nd May 2015, 09:58

Thanks - so it's "simply" a means of altering C of G. For some reason I thought it meant lateral trimming - which blew my mind.

SyEng

22nd May 2015, 10:02

Brian, no, there is no fuel CG trimming on A400M: neither longitudinal nor lateral. Apologies if my previous post was unclear.

charliegolf

22nd May 2015, 10:55

Am I safe to ask: is there any news (good, preferrably) on the recovery of the survivors yet?

CG

BEagle

22nd May 2015, 11:07

SyEng, have any A400M been flown with the additional Cargo Bay Tanks intended for the AAR role? Fuel from the CBTs will need to be pumped to the 'AAR gallery', although I cannot recall how the associated schedule is managed.

If 'AAR' software is enabled and the fuel system is 'expecting' to transfer fuel from CBTs which aren't actually fitted.......:confused:

And no, I have absolutely no idea whether the AAR software has yet been included in any A400M.

Trumpet_trousers

22nd May 2015, 11:18

CG:
Both still recovering in hospital, the most seriously injured guy is, thankfully, out of intensive care.
Beagle: No, the CBTs and the centreline HDU stuff is yet to be trialled.

My understanding of the Tactical fuel management is that it schedules the fuel in such a way that it minimises stress/fatigue due to the more dynamic manoeuvring required for the tactical role, up to +3G.

charliegolf

22nd May 2015, 11:32

Good! Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. They are in my thoughts.

CG

KenV

22nd May 2015, 14:35

My understanding of the Tactical fuel management is that it schedules the fuel in such a way that it minimises stress/fatigue due to the more dynamic manoeuvring required for the tactical role, up to +3G.

In that case could the "Tactical fuel management" system be moving the fuel outboard in each wing to reduce wing bending moment when pulling G? This would not be a "trimming" system is the usual sense as the CG would not be shifting either longitudinally or laterally, but the fuel mass would move outboard to reduce bending moment in the wing.

Trumpet_trousers

22nd May 2015, 14:47

BEagle

22nd May 2015, 14:47

Thanks, TT, that's what I thought.

The term 'trimming', much as the term 'strong banking', is probably the result of poor translation by the original source.

Good to hear that the 2 survivors are doing well.

Trumpet_trousers

22nd May 2015, 14:54

Just to be clear:
Whether MSN23 was fitted with such a system (software/hardware) is immaterial - a first-flight schedule would not be checking/testing any such capability, that would either be in subsequent flights, or - more likely - subject to specific functionality testing onboard one of the 3 development aircraft prior to being cleared for series production embodiment.

KenV

22nd May 2015, 17:28

Yes, that is my understanding of the system. It is, in effect, an autonomous 'wing relieving' system specifically for the tactical role.
If you look at any of the A400M display videos out there, the penultimate manoeuvre before the 120 degree wing-over at the conclusion of the display is a 3G pull-up.

Interesting. I wonder why they chose this route to achieve 3G maneuver capability. The C-17 has 3G maneuver capability without resorting to a wing fuel transfer system. Indeed at lighter weights it is cleared for 3.5G maneuvers. And that's with an "old fashioned" aluminum wing, not the high tech composites of the A400.

SyEng

22nd May 2015, 17:33

Courtney Mil

22nd May 2015, 17:37

Ah, yes, KenV. Let's see, now. You're in Texas and you clearly think the Boeing product has the better answer over the European thing. Hmmm. Help me out here. :cool:

KenV

22nd May 2015, 17:40

Whether MSN23 was fitted with such a system (software/hardware) is immaterial - a first-flight schedule would not be checking/testing any such capability, that would either be in subsequent flights, or - more likely - subject to specific functionality testing onboard one of the 3 development aircraft prior to being cleared for series production embodiment.

I can't speak for the A400 and Airbus, but Douglas on the C-17 used brand new production aircraft to test, evaluate, and certify all sorts of changes. For example, the very first center wing tank equipped C-17 was a production aircraft straight off the production line. And that tank required new plumbing, valves, pumps, and new fuel management software unique to the centerwing tank. There were also changes to the flight control software. That airplane was also the first of the Block 13 production standard, which involved many other changes. It was all tested and certified on that first production aircraft and not T1, the single test aircraft. And T1 is now retired so ALL changes and mods are now tested and certified on production aircraft.

KenV

22nd May 2015, 17:55

Ah, yes, KenV. Let's see, now. You're in Texas and you clearly think the Boeing product has the better answer over the European thing.
There we go again. First, no, the C-17 is a Douglas product purchased by Boeing. And no, I neither stated nor remotely implied C-17 was "better". I said it was "different". That is a HUGE difference. I'm trying to understand the difference and the philosophy behind it.

Douglas is well known for their conservative design philosophy. Some say that philosophy is "better". Clearly in the market place it is NOT "better", because except for the C-17 the entire Douglas production line no longer exists. And the C-17 line will cease to exist in a few weeks. Is that "better"? Probably not. Certainly not for the folks in Long Beach, California.

KenV

22nd May 2015, 18:06

In common with most large aircraft, by design the A400M fuel system keeps as much fuel as far outboard as possible all the time for wing bending moment relief. As fuel is used from the feed tanks, they are topped up from the centre and transfer tanks in that order. (There is a slight modification to this in a tactical fuel loading mode which I won't describe here - but that's not important right now.) Most? I can't speak for "most", but that's not how Douglas did things. Consistent with Douglas' conservative design approach, C-17 does not operate that way. There are four wing tanks on the C-17. And they feed fuel to their associated engines equally. The outer tanks are not kept full for wing bending relief. On those C-17s with a center tank, the center tank transfers fuel to the four main tanks equally until the centertank is dry. The center tank is filled last and emptied first, and cannot be used to feed the engines, but it transfers fuel to the wing tanks equally.

Courtney Mil

22nd May 2015, 18:37

I was writing tongue-in-cheek, KenV. Sorry, maybe a subject close to your heart.

KenV

22nd May 2015, 18:49

Sorry, missed the tongue-in-cheek. My bad.

But in my defense, this is not the first time where I asked a question about an Airbus product and others assumed I was knocking Airbus. Douglas had a long and proud history and having lost to Boeing, I'm very familiar with the notion that "different" is not necessarily "better". (or for that matter, worse.) But having experienced the Boeing vs Douglas difference first hand, I like to understand the Boeing vs Airbus difference.

Courtney Mil

22nd May 2015, 18:54

I get that, Ken. :ok:

sandiego89

28th May 2015, 12:05

Any reports if data was retrieved from the flight recorders? Seems there were early reports of technical issues extracting the data and the boxes went from Spain, to France and then perhaps to the US manufacturer.

BEagle

28th May 2015, 12:20

From the Wall Street Journal:

Airbus CEO Says A400M Black Box Data Recovered

By Robert Wall
May 27, 2015 12:26 p.m. ET

Airbus Group Chief Executive Tom Enders said data from the black boxes on the A400M military transport plane that crashed this month in Spain has been extracted, though Spanish authorities have not yet shared the crucial information.

“So far we have not had access to the data” though it has been available for more than a week, Mr. Enders told shareholders in Amsterdam.

Extracting the information wasn’t simple and in one case involved sending the box to its manufacturer, L-3 Communications, in the U.S., Mr. Enders said.

The May 9 crash, the first of an A400M, killed four of six Airbus employees on the plane. The other two were critically injured, though Mr. Enders said on Wednesday their condition was improving.

Airbus last week alerted operators that the plane requires one-time checks of the so-called electronic control units on each of the four engines before the next flight. The electronic box helps translate pilot commands into instructions on how the engine should operate.

Airbus also instructed operators to perform additional checks in case of later engine problems. Airbus said it found the issue, seen as a flaw in the system’s software, during its own analysis of what may have caused the crash.

Mr. Enders said Airbus wants access to the black box data, which stores conversations in the cockpit and, more critically, a large number of system parameters, to validate whether its hypothesis about the crash is accurate.

The U.K., Germany, Turkey and Malaysia grounded their transport planes after the crash, although France continued using the aircraft. Spanish authorities also told Airbus to stop flying newly built planes for the time being.

Mr. Enders said the data from the black boxes is crucial to determining exactly what caused the accident, take corrective action and gain clearance for the planes to start flying again more widely.

Mr. Enders said the crash would have an impact on the program, which was already behind schedule. He said he’s optimistic the accident “will not have a very detrimental impact on the aircraft deliveries and the cost situation in 2015.

The A400M program is several billion dollars over cost after repeated delays during its development. The program is unprofitable over the 174 aircraft already ordered, with pressure on Airbus to win additional deals to make money with the aircraft.

Airbus in January made management changes to the program and since then ”the situation is markedly improved,” Mr. Enders said.

:(

AlphaZuluRomeo

28th May 2015, 19:46

Marwan Lahoud (Airbus strategy director) is quoted in tomorrow's edition of the german newspaper Handelsblatt.

Crash de l?A400M*: Airbus reconnaît des problèmes de qualité dans l?assemblage (http://www.lemonde.fr/entreprises/article/2015/05/28/crash-de-l-a400m-airbus-reconnait-des-problemes-de-qualite-dans-l-assemblage_4642973_1656994.html)
and
Crash A400M: "Un sérieux problème de qualité dans l'assemblage final" - RTBF Economie (http://www.rtbf.be/info/economie/detail_crash-a400m-un-serieux-probleme-de-qualite-dans-l-assemblage-final?id=8992521)

Les boîtes noires le confirment. Il n'y pas de défaut structurel, mais nous avons un sérieux problème de qualité dans l'assemblage final.
Black boxes confirm this. There is no structural (design) defect, but we have a serious quality problem at the final assembly stage.

Nous avons pris connaissance pour la première fois hier (mercredi) des résultats, ils confirment nos analyses internes
We have had access to the results of the recorders analysis for the first time yesterday (Wednesday), they confirm our internal analysis.

atakacs

28th May 2015, 20:34

Anyone have an idea what was the issue with the data recorders ? Given the crash circumstances it would seems that they should have been recovered in a fairly decent shape and these must be state of the art. I'm a little puzzled by this.

As for the crash being down to quality control in assembly... wow ! That would quite unbelievable given the context. I just can't imagine Airbus having such a huge issue in QA - muss be more to the story.

rolling20

29th May 2015, 07:23

I know some of you here knew the crew, I am not trying to attribute blame, just mentioning what is in the public domain.

LES ECHOS, saying the crash could have been human error. Rough translation here: The control software of the engines has been poorly installed just prior to the flight of the aircraft.

A400M, airplane cursed ? The track of a human error at Airbus is confirmed in the fatal accident of May 9 last year in Seville, said of corroborating sources. Specifically, it would seem that the control software of the power of the four motors - turboprop - has been downloaded incorrectly during the phase of so-called "pre-flight ", i.e. the phase which separates the output of the device of the assembly line for its first flight. " IS sure to 99 % ", says a source close to the folder.

On 9 May last, the A400M MSN23 - that is to say, the 23e series - crashed some time after taking off for its first flight. Three of the four engines have suddenly lost power. The accident has cost the lives of four of the six persons on board. The appliance was the third to be delivered to Turkey. The black boxes have been found but the specialized unit of the Spanish Ministry of Defense in charge of the investigation has made no comment since.

5 Billion of additional costs

if the track to a procedural error is confirmed, the design of engines, very complex, is therefore not in issue. " They are the consequence, not the cause of the crash ", is it estimated to source close. Manufactured by EPI, a consortium consisting of the British Rolls-Royce , the French Snecma (Safran group), the Spanish ITP and the German MTU, the engines are at the origin of the previous setbacks of the program who have already cost 5 billion of extra cost to Airbus.

Marwan Lahoud, the responsible for the strategy and marketing of Airbus Group, goes in this direction. " Black boxes the confirm. There is no structural defect.
But we have a serious problem of quality in the final assembly ", he says in an interview to " Handelsblatt " to be issued on Friday. Last May 19, Airbus had recommended to its clients to regularly inspect the ECU, the engine electronic control unit, before the flight and perform additional checks after a possible replacement of engine or the ECU. But without establishing a link with the crash.

At this point, Germany, Great Britain, Turkey and Malaysia have suspended the flights of their A400M. France, she, the continues but only for the operational emergencies. In total, 174 A400M have been ordered by eight countries. Twelve only are in service. Independently of the crash, the program suffers from new delays. The dropping of paratroopers had major problems, and in-flight refueling of helicopters will not see the day, according to the DGA. All these problems have forced Airbus a go a load of EUR 551 million in its accounts 2014 ( " Echoes " of 2 March).

Courtney Mil

29th May 2015, 11:56

Rolling20, it looks like you've become a victim of Google Translate.

rolling20

29th May 2015, 15:31

Courtney. I never use Google. However I should have just posted the Les Echos headline I received this morning.

KenV

29th May 2015, 16:09

Anyone have an idea what was the issue with the data recorders ? Given the crash circumstances it would seems that they should have been recovered in a fairly decent shape and these must be state of the art. I'm a little puzzled by this.

The problem was not with the data recorders. The problem was with the data readers. They were incompatible with the recorders. The manufacturer (L-3 Com) was able to download all the data using their readers and the data has been sent to the Spanish investigators. Still awaiting their analysis.

chuks

30th May 2015, 07:21

There's a report in today's newspaper from the German Press Agency (DPA) that some sort of installation error may have occurred in the software on the accident aircraft to cause the crash. This has not been confirmed by Airbus.

Then there's the usual speculation about how this might cause people to lose confidence in the quality control standards of Airbus. Anyway, the report points away from some sort of crew error that might have caused the crash. It also reads that there's no basic problem with the powerplant design.

atakacs

30th May 2015, 07:57

The problem was with the data readers. They were incompatible with the recorders. The manufacturer (L-3 Com) was able to download all the data using their readers and the data has been sent to the Spanish investigators.

Interesting - Aren't the recording performed in a standardized manner (sorry if this sounds like a naive question) ?

lomapaseo

30th May 2015, 12:24

Interesting - Aren't the recording performed in a standardized manner (sorry if this sounds like a naive question)

No more so than airplanes

Beta and VHS

Android and Windows

Pacemakers

etc.

Courtney Mil

30th May 2015, 14:47

I guess you build your data recorder to record data from a particular aircraft. A Tornado recorder wouldn't be much good in a 747 where would be so many more channels required. Or it may be that a Mac can't read a Windows hard drive - yes I know there are ways!

Anyone know if the data is encrypted?

grumpyoldgeek

30th May 2015, 15:03

I don't know for sure, but there's several reasons why you would not want to encrypt the data and not a single reason why you would. That said, the data might not be in what we would consider "plain text". It may be binary, binary coded decimal, or plain ASCII decimal.

sandiego89

30th May 2015, 17:24

grumpyoldgeek: ...but there's several reasons why you would not want to encrypt the data and not a single reason why you would....

Grumpy: In military aircraft there may be some desire to keep flight and voice data encrypted. The aircraft might be lost over hostile airspace and the adversary may get to the boxes first, and that data could prove useful to an adversary.

Here is recent press release for one such system:

Curtiss-Wright Announces Encrypted Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder (http://www.cwcdefense.com/media-center/press-release/curtiss-wright-announces-encrypted-cockpit-voice-and-flight-data-recorder.html)

Courtney Mil

30th May 2015, 18:41

Thank you Sandiego, you beat me to it.

Skeleton

31st May 2015, 13:15

Agreed, there are definite reasons why you would encrypt such data in the Military world, I would also suggest if your having trouble recovering such data your main aim initially would be to ensure that the data your trying to extract is not being damaged by your attempts to read it.

twochai

31st May 2015, 14:01

Does this not suggest the manufacturer had never downloaded data from the FDR/CVR during the course of the certification program? One would think they would, as a matter of course, have downloaded the FDR/CVR data to compare with the downlinked telemetry during the course of the test program.

roulishollandais

31st May 2015, 18:02

installation error I would like to understand that the software user manual was not correctly understood by the crew ?
That document is very important because a software user is not an aircraft user. The software user is a total stranger to the bit by bit process. Every word of that written process (the user manual) must be perfectly clear. Mostly the soft user don't use the document, or don't have it.

IT is a still new culture where we jumped too quickly. It looks like a play,but isn't a play.

Courtney Mil

31st May 2015, 21:11

There we all go speculating again. And not in a very smart way.

Twochai, no, ADR data is not used to compare with anything. There is no requirement to do so. The test data recorders/telemetry do all that is required. If you know of a reason to compare with other data sources, perhaps you might explain to us. The ADR is an independent archive for one use only and is not designed to be milked after every sortie.

Roulis, the crew did not install the software and they do not have a user manual for it, certainly not in the sense your words might suggest. The manufacturer and their sub-contractors write and install the software. The crew do not install the software. The software is installed by engineering personnel, once installed it resides in the aircraft systems. I suspect I may have misunderstood you as I don't think your translation is that good. But I respond to the way it sounds so that no one else thinks your statement means what it sounds like.

roulishollandais

1st Jun 2015, 09:50

Courtney Mil,
You didn't misunderstand me. After a former Air France Captain and Airbus fan compared the "installation" error to another classical Crew action (French radio) I wanted to have confirmation or corrected information that the misinstallation was/wasn't a Crew action. Therefore my post could seem a bit provocative. You brought the answer, thank you. It means Crew have been victims of IT world.

As a retired IT guy and Airline pilot I'm preaching since 1988 that IT testing has other rules than aircrafts' certification There is a lack in our FBW planes resulting of a sad confusion well pointed in the Ariane501 report. That is first an Ocean of vanity and lack of modesty not only the money competition.

Courtney Mil

1st Jun 2015, 11:49

I understand now.

As for FBW testing, yes it is done in a very different way to hardware. As an example, the flight control software in a certain current fast jet is so complex that to test it fully using traditional methods would have taken decades. So some of it is modelled instead. So software tests software really.

Courtney

sandiego89

1st Jun 2015, 12:44

It looks like the flight recorder data has been reviewed, and an Airbus official quoted with "....a serious final assembly quality problem."

Airbus admits to A400M assembly problems | Business | DW.DE | 29.05.2015 (http://www.dw.de/airbus-admits-to-a400m-assembly-problems/a-18484219)

Several reports have suggested a temporary loss of power to three engines, which just strikes me as an odd number. I could see one, two (same wing), or even all four being subject to software or otherwise issue, it is just that three, if confirmed, strikes me a bit more odd or unprecedented. Just a point of interest- no theory- no blame, just caught my eye.

KenV

1st Jun 2015, 15:33

Several reports have suggested a temporary loss of power to three engines, which just strikes me as an odd number. I could see one, two (same wing), or even all four being subject to software or otherwise issue, it is just that three, if confirmed, strikes me a bit more odd or unprecedented.

The problem is we know nothing of the actual software fault. It could be that the gitch rolled back power on the engines one at a time and then when the third engine rolled back, the software switched to an "alternate law" (or rough equivalent) that prevented the fourth engine from rolling back and then the other three engines starting rolling back up but not in time to avert the crash. Of course this is pure speculation on my part and is provided strictly as an example of how three engines MIGHT roll back and not the fourth.

Separately on Boeing installations, the engine software queries a pin to determine where it is installed on the aircraft (#1, #2, #3, or #4 position). If this pin was not correctly installed during assembly (the cause was described as a final assembly quality fault) perhaps all four engines thought they were in the #4 position and three engines rolled back when the data they were getting stopped making sense. Again pure speculation on my part. But the bottom line is that when software is involved there could be any number of explanations of how the engine software interacted with each other and with aircraft software to cause a three engine power roll back.

PAX_Britannica

1st Jun 2015, 16:05

Regarding C-17 [Sorry if this is a bit off-topic]

If I understand right, a C-17:

costs half as much as an A400M
carries a heavier load
carries a bigger load
carries the load further
needs fewer trained crew because of the above
Has inter-operability
Is fully developed

So why are we, in Europe, buying into this silly aircraft ?

Wrathmonk

1st Jun 2015, 16:37

PAX

You answered your own question. The very last line of your post, 5th and 6th words, would (I suggest) provide the answer/reason you seek!

sandiego89

1st Jun 2015, 16:56

Pax, I offer you might be missing a few points, and although it is tough to find a price, I feel you are way off in saying a C-17 is less than 50% of the A-400 purchace price. Way off.

A-400 customers mostly needed a C-130 and C-160 replacement/augment, with a bit more capability than what those have, not the huge leap the C-17 brings. For many scenarios you do not need the capability the C-17 brings. The A-400 is a "tweener" between the C-130 and the C-17, and for some customers that makes sence, especially for many of the European customers that are not flying continental distances that often. The UK has decided they need both (and that makes sense for them).

The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.

The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport. What you read and whom you believe may influence you thoughts here.

Political and industrial implications are also important. "Buy American" is not always the answer- and I am one (American), but understand that.

You don't need a semi-truck (lorry for my UK friends) for every run to the home improvement store....

Courtney Mil

1st Jun 2015, 17:25

Sandiego, good post. :D :ok:

KenV

1st Jun 2015, 17:55

If I understand right, a C-17:

costs half as much as an A400M
carries a heavier load
carries a bigger load
carries the load further
needs fewer trained crew because of the above
Has inter-operability
Is fully developed

So you're saying the C-17 gets up quicker, stays up longer, penetrates deeper, and delivers a larger load?

COOOLLL!

KenV

1st Jun 2015, 18:08

The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport.

True. Mostly. In current USAF service.

But during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghan wars, C-17s flew from major air depots in Europe and Turkey directly to very austere forward airfields in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which USAF calles "direct delivery" and at which the C-17 excels. And C-17 is flying into plenty of very austere fields deep in Africa right now. The C-17 cannot hope to match the A400's ground flotation (reportedly 100 passes on a CBR 6 field?), but there are plenty of 3000 ft CBR 9/10 fields all over the world.

KenV

1st Jun 2015, 18:16

The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.

Indeed. But the 6-8 billion it took to develop the A400 would have bought a LOT of fuel. I doubt that the program development costs could possibly be justified by the lower operating costs even if the A400 used zero fuel. If operating costs were a significant driver, C-130 would be far cheaper to buy and operate, and when you needed more capacity, you could rent it from the Russians, Americans, SAC, UK, and others who have longer legged, larger capacity airlift. Bottom line: IMO there's a LOT more at work here than lower operating costs.

megan

2nd Jun 2015, 04:27

From Aviation Week

Incorrectly installed engine control software caused the fatal crash of an A400M airlifter in Spain on May 9, a senior Airbus Group official says.
In an interview with the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud said the incorrect installation took place during final assembly of the aircraft, which led to engine failure and the resulting crash.

Lahoud said that data extracted from the flight data recorder this week and seen by Airbus engineers confirmed the internal hypothesis that there had been no problem with the aircraft.
“The black boxes attest to that there are no structural defects [with the aircraft], but we have a serious quality problem in the final assembly,” Lahoud told the newspaper.

The news emerged two days after Airbus CEO Tom Enders criticized Spanish agencies for withholding the flight recorder data.

“We would like to see the data and compare it with our hypothesis and proceed quickly to understand the causes of accident, so our aircraft can get back into the air,” he told shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting in Amsterdam on May 27.

Four Airbus Defense and Space flight-test personnel died when MSN23, an A400M destined for the Turkish air force, crashed during its first flight from Seville’s San Pablo Airport. The aircraft suffered technical problems shortly after takeoff and came down on agricultural land just north of the airport.

The accident cause hypothesis prompted the company to send out an Alert Operator Transmission on May 19 to the five A400M operating air arms, which requested all operators to perform one-time specific checks on the electronic control units (ECUs) fitted to each engine on the aircraft before the next flight.

For Airbus, the findings will come as a relief, as a hardware issue on the aircraft or in the Europrop International TP400 engines would have resulted in costly delays. But it may be several more days before A400M operators are satisfied with the cause and return to operations. Of the five A400M operators, only France has continued flying its fleet of six aircraft. Germany, Malaysia, Turkey and the U.K. are still pausing flight operations.
Spanish authorities are still withholding the company’s permit to test fly new-production aircraft from Seville, but flight tests of the prototypes are continuing.

PAX_Britannica

2nd Jun 2015, 08:08

Pax, I offer you might be missing a few points, and although it is tough to find a price, I feel you are way off in saying a C-17 is less than 50% of the A-400 purchace price. Way off.

I'm not so sure about that, when the various subsidies to Airbus are taken into consideration. The last I heard, UK was spending £3.2Bn for 25 A400M's. But the overall cost appears now to be a state secret.
And then there's the support costs.

A-400 customers mostly needed a C-130 and C-160 replacement/augment, with a bit more capability than what those have, not the huge leap the C-17 brings. For many scenarios you do not need the capability the C-17 brings. The A-400 is a "tweener" between the C-130 and the C-17, and for some customers that makes sence, especially for many of the European customers that are not flying continental distances that often. The UK has decided they need both (and that makes sense for them).

The A-400 claims lower operational costs. I would not want to pay the refueling bill on either, but a C-17 burns more fuel.

The 400 is likely better for tactical airstrips. Although the C-17 touts rough strip capabilty, it is mostly used as a hub and spoke type transport. What you read and whom you believe may influence you thoughts here.

Political and industrial implications are also important. "Buy American" is not always the answer- and I am one (American), but understand that.

You don't need a semi-truck (lorry for my UK friends) for every run to the home improvement store....

Sure, but if you can keep the semi-truck running for less than the cost of the fancy pickup truck, because it's easier to get it it serviced, and easier to find spares, maybe the semi-truck makes more sense even if sometimes it is more inconvenient.

["artic" might be a better UK-English translation ;-) ]

It seems to me like a mix of C130J's - or old airframes upgraded to near C130J standards - and C17s would do a better job, for less money, and cost less to maintain. And be easier to fix if you land with a few holes in the airplane.

Back in the 1970s, in the UK, I think we made wrong decisions by scrapping TSR2 in favour of not-working (then) F111, and scrapping supersonic heavy harrier (think V/STOL, super-manouevrable F4). Not that TSR2 was perfect...

Now, in Europe, we've been making wrong decisions by throwing vast subsidies at Eurofighter and A400M. We could have saved money, and gotten a better plane by just buying F22, instead of building Eurofighter.

The Oberon

2nd Jun 2015, 08:39

Back on thread but I am puzzled about this accident. I can't believe that post production/assembly and pre first flight, there is no systems testing and ground runs that would have highlighted incorrect engine operation. I am not talking about full software testing but just overall system and function testing.

Brian 48nav

2nd Jun 2015, 08:55

TSR2,P1154 and the 681 ( think I've got the last 2 right ) were all cancelled by Harold Wilson's Labour government shortly after their election in October 1964.

Many years later IIRC the ST Insight team published an article that claimed Labour promised to 'The Cousins' that we would scrap TSR2 and buy the F111 if they gave us a free hand in selling the Lightning to the Saudis. They claimed that we reneged on the deal once the Saudi contract was secure.

I think the F111 was in service with the USAF in the late 60s.

Trumpet_trousers

2nd Jun 2015, 09:49

The Oberon:
There is a comprehensive post-FAL inspection and aircraft systems testing, which includes high power engine ground runs, taxying checks, and a rejected take off amongst other things. Clearly, throughout these procedures and checks, nothing untowards was identified, otherwise the first flight would not have been authorised.

ancientaviator62

2nd Jun 2015, 09:55

Brian ,
you have indeed got the HS 1154 and 681 (STOL) correct. They were cancelled by the Wilson government but it is debatable if the British aircraft industry could have delivered these two very advanced a/c on time and on budget.

The Oberon

2nd Jun 2015, 10:33

Thanks T.T.

tdracer

2nd Jun 2015, 16:32

Incorrectly installed engine control software caused the fatal crash of an A400M airlifter in Spain on May 9, a senior Airbus Group official says.
In an interview with the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, Airbus Chief Strategy Officer Marwan Lahoud said the incorrect installation took place during final assembly of the aircraft, which led to engine failure and the resulting crash.

This part really bothers me. I deal with engines and engine control s/w on a regular basis, and on the surface it simply doesn't make sense. Loading "Level A" (flight critical) software is common, well documented, and close to Murphy proof process. The s/w load process has a series of self-checks that verify that the load was successful - and in most cases if it's not successful not only will you get appropriate error messages, the system simply won't function.

It doesn't really matter if it's engine controls, flight controls, or another system - Level A is Level A and the assumption is if you get it wrong, it could cause a crash, so the processes make sure it's really had to get it wrong. I keep thinking there is more to this than is being publicly released.

If they did manage to botch the s/w load on multiple engines in such a way that it wasn't readily apparent, I sure hope the root cause is freely and widely, shared and doesn't get caught up in any Military or Proprietary restrictions.

Duralumin

2nd Jun 2015, 22:02

I was wondering whether this is the first time that the prime cause of a major accident has been software, I can't think of another case as serious as this.

I don't see why Airbus seem so happy that this isn't a major structural fault. If the wing spar had failed we could be confident that it could be prevented from happening again. But what yawning chasm must exist in their quality control if badly loaded software can bring a state of art aircraft down like this.
I thought the days were long gone where the test pilot didn't know whether he had a machine capable of flying until after the first flight had successfully ended.

fgrieu

3rd Jun 2015, 04:53

Accidente de avión en Sevilla: El accidente del A400M, un fallo en cadena desde Alemania a Sevilla. Noticias de Andalucía (http://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/andalucia/2015-06-02/el-accidente-del-a400m-un-fallo-en-cadena-desde-alemania-a-sevilla_866140/)
in Spanish; for the adventurous, a Google translation:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elconfidencial.com%2Fespana%2Fandalucia%2 F2015-06-02%2Fel-accidente-del-a400m-un-fallo-en-cadena-desde-alemania-a-sevilla_866140%2F&edit-text=&act=url

Among assertions made by an anonymous source in the aeronautic sector (my translation): In Seville's Final Assembly Line, "Numerous security protocols have been skipped. If ground tests of the plane had included running engines at high speed before the maiden flight, the engines would have paralyzed before the plane got airborne". The journal states A400Ms produced before the troubled MSN23 had undergo such test.

I remark that this statement contradicts an earlier one reported by elconfidential, that the FADEC failure could not have been detected until the plane is airborne. A false news, a dismiss, two scoops.
Accidente de avión en Sevilla: Airbus detecta un fallo eléctrico en los motores del A400M siniestrado en Sevilla. Noticias de Empresas (http://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2015-05-19/airbus-fallo-electrico-motores-a400m-sevilla_837155/)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elconfidencial.com%2Fespana%2Fandalucia%2 F2015-06-02%2Fel-accidente-del-a400m-un-fallo-en-cadena-desde-alemania-a-sevilla_866140%2F&edit-text=&act=url

I wish Airbus made an official statement of the known facts to cut on speculation.

Onceapilot

3rd Jun 2015, 06:08

Trumpet Trousers

Just a question: Would the completed aircraft be put into full "flight" mode with all engines and systems running during post assembly testing?

OAP

Trumpet_trousers

3rd Jun 2015, 07:32

Yes. The process for MSN23 would be no different from the other aircraft that preceded it.

Elconfidential's source is clearly clueless as to the post-FAL, Pre-first flight procedure...

Onceapilot

3rd Jun 2015, 08:42

Trumpet Trousers

Thanks

OAP

roulishollandais

3rd Jun 2015, 10:00

Airbus doesn't want to pay ! They will only deny any responsibility. Why should we hope to know the truth and their work uses with smoke blankets subcontractors ? Investigation from independent international experts must go on like in the Ariane501 report.

Before sending test pilots and test engineers to death every possible soft test must be done ! Test crew don't exist to be sacrificed on reception test flights.

Imagine that : 19000 lines of code to fly !!!!! SOS Wright brothers !

Pittsextra

3rd Jun 2015, 10:39

Airbus Says Crashed A400M Aircraft Had Power Freeze in 3 Engines
By Andrea Rothman
(Bloomberg) -- Airbus Group SE said early findings from Spanish investigators probing the crash of an A400M military transport plane suggest all systems except engine controls already identified as troubled performed normally, probably ruling out intrinsic design flaws.
Three engines experienced power failure after takeoff and didn’t respond to the crew’s attempts to restore them, while other gear performed as expected in the aircraft that crashed near Seville in Spain killing four people on May 9, according to a statement from the Toulouse, France-based company. Following the crash, Airbus instructed operators of A400M transports to check the model’s engine-control system before making further flights.
The Spanish investigators looked at data from the plane’s flight-data-recorder and cockpit voice recorder. Indications that everything but the engine-control software performed normally would provide assurances that the plane’s essential design is sound. Airbus didn’t draw any conclusions about the design of the plane and its systems in today’s statement.
The engines were built by Europrop International, which includes Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc, Safran SA of France and Germany’s MTU Aero Engines AG.
The first A400M, handed over to France in 2013, was delivered a decade after the program was begun and four years later than planned after a spate of delays from glitches including engine-control software malfunctions. Even before the crash Airbus warned of new cost issues in ramping up output.
The defense program -- Europe’s most expensive -- has cost the company and governments 25 billion euros ($28 billion), about a quarter more than originally planned, though militaries from the U.K. to France and Germany are keen to get their hands on a modern transport plane to replace aging equipment.
Airbus has a backlog of 162 of the aircraft, with 12 already handed over to buyers. A schedule to deliver a total of 14 A400Ms this year is under review.
The A400M fits in between Lockheed Martin Corp.’s aging C-130 Hercules model and the larger Boeing Co. C-17 Globemaster and satisfies an acute requirement that spans the airlift of military hardware through troop transport to disaster relief.
For Related News and Information:
Link to Company News: AIR FP <Equity> CN <GO>
Top Stories: TOP<GO>
--With assistance from Christopher Jasper in London.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrea Rothman in Toulouse at +33-5-6365-7668 or
[email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Benedikt Kammel at +49-30-70010-6230 or
[email protected]

BEagle

3rd Jun 2015, 11:02

Further information from AD&S:

Airbus Defence and Space has sent an Accident Information Transmission (AIT) yesterday evening (2 June) as an update to the Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) of last 19 May to all operators of the A400M. This AIT informs that the DFDR (digital flight data recorder) and CVR (cockpit voice recorder) readouts have been successfully completed and that preliminary analysis has been conducted by CITAAM with representatives from Airbus Defence and Space providing technical advice.

CITAAM confirmed that engines 1, 2 and 3 experienced power frozen after lift-off and did not respond to the crew’s attempts to control the power setting in the normal way, whilst engine 4 responded to throttle demands. When the power levers were set to “flight idle” in an attempt to reduce power, the power reduced but then remained at “flight idle” on the three affected engines for the remainder of the flight despite attempts by the crew to regain power. This statement is consistent with those three engines being affected by the issue addressed with our AOT.

Preliminary analyses have shown that all other aircraft systems performed normally and did not identify any other abnormalities throughout the flight. Accordingly, Airbus Defence and Space does not have any additional specific recommendations beyond those specified in our AOT of May 19th.

The investigation continues and further updates will be given if significant new information becomes available.

See: Military Aircraft Airbus DS | Press Center (http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/PressCenter/LatestNews/TabId/176/ArtMID/681/ArticleID/372/Statement-regarding-Accident-Information-Transmission-AIT-to-A400M-operators-as-follow-up-to-AOT-of-19-May.aspx)

mark25787

3rd Jun 2015, 11:21

"Power frozen" meaning that the 3 engines remained at take off power when they were throttled down shortly after TO whilst engine 4 reduced as planned???
All 4 throttles then reduced to idle which they all responded to and when power reapplied, 3 engines stayed at idle whilst engine 4 responded as expected?

safetypee

3rd Jun 2015, 14:18

Do the reports / discussions relate to a software version (separate program loads) or the (re)configuration of a single ‘standard’ software?

A comparison with ‘older’ conventional aircraft, the production pre first flight testing could include installing specific testing devices such as control rod loading and angle measurements in the aircraft. These were not flight-worthy and thus had to be clearly identifiable and/or have ‘interference’ links preventing flight use. Similarly, failure conditions could be tested with system pin-outs or interference links (grnd/flt switches) which created abnormal situations which could not or would not be advisable to test in flight. The devices would again be clearly identified – big red flag, etc; which of course did not prevent the rare ‘surprise’ during first flights if some aspect was overlooked.

Are we to assume that similar activities with software loads/configurations are conducted during ground testing; i.e. not flight worthy programs / configurations. If so then the problem is perhaps more with software control/configuration opposed to the design/operation of the power-plant control system, but the latter should never be discounted.

I recall one ‘conventional’ design weakness which was not discovered during ground testing and resulted in all engines going sub idle at touchdown after first flight – ‘wt on wheels’/engine control logic, and a minor unrelated system failure. This could have happened in flight but fortunately the specific trigger circumstances were not encountered.

KenV

3rd Jun 2015, 15:05

If so then the problem is perhaps more with software control/configuration opposed to the design/operation of the power-plant control system

Multiple sources have published Airbus stating that the problem was one of quality control in the final assembly process, and not a fault in the "design/operation" of the aircraft.

bitsleftover66

3rd Jun 2015, 21:53

tdracer

4th Jun 2015, 00:11

Are we to assume that similar activities with software loads/configurations are conducted during ground testing; i.e. not flight worthy programs / configurations. If so then the problem is perhaps more with software control/configuration opposed to the design/operation of the power-plant control system, but the latter should never be discounted.
Most FADEC s/w has the ability to be 'trimmed' via a s/w adjustment. This trim capability is typically used during flight testing for specific testing - e.g. allowing a certain amount of overboost, or changing an idle schedule to facilitate some specific flight test objective. We have very specific processes and procedures on how these trims are used - for example if a trim is going to be used on all engines, it must be flight tested on a single engine first before it can be installed cross-wing. As I noted in the previous post - we are quite aware we're messing with flight critical s/w.

We had an incident in service a while back where a newly installed engine was squawked on the next flight for T/O thrust shortfall and excessive throttle stagger. The engine in question was a brand new spare received from the engine manufacture. It turned out that the engine manufacture used software trims in the engine test cell in order to perform some of the normal production acceptance testing on a new engine - and somehow this engine had gotten shipped with those s/w trims still installed in the FADEC :eek:. Very embarrassing for the engine company, but fortunately there was a happy outcome, and new procedures were implemented to prevent a repeat.
Sorry for the speculation, but it rather sounds like some sort of s/w trim had been installed in the engine s/w (either by the engine manufacture, or by Airbus as part of their pre-flight functional testing) and not "removed prior to flight" on the three engines.

Mark in CA

4th Jun 2015, 07:33

Airbus confirms software configuration error caused plane crash | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/airbus-confirms-software-configuration-error-caused-plane-crash/)

KenV

4th Jun 2015, 12:56

KenV-'There are four wing tanks on the C-17. And they feed fuel to their associated engines equally. The outer tanks are not kept full for wing bending relief.'

I beg to differ Ken, the outboard tanks on the C-17 are kept full until the inboards reach the same level then they all come down together.

You are of course correct. I was not clear. The inboard tanks are larger than the outboard tanks. Fuel is fed from the inboard tanks to both engines until the fuel volume is equal in the inboard and outboard tanks. From that point both tanks feed their respective engines equally, with the outboard tanks not kept full for wing bending relief.

roulishollandais

5th Jun 2015, 08:24

We had an incident in service a while back where a newly installed engine was squawked on the next flight for T/O thrust shortfall and excessive throttle stagger. The engine in question was a brand new spare received from the engine manufacture. It turned out that the engine manufacture used software trims in the engine test cell in order to perform some of the normal production acceptance testing on a new engine - and somehow this engine had gotten shipped with those s/w trims still installed in the FADEC . Very embarrassing for the engine company, but fortunately there was a happy outcome, and new procedures were implemented to prevent a repeat.
Sorry for the speculation, but it rather sounds like some sort of s/w trim had been installed in the engine s/w (either by the engine manufacture, or by Airbus as part of their pre-flight functional testing) and not "removed prior to flight" on the three engines.It seems so easy to modify a software without all the tests with the test data are done. That is a specific danger of flying computers. It implies too to have a low level of written history of the system , and that bad history may hide for a long time a software mistake/fault.