Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain

Old 19th May 2015, 10:17
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 362
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Der Spiegel Airbus A400M: Militärmaschine stürzte wegen Software-Problemen ab - SPIEGEL ONLINE
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.
EDLB is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 10:54
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ACT, Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 500
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
That report is from Spiegel so it must be true.
Skeleton is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 11:11
  #123 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 1,017
Received 16 Likes on 7 Posts
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
airsound is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 11:20
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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).
Brian W May is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 11:32
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Doing SAR somewhere.
Age: 57
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Furia is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 14:38
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Brian W May is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 15:03
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
KenV is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 15:30
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is absolutely no reason for a FADEC design to be unreliable.
Correct . . . there isn't.
Brian W May is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 16:04
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FADEC

There is no reference to FADEC in the quoted AOT
Trumpet_trousers is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 16:19
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
..........

Last edited by Radix; 18th Mar 2016 at 01:41.
Radix is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 17:21
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are they saying, this brand new aircraft was flying its first flight with updated software ?
Backoffice is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 18:06
  #132 (permalink)  
thf
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: living room
Posts: 47
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Backoffice
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

Last edited by thf; 19th May 2015 at 18:16.
thf is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 18:17
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
KenV is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 18:37
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aviation Week: Software Cut Off Fuel Supply In Stricken A400M
mivens is offline  
Old 19th May 2015, 19:37
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
deptrai is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 11:02
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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).
Brian W May is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 12:40
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
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?
glad rag is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 12:41
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airbus investigates engine software as cause of troop transport crash

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
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 12:47
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
KenV is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 12:48
  #140 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope the crew can override any type of electronic engine control.
aterpster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.