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

Reports of A400 Crash, Saville, Spain

Wikiposts
Search
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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 20th May 2015, 12:55
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From 2015 Seville A400M crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Peter H is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 13:20
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by KenV; 20th May 2015 at 13:35.
KenV is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 13:32
  #143 (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
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.
glad rag is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 13:32
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,202
Received 401 Likes on 248 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian W May
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?
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 20th May 2015, 13:42
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
KenV is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 13:52
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,202
Received 401 Likes on 248 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
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.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 20th May 2015, 14:03
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

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

Last edited by Trumpet_trousers; 20th May 2015 at 14:13.
Trumpet_trousers is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 14:05
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
KenV is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 14:14
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Speculation at best....
glad rag is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 14:25
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
KenV is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 15:04
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 15:42
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,202
Received 401 Likes on 248 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
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.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 20th May 2015, 16:25
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Marlow (mostly)
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A400 ECU alert

Airbus Press release today re A400:
Statement regarding Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) to A400M operators
slast is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 17:25
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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......
anengineer is offline  
Old 20th May 2015, 18:39
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Tourist is offline  
Old 21st May 2015, 00:15
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,062
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 21st May 2015, 09:49
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope there's no chance that any element of this software is installed on the ECUs of Airbus civil types . .
Torquelink is offline  
Old 21st May 2015, 10:32
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 74
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
" 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.
Thud105 is offline  
Old 21st May 2015, 10:41
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
" 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 . . .
Brian W May is offline  
Old 21st May 2015, 12:15
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
" 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.
Trumpet_trousers is offline  


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.