A400M Accident in Sevilla

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

It wouldn't be the first time that a computer has caused an accident. There have been numerous other computer related incidents from several different manufacturers over the years. Some of these aircraft are just too clever for their own good.

[allardjd 1,853]

I'm still troubled by no CVR and DFR data. The German Airbus slammed into a granite wall and they got data from those. What's the problem that's preventing these being read? It's beginning to smell...

 

John

[donnybalonny 46]

John, its a military Aircraft and the minister of defense has been told to wait. (or shut up) 

We might never get the facts. The official story about the black boxes is that they were severely damaged in the accident.

Besides, many people ,like me, dont feel to good about this Airbus computer control thingie, so they may be reluctant to say what happened if it indeed was a software problem. We live in a very nervous world. Especially when it comes to money.

[allardjd 1,853]

Are you saying "cover-up" without actually saying it?

 

John

[hurricanemk1c 195]

Wouldn't be the first time Jhon - the French tradition of furiously denying a problem whilst equally furiously trying to fix the problem is still alive and well

[MartinW 0]

It wouldn't be the first time that a computer has caused an accident. There have been numerous other computer related incidents from several different manufacturers over the years. Some of these aircraft are just too clever for their own good.

Considering that the skies in Europe are full of FBW Airbuses, not to mention other parts of the world too, not to mention many 777's... such incidents, when put into the proper perspective are rare. I don't therefore see such aircraft as too clever for their own good at all.

I see only the number of FBW incidents we should expect.

I say FBW has demonstrated over the years a very good safety record.

[brett 2,314]

We should expect "O" incidents Martin, unfortunately that never happens.

[MartinW 0]

Re the flight data recorders...
 
No "cover up" No metaphorical odours, just compatibility issues.

 

The Spanish government confirmed on 10 May 2015 that the plane’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder had been recovered.[16] Despite being examined by a joint team from the Spanish ministries of development and defense, the Spanish authorities subsequently passed the recorders to the French military air accident investigation agency BEAD to extract and analyze the data. On 13 May 2015 it emerged that technical issues were slowing retrieval of the crash data; General Bruno Caïtucoli, head of BEAD, reported that "there are technical issues in reading the system, and it is a question of compatibility between systems, so we are still trying to extract data. The extracting system we are using belongs to the French defense procurement agency DGA,” Caïtucoli said, noting that the problem appeared to be a compatibility issue between the recorders and the DGA’s data reading system, rather than an issue with the condition of the recorders themselves.[17]

Several reports have suggested that as many as three of the aircraft's four engines failed during the A400M's departure from Seville.[18] 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 maneuvers. 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.[19]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Seville_A400M_crash

[MartinW 0]

We should expect "O" incidents Martin, unfortunately that never happens.

 

Well no Brett.

 

We would "like" 0 accidents.

 

Unfortunately technology hasn't progressed to the point where it's infallible. Such a thing may never be possible. Thus, we can "expect" a given level of failure.

 

What we see in terms of FBW/computer related incidents is minimal given the number of aircraft utilising these systems. Doesn't make it any less tragic though.

[allardjd 1,853]

So Airbus are flying CVRs and DFRs that no one can read the data from? How novel. I expect there is a strong desire to have the data yet no one seems to be able to retrieve it. This is, to the best of my knowledge, unprecedented. What if it were one of the French A400Ms - would they be unable to read those too? In the meantime 20-odd aircraft worth hundreds of millions each are gathering dust on the ramps waiting for their owners to be told they are not fatally flawed.

[brett 2,314]

Between losing an entire aircraft and having problems reading information that is widely used I am beginning to not trust technology so much.

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

So Airbus are flying CVRs and DFRs that no one can read the data from?

 

I’m only guessing this is some counter measure so authorities cannot manipulate the data retrieved; and possibly few other elements protected with this approach,

To me this translate to good common sense; and a very important layer of security, do you see data falling in the wrong hands this way?

[allardjd 1,853]

So who CAN read the data, and why haven't they been asked to?

 

John

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

I’d have to say an authorized Airbus officer,

and who's to say they weren’t asked to read it?

maybe they have an interest not to publish this yet?

when you think about it; they comply with regulation on one hand;

on the other they still reserve the interpretation of the transcript to one of their own,

who's to guarantee that the agent in charge of the investigation has the right experience, the right tools and knowledge to put all the pieces together?

what about political or commercial interests?

from a commercial point of view; this makes sense to me,

(above is just my own conjecture!)

[allardjd 1,853]

Quote

and who's to say they weren’t asked to read it?

 

This, for one...

 

Quote

The Spanish government confirmed on 10 May 2015 that the plane’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder had been recovered.[16] Despite being examined by a joint team from the Spanish ministries of development and defense, the Spanish authorities subsequently passed the recorders to the French military air accident investigation agency BEAD to extract and analyze the data. On 13 May 2015 it emerged that technical issues were slowing retrieval of the crash data; General Bruno Caïtucoli, head of BEAD, reported that "there are technical issues in reading the system, and it is a question of compatibility between systems, so we are still trying to extract data. The extracting system we are using belongs to the French defense procurement agency DGA,” Caïtucoli said, noting that the problem appeared to be a compatibility issue between the recorders and the DGA’s data reading system, rather than an issue with the condition of the recorders themselves.[17]

 

Yeah - I agree that a lawyerly, weaselly reading of the above does not entirely preclude the possibility that Airbus is helping them get the data out or even that they may already have it, but if that's the case it could certainly be made more clear.

 

If an "Airbus officer" has provided the decryption key (or the functional equivalent) for the French authorities in exchange for a pristine copy of the raw data in order to protect themselves from later altering and falsification, that's fine. If ONLY Airbus gets the data, that may well be a case of it being in "...the wrong hands...".

 

I'd also have to say that the French government might perceive a great deal of self-interest in protecting Mother Airbus, so even if the French and Airbus (and no one else) have the data I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the rest of the world will get a cleaned up version that will exonerate Airbus in the accident to as great a degree as possible.

 

My own conjecture is that it's beginning to smell like rotten fish that there has been no acknowledgement that the data has been retrieved in a readable format.  This long after the accident it appears to me that the two most plausible explanations are incompetency or deliberate obfuscation, for whatever reason.

 

John

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

completely agree; a cleaned up version and obfuscation is practically a given,

[donnybalonny 46]

Thats my feeling as well. And its not only the French goverment. The 400M factory is in Seville, a region with a very high unemployment. They have an orderlist of hundreds of these AC and they would like to build them. And, of course, sell them.

[MartinW 0]

Caïtucoli said, noting that the problem appeared to be a compatibility issue between the recorders and the DGA’s data reading system, rather than an issue with the condition of the recorders themselves.[17]

 

 

Might be worth mentioning that the statement above does say "appeared to be". So it seems that at the time of writing, they were still only theorizing that it was a compatibility issue.

 

So in answer to "who CAN read the data, and why haven't they been asked to"... Someone may have been "asked to" but the compatibility issue is an issue for them too, an unexpected compatibility issue.

We shouldn't assume it's a KNOWN compatability issue!

In addition, it appears data was being retrieved, all be it at a slower rate. That wouldn't be the case if a deliberate incompatibility was built into the devices.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/tech-issues-slow-retrieval-a400m-crash-data

My guess is that the investigators will spill the beans when they are good and ready, when they have all the answers and can do so definitively. I don't see evidence for speculation about cover ups, or anybody conspiring with anybody. Or sanitized reports expected.

[MartinW 0]

With a little further investigation...

It appears one of the black boxes has been sent to the US for further investigation. I would suggest this is a compatibility issue that was unexpected. Rather than a feature built into the devices.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-05-18/news/62322857_1_crash-clues-black-box-flight-recorders

[allardjd 1,853]

It's been over two weeks since the crash.  They recovered the boxes the day after.  20+, $300 million plus aircraft are idled, including further factory test flying.  If after two weeks they are not able to dump the data in a readable format there would appear to be some serious incompetence, whether due to incompatibility, technical issues or whatever, or else there's deliberate obfuscation.  If I were the CEO and Airbus are truly not able to get the data out, I would be publicly eating crow and heads would roll.

 

John

[MartinW 0]

How do you know the data hasn't been retrieved?

It was announced a few days ago that the investigators had found evidence in the aircrafts data logs that the ECU software may be the issue. That data had been generated from data gathered by Airbus's flight-operations team and the logs that had been generated during ground tests of flight MSN23.

They may have the black box data now but it's not as relevant as the aforementioned data.

Currently they are waiting for the operators concerned to complete checks on the ECU's.

If after two weeks they have an idea as to the cause, which looks likely, then I think they've done rather well. Investigations like this can, and have, taken much longer.

Personally, two weeks or two months, I would rather see the investigators taking as long as they need to correctly identify the cause, rather than being put under pressure to find an answer quickly.

Edit: We shouldn't forget either, that a Spanish judge held on to the black boxes for a week, in accordance with Spanish judicial process.

[allardjd 1,853]

There is telemetry on the factory test flight so some data is recorded on the ground as it is transmitted.  I suspect the CVR data is not part of that.  

 

I would not be terribly surprised if they already have recovered the data.   To not say so creates the impression that they are trying to hide something, which may well be the case.  However, they may have already made the decision that creating the impression of hiding the truth is less damaging than the truth itself, until a more "polished" version can be prepared that doesn't cast them in such a bad light.

 

Only 174 of these are ordered with the crashed one being the 23rd built.  That is a good bit short of the number that need to be sold for the project to break even or eventually make a profit.  They need to get ahead of this story and the impact on the reputation of Airbus and the A400M if they have any hopes of selling any more.

 

John

[brett 2,314]

Exactly my thoughts John, well said.  

[MartinW 0]

There is telemetry on the factory test flight so some data is recorded on the ground as it is transmitted. I suspect the CVR data is not part of that.

 

 

 

The CVR data is different. However, when retrieved [and they may have already] it might serve to validate or invalidate the ECU hypothesis.

 

I would not be terribly surprised if they already have recovered the data. To not say so creates the impression that they are trying to hide something, which may well be the case. However, they may have already made the decision that creating the impression of hiding the truth is less damaging than the truth itself, until a more "polished" version can be prepared that doesn't cast them in such a bad light.

They may or may not have recovered the black box data. If the data they have analysed from the flight-operations team and the logs that had been generated during ground tests, suggests that the issue is related to the engine ECU's, then that is the line of investigation they should follow and that is all we need to know. What are you guys expecting from the CVR's, major revelations that all of the worlds FBW aircraft are fundamentally flawed, all Airbus aircraft are about to drop out of the skies onto populated areas? We've been told where they believe the issue lies, that's all you need!

This is a military aircraft, however, you could argue that as tax payers we have a right to information regarding our investment... and I'm sure that once the investigation is complete a full report regarding the accident will be submitted.

Having the black box data [and we have no idea if they have or haven't] doesn't give me the impression that they are trying to hide anything at all. After such a short time since the accident, to suggest such a thing is a bit strange in my view. Somebody work it out. How long has it been since the accident? And don't forget a Spanish judge hung on the black boxes for at least a week. What was it, 17 days ago? Minus a week the Spanish judge had the boxes, so 10 days! And don't forget black box analysis isn't simply a case of downloading it, it requires very careful  and time consuming analysis.

I know some are hyper sensitive when I mention conspiracy theories, but honestly guys, all this talk of polished reports, sanitising the reports, and raising suspicion is misguided.

 

If after 3 months we still haven't an inkling as to what was on the black boxes, and Airbus releases a report that looks suspiciously like it was polished, then I'll be the first to join in and exercise my imagination too. But to suggest such a thing now is VERY premature.

 

They decided the issue was probably related to the ECU's on the 19th. Only 10 days after the accident. That's damn fast work. You should be praising their rapidity not exercising active imaginations in my view.

 

 

 

 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

After recovering them, the French authorities and Airbus had the data from the AF 447 black boxes in less time than this and they acknowledged it as soon as they did.  Those had been three miles deep in the ocean for more than two years.  Ditto the Germanwings crash - when they had the data they said so.  I'm not looking for the gory details at this point but I can't escape my earlier conclusion - if they don't have the data by now, there's incompetence at work somewhere along the line; if they do have it they are being deceitful by not acknowledging it.  Organizations are not deliberately deceitful unless there's a reason that they perceive to be to their benefit.  

 

What I expect is honesty, not necessarily full disclosure, but telling the public and their customers and their investors, past and future, what is going on at least in general terms. The stuff about "compatibility" causing a delay in accessing the CVR and DFR data is, in my opinion, smoke and mirrors.

 

As for ECUs, as far as I know the A400M is the only turboprop in the Airbus stable.   This is most likely not anything remotely close to a FBW issue.  Whatever the issue it may well have very little or no applicability to their non-military airliner products.  I'd be surprised if it did, unless it's in the general realm of software design and management. 

 

With respect to conspiracy theories, it's not a theory, at least not in my case, just an opinion.  Companies and countries sometimes tell lies of omission or outright, barefaced lies when they perceive it to be in their best interests.  When the interests of a very large company and those of it's mother country are in synch, it's all the more likely.  If the shoe were on the other foot and this were Boeing or Lockheed and the US NTSB or FAA, I wouldn't expect things to be much different. 

 

I don't favor the Airbus control philosophy but I don't believe the concept is seriously flawed.  It's a viable approach and like anything else in aviation, is improving as the lessons learned are extracted from events, incidents and accidents.  That's something that the aircraft industry does quite well.  It's not raining Airbuses and there are plenty of them flying so they're doing OK.

 

John