Slashdot Log In
Airbus A380 Under Fire
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Oct 01, 2005 07:03 PM
from the u.s.-laws-that-aren't-so-bad dept.
from the u.s.-laws-that-aren't-so-bad dept.
jose parinas writes "The security of the Airbus A380 jetliner is questioned by a U.S. Engineer that faces arrest and bankruptcy in Austria. A year ago, Mangan told European aviation authorities that he believed there were problems with a computer chip on the Airbus A380, the biggest and costliest commercial airliner ever built."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again 214 comments
An anonymous reader writes "It's not just that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner may be unsafe or vulnerable to hacker attacks. At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state. The 787's carbon-fiber construction and next-generation technology have pushed back their delivery schedule once again, this time requiring a redesign of the plane's wingbox. Airlines will have to wait 18 more months to get it delivered, which is an extremely serious blow to the credibility of the company and their financial standing, as they would have to pay penalties to the buyers of more than 850 of these planes. And we thought Airbus had problems." Good thing Boeing can still count on its patent portfolio.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
ha (Score:5, Funny)
easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:easy (Score:5, Informative)
In effect, the article states it has already been modified and there was some sentiment that it really should be re-certified yet once again.
Parent
But are the problems only limited to the one chip? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Still... (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't just a disagreement, someone is lying here, and with geopolitical stakes what they are, who knows...
Parent
Autopilot (Score:4, Interesting)
We have all this technology but it's implemented by idiots.
Re:Autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
1. There are already multiple possible failures that could cause a depressurization (cabin window failure, door failure, engine rotor burst, crew error, etc). The design requirements call for systems to alert the crew if the cabin altitude exceeds normal values, and there must be oxygen masks that they can don within 5 seconds. The operational requirements call for the crews to be properly trained in the use of these masks, etc. So even if this chip has a problem, it doesn't necessarily create a new safety issue. Of course, the problem, if it exists, should be corrected.
2. Some business jet aircraft do have an autopilot mode that will automatically descend the aircraft if the cabin altitude exceeds a certain value (several Cessna Citation models, some Gulfstream models, latest Bombardier Global Express, etc). These aircraft often cruise at altitudes up to 51,000 ft, which is quite a bit higher than the maximum altitude for the A380 (apparently 43,000 ft, but typical cruise altitudes will be lower than that). The smaller cabin volume of the business jets mean the cabin depressurizes much quicker, given a similar failure.
Parent
Re:Autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, that's incorrect.
What you're talking about here is Air France Flight 296 [ncl.ac.uk]. There's a full description on the link, but the short version is that the pilot tried to throttle up because the plane was too low, and the fly-by-wire system overrode him due to a fault. Nothing to do with the autopilot at all --- autopilot landings are quite common these days.
(There's also been a lot of controversy about that accident, because there are a number of irregularities with the investigation indicating that the evidence has been tampered with. Check out this link [airdisaster.com] for more information.)
(Oh, yes; only three people died, although about 50 were injured.)
Parent
Re:Autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
If there was a fault anywhere it was in the engine. The pilot claims it didn't spool up fast enough, it may have suffered a stall. The official accident report concluded he simply applied throttle way too later (some conspiracy theories say the FDR was hacked by 3s to make it look like he left it too late). That said, even if that claim of the captain's was true he still furked in several other ways, which led him to be flying 30ft off a runway, when he had intended to be at 100ft (and he would never have hit those trees then..).
Ie, it was definitely compound pilot error (as is often the case), and possibly a (what should have been) problem with an engine. "Computer overrides pilot and flies into trees!" is catchier though, but simply not true - no matter how many times people repeat it.
Parent
Re:Autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
Cockpit masks don't "drop down" - They're a far more robust (and bulky) construction than the el-cheapo plastic cup+bag things the passenger cabin has, and anyway the space above the pilots tends to be occupied by switch gear and breakers. They're stowed within easy reach of each pilot (to the side, under the seat).
- the cockpit pressure sensor is pegged at a higher level, so that if there is a slow leak, the pilots can don their masks early and do a more controlled descent.
Lower level surely you mean (be it in terms of altitude or barometric pressure). I'll have to ask to find out if this is true, it doesn't ring true at all with me though.
modern aircraft are fitted with ground avoidance radar (what causes the 'whoop-whoop, pull up!' scenario).
The radio altimeter you mean? The one which provides highly accurate relative readings, but only when you're reasonably close to the ground (ie within 1 or 2k feet)? I've never heard it called "ground avoidance radar"...
But, as for the plane landing itself... well, we're still a fair way off with that one. Airports have to be equipeed with differential GPS beacons that allow the plane to determine its position down to about half a metre.
Ok, now I know you're definitely not a pilot but a troll. If you were a pilot you would know that ILS and auto-land systems have existed since at least the 1960's which can guide an aeroplane to within 50ft or so of the runway and that more recent ILS (since the 80s or so? i don't quite know, maybe before then) can bring the aeroplane to 0ft. You'd also know that ILS uses two polarised planes of radio waves - GPS doesn't come into it at all.
You, sir, are a troll. Mods: please undo parent's "interesting" moderation.
(FWIW, my father *really* is a retired commercial aviation pilot).
Parent
Offer (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't sound like much after all he's been through.
Pure propaganda, or whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep that in mind before making mindless posts about A. vs. B. . Thanks for your time.
Re:Pure propaganda, or whatever... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Pure propaganda, or whatever... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't impugn the safety of the competitor's aircraft.
By and large, these huge, competitive companies have all followed that rule. They bribed, called in political favors, exaggerated, waged huge PR campaigns against their competitors...but nobody at Airbus claims that a 737 is unsafe, and nobody at Boeing claims that an A320 is unsafe. Because everybody knows that passengers don't know squat about aircraft, and that the flying public only flies because it has faith that all flying machines are equally, perfectly, safe.
There have been a few minor skirmishes over the years, several having to do with the number of engines needed to safely carry a plane over an ocean. But all of the players (which is, both of them now) have largely refrained from saying "The other guy's planes will fall out of the sky!"
If this is a Boeing PR move, it's a dangerous and stupid one.
Parent
He violated the judges orders too (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddities in the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is NO WAY a valve could open up far enough to cause that kind of decompression. It would take several minutes to equalise with the outside air.
The article also claims that such depressurization would cause uncomciousness 'within seconds'.
Well, at 45,000 feet, you have 15 seconds of useful conciousness. Most craft cruise at around 38,000', where you'd have a full minute of useful conciousness... PLENTLY of time, in both cases, for you to put on supplemental oxygen masks.
There may well be problems with that chip, but the article really hypes up the fear factor. Typical of today's journalism: just repeat what others say, dont even bother making your own analysis, and you can't be sued.
Re:Oddities in the article. (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, a slow 'leak' gives the pilots great time for an emergency descent. Give me a slow leak over a fast one anyday.
Parent
Very strange reporting (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as a Civilian FAA Representative (Score:5, Insightful)
In this country, you're not going to put an "off the shelf" anything in a commercial aircraft unless it's gone through appropriate approval processes. You can't change the color of the fluid in the compass bowl without PMA approval.
Furthermore, if they want thier TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet), they will need to, among other things:
1) Fully ground test the operation of the depressurization valves
2) Ground pressurization test the aircraft
3) Test the pressurization systems in flight
[Reference: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25, Subpart D, Paragraphs 841 and 843]
Bypassing the approval process for a component is a serious charge. However, given that a gigantic double-decker commercial aircraft has "new and novel" written all over it, something just doesn't quite compute here.
Smells like a propaganda war, but I'll keep my eye on it.
My reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
But after reading the article and the other Slashdot opinions, I too think there's a lot that needs to be revealed before we can form an opinion about this.
Ultimately, we should hope that all the facts are revealed in this case and quickly. If there's a problem, it should be fixed and let this thing move on. If there's not, then I hope the true motivations are revealed as well. But I don't want to see this problem disappear under secrecy and then read about some horrible terrorist attack that was actually a system malfunction in disguise.
One of the tough things about engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as engineers like black and white solutions, there is a lot of grey out there. In my case, I saw the deficiencies one way, they saw them another. The scenario couldn't be practically tested and the academic research on the topic was spotty and a lot of it was unpublished internal data. I ended up putting together reports with experts from two continents to convince this client that there was a problem they weren't seeing.
Standing up on something like this is a lonely place to be. Like the article, I live with the thought of what I do can kill people if I am wrong. Makes me real cautious. But people who I report to are often non-experts, and occasionally they believe things irrationally (to me anyway) and it takes a lot of convincing to get them to see the my side. And hey, I am wrong sometimes too. But to stand up to a company that is paying your paycheque and say that you will not sign off on a design because you believe there is a problem, all the while they are screaming at you that we are behind schedule and over budget, makes for a truly shitty day at work. You get all sorts of pressure to let things go "good enough". Takes a lot of backbone and confidence for a technologist to stand up to economic pressures. We tend not to care as much for the dollars as we do for safety. I admire whistleblowers for this.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Try reading stuff, it usually helps.
Parent
Re:The next concorde? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a fact. It's a claim made by Mangan that no doubt will come up during trial. If this can be proven, then it's a really bad mark against the the company.
Parent