Airbus A380 Under Fire 587
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."
ha (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ha (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ha (Score:3, Informative)
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.
But are the problems only limited to the one chip? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:4, Informative)
Airbus didn't forge his signature, that would be the company who makes the $50 part.
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:3, Informative)
we're not talking about Airbus forging someones signature so they don't have to spend a few extra bucks on a plane worth millions... we're talking about a manufacturer who forged someones signature so they wouldn't lose out on sales of their $50 part.
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:3, Interesting)
General Electric (GE Healthcare) does this all the time with medical devices. They've forged my signature on engineering approvals several times. And told me there's nothing I can do about it. Apparently, the FDA agrees with them. Of course, now they're busy trying to sniff out who reported them.
I don't know about the
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:3, Funny)
Oh? I'd like to see you prove this claim.
Re:But are the problems only limited to the one ch (Score:3, Informative)
Why do people think this? It's idiotic. When you prove a positive, you also disprove it's opposite. If I prove I am a man, I also prove I am not a woman.
I think what people mean is that they cannot prove an existentially qualified negative (i.e. there does not exist), or a universal positive (i.e. everything in the universe is blue).
But anyway, proving and disproving those types of statements is why we have second-order logic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the answer is in the article silly (Score:4, Informative)
Yet his employer ignored his concerns, he alleges, because fixing the glitches would be costly, could take up to a year and would further delay the A380's launch.(a year behind already)
Re:There are far worse problems with Scarebus... (Score:4, Insightful)
The pilot made *excessive* alternating rudder inputs. The main problem with the aircraft seems to have been that it wasn't programmed to stop him. Try trusting the NTSB reports instead of the conspiracy theories.
Not to mention that turning this into a pissing contest will force someone else to bring up the problems with the Boeing 737 rudder. You wouldn't want that, would you?
Re:There are far worse problems with Scarebus... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There are far worse problems with Scarebus... (Score:3, Informative)
The A300-600 had a redesign on the rudder pedals, so that, the faster the aircraft was going, the less rudder input you needed to get full deflection. (To understand this, think of power-assist steering turned on its head: at low speeds, you need to crank the wheel all the way to turn full left. At 100 mph, touching the wheel will give you full left. smart design, huh?) At the speed they were going, the force required to achieve full rudder deflection was *less* than the "breakout
Re:easy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the same for the Navigation Box (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not the same for the Navigation Box (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't see what would be different for the 380. the only point is whether the pressure control system was considered to be critical enough to be fully backed up.
Re:easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Still... (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't just a disagreement, someone is lying here, and with geopolitical stakes what they are, who knows...
Not Quite (Score:4, Informative)
- Finding the problem is sporting.
- From there, you then have the programmer(s) test it and make sure that there are no more issues.
- Once that has passed, then you have the test group re-design a set of new tests and test them as well.
- Once there, an internal auditor goes over your work.
- From there, an Airbus auditor goes over said work.
- Then an EU FAA-equivilence auditor.
- Then an American FAA auditor.
Just that little bit of a fix, takes no less than 9 months (normally closer to 1.5 years). Delaying the A380 will cause serious issues right now. In fact, there are probably performance clauses penalties associated with this that would probably sink TTTech (hence the reason why they want to cheat).BTW, if you wish to argue with me over this (and some idiot will ), I currently do the coding of the test for the data AND APIs of an american unit that be in the cockpit of the A-380 (and other aircrafts). I have found out that getting this level C cert. has been very sporting.
Re:easy (Score:3, Informative)
Undercarrage test (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of a complete hydraulics failure the crew can actuate a manual lever which unlocks the undercarrage and deploys it using only gravity to do so. This is what you saw.
Normally, the doors and the undercarrage itself are driven fully by the hydraulic system and the doors are never touched by the wheels or anything else.
The airline industry... (Score:2, Informative)
Autopilot (Score:4, Interesting)
We have all this technology but it's implemented by idiots.
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Informative)
What happens if it is on a trans pacific flight and there is no good place to land?
What if there is more than one airport in range? How does it know where to land?
What if you do include a datalink so remote control of the plane is possible? How do you secure it?
Frankly the rapid and total loss of pressure is very rare.
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Informative)
Most depressurizations are survived entirely.
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.
No, it was an Airbus (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No, it was an Airbus (Score:3, Informative)
The pilot had made a slow pass over the field, and when he tried to pull the plane up, the computer overrode his commands thinking he was trying to land, and that is why they crashed into the forest.
While there some conspiracy [airdisaster.com] theories, as with many catastrophes, the generally [aviation-safety.net] accepted [planecrashinfo.com] story [forpilots.com] differs very substantially from the above.
The aircraft was flown at maximum angle of attack (AOA) at about 30-35 ft above the runway during an air show, with passengers on board. The pilot disconnected the autoth
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Informative)
And, of course, the UAVs (as used in Iraq and elsewhere) can as well.
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me wonder why they havent instituted some sort of anti-hijack system that would auto-pilot the plane to a milita
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.)
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.
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with the altimeter was, again, due to pilot error. Barometric altimeters derive altitude by measuring air pressure (obviously
Re:Autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Autopilot (Score:4, Interesting)
_ALL_ features must endure full engineering analysis in its effectivness, usage, cost, failure modes, complexity, and maintenence. For this idea to be considered, all these factors must offset the expected increase in safety (preventing the very rare occurance of decompression resulting in death), and it must be a demonstrable INCREASE in safety (are the potential failure modes and their frequency likely to result in MORE deaths than it will prevent?).
Just the mere fact that most aircraft are designed with 25 year life-cycles in mind makes the entire process almost unrecognisable to other industries.
The people in charge of deciding what features go in to the avionics are engineers as well, not just the implementors that they assign the work to.
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Insightful)
Written by someone with no clue about how contracts are awarded in this modern economy. In real life, technical competency and contracts are at best weakly related.
Re:ROFLMAO (Score:4, Interesting)
> > Doesn't the plane know it has lost cabin pressure?
> No. It's a plane.
We could replace the word "know" with "detect", and lose the patronising response altogether.
> > If it's on autopilot why can't it reduce altitude so the people can regain consciousness?
> Because it's on autopilot. The captain set the autopilot's target altitude, turned it on,
> and then keeled over. The autopilot held the altitude as long as it could.
So change the way autopilot works, which is what the OP was getting at. Clearly, something can be improved here: The fact that a plane will happily fly until it runs out of fuel, when it could probably have detected that the chances of the pilots being concious were remote at best is a part of the plane that could be designed much better.
> > Hell, why can't it just declare an emergency and automatically land at the
> > nearest airport after receiving an OK signal from the airport that it's safe to land[?]
> And if it has to crash land, it can go for a nice long trip to the plane hospital, and
> maybe the plane doctor will give it a nice lollipop! Yeah, that sounds good.
Why the sarcastic answer on this one? Auto-landing is used all the time - see http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=4
Now admittedly, the accident refered to in the article happened on a Leer Jet, so they are unlikely to have the same technology as a commercial liner, but I don't think the post was deserving of your somewhat harsh response.
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).
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Informative)
But to put it bluntly, you're adding a lot of complexity, reducing reliability and introducing even more premutations of different failure modes than they already have, with VERY little gain.
Not to mention the safety-critical decisions you have now entrusted to the system: maintaining safe terrain clearance, announcing its unplanned departure from its allocated flight level to warn other traffic to avoid collision, not to men
Re:Autopilot (Score:3, Informative)
It's been done! For years!
Read the other comments in this thread, or something about autopilots. For instance, the Wikipedia entry, which states that "Modern autopilots generally divide a flight into taxi, take-off, ascent, level, descent, approach, landing, and taxi phases. Autopilots exist that automate all of these flight phases except the taxiing, and some incorporate automated collision-avoidance
First Matter of Business (Score:2, Funny)
Offer (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't sound like much after all he's been through.
Re:Offer (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like much more than he deserves if he really started spreading FUD after it was clear that he was going to lose his job.
The only way to decide whether he is a whistle blower or a liar that tries to make some cash by blackmailing his former employer and Airbus is to have an independent review of the chip in question. Airbus said they did that but of course they're biased.
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:4, Interesting)
Re:Pure propaganda, or whatever... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pure propaganda, or whatever... (Score:2)
And so, I'm unsurprisingly prejudiced and hope the concern raised in this news item doesn't turn out to be a real issue.
No point in pretending to be impartial really - as long as people aren't getting all nas
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.
Not propaganda, or whatever... (Score:4, Informative)
From the article [latimes.com]:
"Unlike U.S. laws that shield whistle-blowers from corporate retaliation, Austrian laws offer no such protection. Last year an Austrian judge imposed an unusual gag order on Mangan, seeking to stop him from talking about the case.
Mangan posted details about the case anyway in his own Internet blog. The Austrian court fined him $185,000 for violating the injunction.
To help pay living expenses and legal fees, Mangan sold his house in Kansas. With only about $300 left in his bank account, Mangan missed a Sept. 8 deadline to pay his $185,000 fine and faces up to a year in jail. Next month he's likely to be called before a judge on his criminal case.
The family expected to be evicted this month from their apartment, but their church in Vienna took up a collection to pay their rent.
TTTech has offered to drop its legal action against Mangan, court records show, and pay him three months of severance, if he retracts his statements. But Mangan has refused.
Mangan said he was looking for a new job. He has contacted dozens of aerospace firms in the U.S. and Europe, but none have returned his calls. "Nobody wants to touch me," he said."
Re:Not propaganda, or whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a read of this - this happened a couple of weeks ago - a Greek airliner lost cabin pressure - everyone died:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/08/16/MNGVAE8CRS1.DTL [sfgate.com]
Aviation experts puzzled by clues in Greek disaster
Crews well trained to handle cabin decompression
Or it can follow a malfunction in the pressurization equipment, although such sys
The next concorde? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
As the /. fortune file says : (Score:2)
They're not very secure (Score:3, Funny)
To top it off, the flight attendants just don't care
Re:They're not very secure (Score:2)
He violated the judges orders too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He violated the judges orders too (Score:2)
I mean, hey, it could be starting to filter into the airline industry. Want to talk about viral nature, forget the GPL. DMCA has a viral effect in busniess mentality.
Maybe he's got ethics. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Mangan, the former ITTech engineer, has a conscience and takes his ethical responsibilities as an engineer seriously. If he knows of a problem and knows the company has falsified test data, it is his duty to come forward. To remain quiet would make him partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people should a catastrophi
Re:Maybe he's got ethics. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ethics & Technology - Mangan's blog is (Score:3, Informative)
Mangan's blog [eaawatch.net] has significant details. It makes quite a bit of sense if this guy, has more integrity than your average person. He's a super smart guy apparently, and he's probably right, firing him was probably not a good idea. Who wouldn't be miffed, and want to restore their good name? For the A
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:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Oddities in the article. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oddities in the article. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oddities in the article. (Score:3)
Re:Oddities in the article. (Score:2)
There are strong indications that people aboard that plane did not drop anwyhere near -60 within seconds, and that at least a few had consciousness well into the flight.
The final report will be a fascinating read.
Very strange reporting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Very strange reporting (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that part of the article is spot on. EADS is multinational but incorporated in the Netherlands [wikipedia.org].
Crazy, but possibly in the right (Score:2, Insightful)
I am an Australian working for a French aerospace company and there is no way I would trust a European Government to back me up in a case like this.
More than in the USA aerospace firms are seen as a branch of defense in Europe, and the courts will not look kindly on whistle blowers.
He should have gone back to the USA and started his campaign from there. He would get more backing from Boeing supporters and the US Government certainly would not act against him for criticising EADS.
Snitching on your employer (Score:4, Insightful)
Reporting to autorities on your own employer - even if there was a serious wrongdoing - is certain to end your industry career.
Career Over. (Score:3, Interesting)
If there was serious wrongdoing, your career is already over. Serious wrongdoing is defined as people dying because your company took a shortcut. Forging the engineer's signature is one such shortcut. After that, there's no real walking away. It's your signature on the approval. If things go wrong, it's your ass anyway. The mud from dissasters flies far and wide and many inn
Joseph Mangan's Blog (Score:2, Informative)
His blog (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.eaawatch.net/index.html [eaawatch.net]
This reeks of FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
"Mangan alleges that flaws in a microprocessor could cause the valves that maintain cabin pressure on the A380 to accidentally open during flight"
If there was an inclining of truth to this I doubt he would be going through this drama. Europe is VERY different to the US when it comes to corporate coverups.
I believe there is a major flaw with the fuel injection computer on ALL Ford m
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.
Re:Speaking as a Civilian FAA Representative (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't just dismiss the regs as easily bypassed, it has happened, but it's the exception, not the rule. Once it does happen, it's not unusual to see an entire aircraft type grounded until the matter is resolved. Airbus went through this not long ago when it was discovered that certain empannage components came from what essentially turned out to be an Italian aircraft scrapyard. They falsified documentation to make the parts appear to be remanufactured and approved.
Pretty sure they are still in prison.
Clear For Takeoff (Score:2)
What else can Mangan do? He submitted his allegations to EASA, they claim they researched it and did their jobs. Another wing of the European government is prohibiting him from speaking about it in Austria. If he wants to continue his
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.
This is why being a whistle-blower sucks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mangan said he was looking for a new job. He has contacted dozens of aerospace firms in the U.S. and Europe, but none have returned his calls. "Nobody wants to touch me," he said.
It's not really shocking that nobody wants to touch you after you've potentially cost your former employer, in the same field no less, millions of dollars. It's amazing to me though that the US has some of the best protection laws when it comes to this sort of thing.
in aerospace since '71 (9 of those yrs in Europe) (Score:3, Insightful)
If the guy is wrong about his concerns, he should still be allowed to have them heard. I'd rather have 9 out of ten "squalks" amount to nothing, than suffer the consequenses of the tenth.
I'm shocked at the shortsightedness of Airbus response. Since Boeing is deploying the chips, in the American legal environment, there is no way an open process can be avoided. What in the world is the Airbus executive suite thinking? They have made a "no win" choice.
If Boeing confirms the problem, then Airbus looks like they were playing fast-and-loose with peoples lives. If Boeing, in an open process, confirms the safety of the part... Well then folks will ask why Airbus didn't open the process. And all the while Airbus looks like an ugly outfit to work for...
I just don't understand why they're playing it this way. This closed-process "deny, deny, deny" attitude destroyed Douglas Aircraft's business after the Chicago DC-10 crash. I hope the A-380 will prove safe in service, but I do wish they allowed whistle-blowers to live in peace, and addressed the claims with engineers, not lawyers.
Mangan's blog (Score:4, Insightful)
- say as little as needed to avoid getting entangled in details or...
- say as little as possible so Airbus is deceived into thinking the part is "simple."
Without more documents, it's not clear to me which interpretation is closer to the truth.In this document [eaawatch.net] he asserts that the OS that runs on the chip was hacked together and that the software being delivered to Airbus was not put together according to the software engineering standards Airbus requires of its sub-contractors. He also says:
Perhaps someone here knows Jeff Young and can ask him if Mangan's charge is true vis-a-vis the product delivered to Honeywell.From Joseph Mangan Whistleblower of A380 CPCS (Score:3, Interesting)
This message is from Joe Mangan
www.eaawatch.net [eaawatch.net]
www.joseph.mangan.name [mangan.name]
www.joseph.mangan.com [mangan.com]
The Commercial Aircraft Industry economic business model is seriously flawed, and is actively engaged in transferring financial risk from Corporations to threats to the lives of the passengers and crew without their informed consent.
This issue is not about AIRBUS vs BOEING, this is AIRBUS and Boeing, and FAA, and EASA, and the Aircraft system suppliers and their sub suppliers. This is about all of the elements of the system being under tremendous pressure to be overly aggressive in the use of untested, unproven, low cost technology containing high uncertainty. The use of technology of high uncertainty always results in projects taking far longer to complete and costing far more than originally planned. This is project risk, and risk is nearly always significantly underestimated in project planning of modern Aerospace Programs. In essence we have the worlds biggest game of ?Russian Roulette?. With Boeing and Airbus gambling that the other will
Pull the trigger on the chamber containing the live round, thus ending the game. I believe that what we are about to see if the combatants do not ?throttle back? is the ?story of the 3 Japanese fighting fish?, where the smart fish (China, India, Japan) allows the other 2 fish to fight to the death, leaving the survivor too weak to defend against the attach of the stronger smarter fish who wins unopposed.
I feel a great sympathy and compassion for those who failed the morality test, challenged with facing the agonizing decision over career and wealth, vs the cost to human lives of their choice. My Christian conscience would not allow me to look the other way, realizing that for my own comfort and security, I would have to knowingly rationalize my own selfish interest, and thereby place at risk the lives of innocent Men, Women, and Children.
I have waited an entire year (October 2004) in a tireless pursuit to work with AIRBUS, Nord Micro, TTTech, EASA, and FAA to correct these issues in private. These organizations refused to take any action. I was left with no other avenue than to pursue the issue in the public domain one year later. I had simply exhausted every opportunity available to me. I even visited the CEO of Nord Micro in his booth at the Paris Airshow, spending 40 minutes with him and his engineers in an attempt to convince them to act in the interest of public safety. Numerous failed attempts in good faith with TTTech are documented on my website. In each and every case, TTTech violated agreed to terms, and demanded in each case a retraction of my official statements to EASA and FAA, which has always been understood to be non-negotiable.
Are these people who failed the moral challenge evil? No, they must decide what is more important to them, the lives of people vs profit, comfort, and security for themselves. The laws currently favor those who choose profit over safety. Protections and safeguards, even in the United States are insufficient to motivate a whistleblower to put themselves and their families in ?harms way?. One only need to look at the Corporate Crime Spree of WORLDCOM, ENRON, TYCO, ADELPHIA, HEALTHSOUTH and others.
Conscience can only motivate a whistleblower to act first in the interest of others.
When confronted by Executive Management with data showing the program is significantly over schedule and over budget, direct pressure is applied to find a way to ?get back on schedule?. Just as with the WORLDCOM case of Ebbers, all that must be said, is that ?we have to make our numbers?, and th
The chip is the tip of the iceberg re Airbus (Score:4, Informative)
- Water in brake cylinder back end froze up. Cylinder lacked weep hole.
- Brake electronics had two identical systems running in parallel.
- If you pressed one of the brake system buttons for more than 10 msec, but less than 20 msec, one computer might see the keypress, the other might not. Never tested for.
- Brake system uber-boss hardware checks for differences between two computers.
- If it finds a difference, it turns off the secondary computer, WITHOUT SNOOPING AROUND to see if in fact it was the secondary computer that was getting off-track.
- Said turning off is not signaled to the pilots in any obvious way.
- Even if the pilot notices, by flipping to a obscure status-page, that the secondary braking system has been downed, pressing the RESET button doesnt actually reset much of anything.
- Airbus encourages pilots to use auto-braking mode, which supposedly gives a steady 0.3G's of decelleartion.
- If auto-braking doesnt seem to give 0.3G's, some TILT lights go on, but the braking system doesnt try using the suspect bad system, even after the other system is now known to be bad.
I could go on, but I think you see the basic drift here. Not a clue among the designers, testers, or managers.Similar totally foobared design blew up the $400M Ariane rocket. Similarly foobared design for the Airbus flight control computer: lessee-- Pilot is pulling very hard on the stick, should we do what he says or drill a big hole in the ground? Hmmmmmm.....
Full report URL's I can find if anybody is interested.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe he was thinking that they Airbus was built and designed in Europe? And that he'd need to move there in order to work on it?
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=29
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Try reading stuff, it usually helps.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Yeah.....
Re:austria (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm biased, but I found the article to be kind of terrible overall - the writing is very confused, it repeats itself all the time and there doesn't seem to be any internal logic or progression, just random bits of (mis-)information. F
Scewed up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Screwed up as it is I don't think the Austrian system is any worse than the US, German, French. British one.... The basic truth is that every body is equal under the law in a Democracy and everybody can get justice. All you have to do is put up the money for a N-year long legal battle and we all know who is more likely to win that one don't we? Ciitizen John Q. Public or Corporation X? My money is on the corporation. The end result in cases like this usually is that however wrong they may be the corporations always win. They do it by dragging things out in court until they have bankrupted you broken up your marrage and genarally ruined yoru life causing you to give up. One is just left hoping that Boeing and Airbus both have the sense to test these chips exhaustively before one of their aircraft makes them regret their lethargy when several hundred people die. Of course it usually never sinks in until to late that the PR damage done by one of their new superliners crashing will cost them more than what they are saving by ignoring the problem but one can always hope for a miracle, like... say... an aerospace industry CEO growing a consience? I know it's a slim chance but I have't quite given up on the human race yet.
Re:NEWFLASH (Score:2)
Re:NEWFLASH (Score:3, Informative)
I agree it could be deadly.
US Federal Aviation Regulations, if followed, might prevent the deaths, though. At altitude, either the pilot or copilot is supposed to be on oxygen full time. In the event of a rapid decompression, that person would be able to descend the plane to an altitude where the pressure is great enough for all to regain consciousness.
Unfortunately, at the lower altitude, the fuel flow would be a lot greater for a given
Re:An Engineers First Duty (Score:4, Insightful)
A Persons first duty is always to the public.
It doesn't matter who you are. If your a cook, and know the meat your using was mishandeled, you have an obligation to prevent human consumption. Doctors have an obligation to preserve life. A cop's first duty is to the public (before his fellow officers or commanders).