• Military cargo plane crashed because somebody accidentally deleted files
    31 replies, posted
[quote] A military plane crash in Spain was probably caused by computer files being accidentally wiped from three of its engines, according to investigators. Plane-maker Airbus discovered anomalies in the A400M's data logs after the crash, suggesting a software fault. And it has now emerged that Spanish investigators suspect files needed to interpret its engine readings had been deleted by mistake. [/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33078767[/url] Should check their recycle bin.
Oh god, someone fell for the "delete system32" trick ON AN AIRPLANE
If it's that easy to delete critical system files from an airplane control computer then there's some serious security issues.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47927422]If it's that easy to delete critical system files from an airplane control computer then there's some serious security issues.[/QUOTE] More than likely they deleted them during the tests and upgrades and forgot to do the upgrades, sort of the engineers fault that they didn't catch it Still its scary to think that these systems didn't have some sort of file check to make sure they have all the required drivers, it seems like that this has a simple fix but its sad nobody considered missing software files to begin with
I didn't know airplanes needed drivers, huh...
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47927778]I didn't know airplanes needed drivers, huh...[/QUOTE] I mean, drivers are really just software that acts as a middle man between the hardware and higher level software. So the higher level software programmer doesn't have to be concerned about the specifics of how the computer communicates with the engine sensors. I'm more concerned that there isn't some sort of "backup" configuration or warning that notifies them if data isn't being interpreted correctly.
Bizarre that these systems don't have redundant backups... Think of like a dual bios setup on a motherboard or videocard. Incredible.
[t]https://bd23.https.cdn.softlayer.net/80BD23/142.4.51.106/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/windowsupdateremindercountdown.png[/t] Guess they didn't have a designated postponer.
[QUOTE=The golden;47927838]How did they even get that far before noticing such a massive computer error? This seems like something that a pre-flight check would pick up easily. Also the lack of redundancy systems is pretty glaring too.[/QUOTE] This is especially concerning since most "modern" cars (since the 80s-90s) that are computer controlled, have a "limp" mode specifically to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The computer simply defaults to known "safe" values if a sensor fucks up and are part of the hardware and software design. Not to say its that easy on a multi-million dollar aircraft, but I imagine a lot more money is put into R&D than your average family sedan.
This kind of computer failure reminds me of the Dhahran SCUD attack during the Gulf War. A US Patriot missile failed to intercept a SCUD missile because the Patriot missile battery had been in operation for over 100 hours and the system clock deviated by a third of a second which affected the missile's targeting system. Even though it was a slight deviation in time, it translated into a miss distance of 600m due to how fast the missile travels. The SCUD missile ended up hitting a barracks, killing 28 soldiers. It's scary to think how seemingly minor computer errors can cause losses in life
Wouldn't the FMS throw errors when you switched the autopilot on if critical files used to control the fucking engines were missing, and then disengage it instantly?
[QUOTE=StrykerE;47928328]This kind of computer failure reminds me of the Dhahran SCUD attack during the Gulf War. A US Patriot missile failed to intercept a SCUD missile because the Patriot missile battery had been in operation for over 100 hours and the system clock deviated by a third of a second which affected the missile's targeting system. Even though it was a slight deviation in time, it translated into a miss distance of 600m due to how fast the missile travels. The SCUD missile ended up hitting a barracks, killing 28 soldiers. It's scary to think how seemingly minor computer errors can cause losses in life[/QUOTE] Yep, I got to hear that story and a lot alike that in my control systems course. It's a really unforgiving kind of engineering.
[QUOTE=Demache;47927822]I mean, drivers are really just software that acts as a middle man between the hardware and higher level software. So the higher level software programmer doesn't have to be concerned about the specifics of how the computer communicates with the engine sensors.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know, I always just assumed that airplane software interacted directly with airplane hardware, and that each were built with the other half in mind.
I'm confused, are they suggesting that 3 of the engines weren't working as they should because files were being deleted on the plane's computer, and then after that, during the investigation, further files which would allow them to investigate the cause were deleted accidentally? i.e. 2 separate cases of files being deleted?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;47928846]I'm confused, are they suggesting that 3 of the engines weren't working as they should because files were being deleted on the plane's computer, and then after that, during the investigation, further files which would allow them to investigate the cause were deleted accidentally? i.e. 2 separate cases of files being deleted?[/QUOTE] hackers did it :O
That an user (or system) is able to delete such essential files is pretty baffeling to me. Surely there should be some way to protect those files. Or altleast a check to see if they are even present to begin with. [img]http://i.imgur.com/FtdH8oY.gif[/img]
You'd think a software-driven system that highly relies on computers would have a pre-flight check that scans for all the required files each time. Sad that 4 people died because of this.
Didn't even use Recuva?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47927422]If it's that easy to delete critical system files from an airplane control computer then there's some serious security issues.[/QUOTE] or whoever was root accidentally rm -rf * .o [editline]11th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GabrielWB;47929604]That an user (or system) is able to delete such essential files is pretty baffeling to me. Surely there should be some way to protect those files. Or altleast a check to see if they are even present to begin with. [img]http://i.imgur.com/FtdH8oY.gif[/img][/QUOTE] If you have root access to a unix filesystem, and then accidentally rm -rf * .o, then you're fucked
[QUOTE=proboardslol;47930631]or whoever was root accidentally rm -rf * .o [editline]11th June 2015[/editline] If you have root access to a unix filesystem, and then accidentally rm -rf * .o, then you're fucked[/QUOTE] One does not accidentally rm -rf .o
[QUOTE=GabrielWB;47929604]That an user (or system) is able to delete such essential files is pretty baffeling to me. Surely there should be some way to protect those files. Or altleast a check to see if they are even present to begin with. [img]http://i.imgur.com/FtdH8oY.gif[/img][/QUOTE] It's like you think that an airbus would be running a windows operating system not some mission critical software.
"Goddamn, this PC is slow... I can't delete these folders... Look at this one here! For fuck sakes, I've had it with this motherfuckin' system32 folder in this motherfuckin' plane!"
[QUOTE=Ybbat;47935116]It's like you think that an airbus would be running a windows operating system not some mission critical software.[/QUOTE] What is a joke?
[QUOTE=The golden;47927838]How did they even get that far before noticing such a massive computer error? This seems like something that a pre-flight check would pick up easily. Also the lack of redundancy systems is pretty glaring too.[/QUOTE] I think the ECUs are independent to the flight deck computers. I remember seeing a C-17 which was unable to get moving because one of the FADECs had a problem and the RAF's equipment to communicate with the FADEC was broken (granted that was a Boeing aircraft, but similar principle). The Airbus problem is showing up again here. Much like a car ECU, there really should be a cheesy 'manual override' or fallback mode. Less efficient, risk of damage to engine, maybe, but no dead aircrew. But Airbus believes in trying to make infallible computer systems rather than taking measures to reduce risk post-failure. If this hadn't happened now, it may have happened later on a ferry flight to Cyprus or something, the aircraft full of families of soldiers. We whine to no end about the F-35 but this is the real issue, and it's one that's plaguing aircraft design in Europe. Airbus/EADS really needs to sort their shit out.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;47927459]They probably fell for the chmod 777 meme[/QUOTE] I actually did that to /usr/ once. I didn't have any backups and needless to say I had to reinstall.
[QUOTE=nutcake;47935302]What is a joke?[/QUOTE] its not even a funny joke though? you're basically calling the technicians idiots while being an idiot yourself. oh but wait, you're being [I]ironic[/I]
[QUOTE=Jon27;47935379]I think the ECUs are independent to the flight deck computers. I remember seeing a C-17 which was unable to get moving because one of the FADECs had a problem and the RAF's equipment to communicate with the FADEC was broken (granted that was a Boeing aircraft, but similar principle). The Airbus problem is showing up again here. Much like a car ECU, there really should be a cheesy 'manual override' or fallback mode. Less efficient, risk of damage to engine, maybe, but no dead aircrew. But Airbus believes in trying to make infallible computer systems rather than taking measures to reduce risk post-failure. If this hadn't happened now, it may have happened later on a ferry flight to Cyprus or something, the aircraft full of families of soldiers. We whine to no end about the F-35 but this is the real issue, and it's one that's plaguing aircraft design in Europe. Airbus/EADS really needs to sort their shit out.[/QUOTE] A FADEC is a FADEC precisely because it's [I]F[/I]ull [I]A[/I]uthority, I'm pretty sure no commercial airliners or modern military planes have any form of override over the engine control computers. They're multiple redundant for a reason, a FADEC failure is effectively a full engine failure. The real question is how they managed to fuck up so badly that they defeated the multiple redundancies in place to prevent this from ever happening.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;47944708]A FADEC is a FADEC precisely because it's [I]F[/I]ull [I]A[/I]uthority, I'm pretty sure no commercial airliners or modern military planes have any form of override over the engine control computers. They're multiple redundant for a reason, a FADEC failure is effectively a full engine failure. The real question is how they managed to fuck up so badly that they defeated the multiple redundancies in place to prevent this from ever happening.[/QUOTE] it was an early production model running new engine/aircraft control software as a test, so its possible they didn't have those redundancies implemented, im no computer expert though so idk but all major aircraft designs have had problems that pop up anyways, today's massive development processes don't eliminate this
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.