http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/99/06/27/stinwenws02002.html?1334425

Has this report received attention on this forum previously? I came across it, and wondered whether it is relevant to the reduction in flights scheduled for the date turnover.

-- I wonder (doyouknow@about.this), November 17, 1999

Answers

URL didn't work. Can you summarize?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 17, 1999.

Interesting article...

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

http://www.sunday- times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/99/06/27/stinwenws02002.html?1334425

Faulty computers blamed in 'pilot error' jet crashes

by Tom Robbins

SOME of the worst air disasters in the past decade initially attributed to pilot error or terrorist attack are now being blamed on faulty computers and flawed software. No official inquiry has ever blamed computer error for a big crash, but new research reveals that software faults and design flaws contributed to at least 11 accidents in the past six years. Two legal actions are being launched against the manufacturers.

In one case, two pilots struggled at their controls as they tried to land their plane while the computer directed it on a flight route away from the airport; the resulting crash claimed 264 lives. In another mid-air disaster, the computer is suspected of switching an engine into reverse, breaking up the plane and killing all 223 passengers.

"Computers can fly planes more accurately than humans, but when something goes wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong," said Peter Ladkin, professor of computer networks at Bielefeld University in Germany.[See Corrections ]

Ladkin has carried out a study of air disasters in the past 10 years using the final investigation reports and new analyses by computer experts. It shows that some accidents first blamed on human error or even terrorists were caused or partly caused by computers. Software flaws and computer errors contributed to at least 30 accidents and potentially dangerous incidents in the past decade, according to Ladkin's study.

Among the crashes that have been the subject of new inquiries is the China Airlines Airbus A300 disaster in Nagoya, Japan, in 1994, which claimed 264 lives. The pilots were initially blamed for the tragedy but a court will rule next month on whether poor computer design was, in fact, partly responsible.

The disaster was caused by the struggle between the pilot trying to land the plane and the auto-pilot - which had been inadvertently switched on - trying to gain altitude. As the pilot tried to force the plane down using the elevator flaps, the computer responded by adjusting the horizontal tail-plane.

The jet went into such a steep climb that it stalled and plunged to the ground. Aviation computer experts involved in the legal action brought by relatives of some of the victims of the crash against Chinese Airlines and Airbus Industrie will argue the crew were suffering from "mode confusion" - not understanding the status of the computer - and its design may be partly to blame.

"It is generally accepted that mode confusion is partly the result of design as well as partly the fault of the human beings," said Ladkin.

In another legal action, American Airlines is suing manufacturers Honeywell and Jeppesen, the hardware and software providers respectively of the flight management computer on board a Boeing 757 that crashed into a mountain near Cali in Colombia in 1995. An American court originally found the crew guilty of wilful misconduct, but this was overturned last week.

Last week the Civil Aviation Authority in Britain said air safety was constantly improving and airlines always tried to identify the cause of crashes. "The manufacturers and airlines have a vested interest in reporting errors, so things are made safer."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 17, 1999.

China is going to test at least one of it's airliners tommorrow night by rolling it (the computers, not the plane) over in mid-flight. I wonder if it's an all-volunteer crew. Perhaps someone can provide a link, I can't remember where I saw the story. Also heard that China is "requiring" all of it's top officials of certain agencies to be on a plane to be similarly "rolled-over" in mid-flight. What an interesting way to motivate your high-level mucky-mucks.......Sorry for the gaps, hopefully someone can provide more details.

-- cavscout (slowly@losing it.I think), November 17, 1999.

Yeah, this article was posted this past Summer, but in view of Egypt Air 990 and such, it is a timely repost.

Those designers in the know were predicting in the early '70s that the pell mell rush to fly by wire technology would eventually have planes falling from the sky.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), November 18, 1999.

Japan has already done airborne rollover tests.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), November 18, 1999.

Germany has done an airborn rollover test.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), November 18, 1999.

"FLY BY WIRE" means there are NO mechanical cables or mechanical linkages between the controls in the cockpit and the rudder, flaps, elevator and ailerons (control surfaces) that guide the aircraft's flight. The ONLY CONNECTION between the Pilot's yoke and rudder pedals and the surfaces they control is an ELECTRICAL connection (electric "wire" ie. "fly by wire"). Unfortunately, the back up system is merely another electric wire. Computer chips make the whole system work. That is why I asked last year "Why WON'T improperly remediated flight computers cause planes to fall from the sky??" Too many people wrongly assume "fly by wire" means the pilots controls are connected to the control surfaces by a mechanical cable, like they employ in a small Cessna or other aircraft.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55a@prodigy.net), November 18, 1999.

Ann is correct and is probably a pilot. I think about it all the time.

-- noway (notsaying.@ ####.1234), November 18, 1999.

Ann, I think the answer to your question is relatively simple:

Flight controls have no date-sensitive components.

Navigation, communication and maintenance applications/systems may have hardware and/or software/firmware that requires testing and confirmation of serviceability beyond the rollover.

It's hard for this engineer and pilot to see flight-control system operation being affected in any way by a hardware or software-related y2k issue.

Aviation electronics is not my speciality, so I'll defer my 'opinion' to others more informed than I.

-----

-- PNG (png@gol.com), November 18, 1999.

My 1946 Piper Cub is y2k compliant.

-- roy (bush @ pilot.com), November 18, 1999.

Well, Chinese planes will be the safest in the world, because the guys responsible for making them safe will be IN them at the rollover. Unlike Garvey and Koskinen who "can't get flights". Isn't the free market economy wonderful? ;)

In case anyone's feeling over-confident about the ability of flight control developers to get it right, may I just say: Airbus. AIRBUS.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 18, 1999.

They already have.

Remember a few months ago, when the Air Force was having Y2K Flag exercises out at Nellis AFB and crashed 2 F15s. Got hushed up in a hurry.

-- ng (cantprovideemail@none.com), November 18, 1999.

This is just my two cents. Last year, I called a programmer who worked on military planes in the 80's. I asked him if he was concerned, he said "no". I told him to stop and really think. he paused and then slowly said "well, there might be a problem in the Landing Gear of __, and there might be a problem in the Infra-Red in the __". I put blanks because I can't remember the two types of aircraft, but they are still in use. Two possible problems in the small area he worked in, how about the other areas? Scary

-- Dizzy (Deepbreaths@allthetime.com), November 18, 1999.