# Completely off topic but you gotta see this....



## GuyF (Jun 18, 2013)

Firstly apologies for posting this here as it doesn't talk of dynamic range and taking shots of the inside of lens caps. Mind you, technical support is required - read on:

A brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the longest passenger airplane ever built, sits just outside its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of airtime.

Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies (ADAT) to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such as engine run-ups prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi.

The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600 really is.

The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were trying to take off, but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats, etc..).

Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm. This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.

The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature so that pilots can't land with the brakes on.

Not one member of the seven-man crew was smart enough to throttle back the engines from their max power setting, so the $200 million brand-new Aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totaling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown due to the news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.

Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.

A French Airbus: $200 million dollars
Untrained Flight Crew: $300,000 Yearly Salary
Unread Operating Manual: $300

Aircraft meets retaining wall, and the wall wins.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 18, 2013)

Its been a common issue with Airbus aircraft, where the computers override the pilots. Some have crashed due to this, but the design philosophy continues. The systems are so complex that no pilot can know what a computer might do next. 

A difference of design philosophy between Boeing and Airbus.


----------



## GuyF (Jun 18, 2013)

Yeah, I vaguely recall seeing footage of an Airbus at an airshow where they were doing a slow, wheels-down fly-by. The onboard computer decided they were to land in some nearby trees while the pilot tried to give it full power and save the aircraft.

Amazing what a few lines of bad coding can do.


----------



## J.R. (Jun 18, 2013)

If they couldn't be bothered to read the manuals then what can one say. 

Software programs overriding manual control is nothing unusual, it ends up saving lives more often than not - humans are humans after all.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 18, 2013)

Really old news this -

From Wikipedia.....



> 15 November 2007 – A new A340-600 F-WWCJ was damaged beyond repair during ground testing at Airbus facilities at Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. During an engine test prior to the airplane's planned delivery to Etihad Airways, multiple safety overrides were disabled and the non-chocked aircraft accelerated to 31 knots and collided with a sloped concrete (exhaust deflection) wall, raising the nose of the plane several metres. The cockpit section broke off and fell to the ground from a significant height. The right wing, tail, and two left engines contacted the wall or ground. Nine people on board were injured, four of them seriously, and fire services were not able to stop one non-damaged engine from running on accumulated fuel for almost seven hours. The aircraft was written off. The remains of this aircraft are now used at Virgin Atlantic's cabin crew training facility in Crawley.


----------



## GuyF (Jun 18, 2013)

Ah, sorry Haydn. A colleague just mailed it to me and I hadn't seen it before - I assumed it was very recent.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> If they couldn't be bothered to read the manuals then what can one say.
> 
> Software programs overriding manual control is nothing unusual, it ends up saving lives more often than not - humans are humans after all.



In aircraft, that is true, its the extent of computer control that is the issue. Sometimes tha ability to put a plane into a dangerously steep dive to avoid a accident will save a few hundred lives. Sometimes the ability to override a malfunctioning instrument will save lives. 

With a aircraft, there are just so many possibilities that letting a computer over ride a pilot should only happen in very few cases. 


There are plenty of pilot caused accidents, but the computer caused ones are painful, particularly when the pilot is not able to over ride it.


Someone who thinks that a pilots manual covers all the tiny technical details needs to read one. They can't possibly be large enough to cover everything, and they don't. A pilot needs to be able to find information reasonably quickly. That was definitely a abnormal thing for a pilot to do, but it should not have resulted in a accident. I'll bet the software was revised quietly later on. The FAA and EASA don't like computer software to promote accidents.


----------



## GuyF (Jun 18, 2013)

Watched a programme last night that showed an airliner trying to land in an extreme crosswind. Wheels touch down on left side and as the co-pilot (pilot had said, "give this one a go") tries to correct thing, the left wing-tip touches the runway. Full gas and they go around.

Immediately fingers are pointed at the captain for allowing the co-pilot to try the landing. It turns out that when the wheels touch down, the flight stick reduces full left or right input to a max of 50% - afterall, if the wheels are on the runway, what do you need 100% bank for?

The simulator couldn't replicate the strength of crosswind recorded on the day! Next step was to revise the manual explaining the 50% reduction of aileron reponse if any of the wheels are contacting the runway.

Kinda puts Canon's "phenomenons" into perspective!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jun 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its been a common issue with Airbus aircraft, where the computers override the pilots. Some have crashed due to this, but the design philosophy continues. The systems are so complex that no pilot can know what a computer might do next.
> 
> A difference of design philosophy between Boeing and Airbus.



to my understand via reading this story, this is a user's error... not sure about commercial aircraft but, i would guess that "auto pilot" will probably be disabled/removed when weight on wheel (aka landing gear down and locked)

note: landing gear down and locked does not imply that aircraft is on the ground, but weight on wheel does...


----------



## fegari (Jun 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its been a common issue with Airbus aircraft, where the computers override the pilots. Some have crashed due to this, but the design philosophy continues. The systems are so complex that no pilot can know what a computer might do next.
> 
> A difference of design philosophy between Boeing and Airbus.



Some happy campers on US Airways Flight 1549 that ditched on the Hudson river may disagree with you...hadn't this aircraft had fly by wire the outcome would have been different to say the least (the FBW computers prevented the stall and allowed the pilots to focus on their task)

By the way, the event with the A340 posted by the OP had nothing to do with a fly by wire issue or "obscure computers" going nuts either...human error it is


----------



## fegari (Jun 18, 2013)

GuyF said:


> Yeah, I vaguely recall seeing footage of an Airbus at an airshow where they were doing a slow, wheels-down fly-by. The onboard computer decided they were to land in some nearby trees while the pilot tried to give it full power and save the aircraft.
> 
> Amazing what a few lines of bad coding can do.



Yeah, because computers are programmed to land on...trees!!! ;=)


----------



## RGF (Jun 18, 2013)

Darwin, Social Darwinism, wins again. Too bad they lived to reproduce. Perhaps their bosses will make so they can not have children. Would be fitting punishment for their lapse in judgement.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 18, 2013)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/etihad.asp

'nuff said


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 19, 2013)

GuyF said:


> Yeah, I vaguely recall seeing footage of an Airbus at an airshow where they were doing a slow, wheels-down fly-by. The onboard computer decided they were to land in some nearby trees while the pilot tried to give it full power and save the aircraft.
> 
> Amazing what a few lines of bad coding can do.




That had nothing to do with computers and the pilot was no hero. The idiot was showing off and misjudged the distance to the edge of the runway. The sound of the engines going full power was him realising he had messed up.


There were over 20 girl guides on that plane too.




He got two years inside for endangering people's lives.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 19, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/etihad.asp
> 
> 'nuff said


 
Good Catch dr croubie.


----------



## J.R. (Jun 19, 2013)

CR Backup Admin said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If they couldn't be bothered to read the manuals then what can one say.
> ...



The OP mentions that this was a new plane and the crew was testing it without reading the run-up manual. Reading the manuals and the safety procedure is something the crew should have done. Probably the crew thought they had all the experience in the world to fly the aircraft and got too cocky. 

Mishaps due to software have happened but mostly due to the fact that the crew were not aware of what the software would do in certain situations. Training should have taken care of such instances but this is where airlines have probably cut corners. 

That said, there was no software error in this case ... it was the violation of test procedures that led to the crash - 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/violation-of-test-procedures-led-to-toulouse-a340-600-319969/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 19, 2013)

J.R. said:


> CR Backup Admin said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...


 

Yes, it was a highly trained Airbus technician's error and nothing to do with software or reading the manual, the customer crew aboard had absolutely nothing to do with the accident except to point out to the Airbus technician operating the plane that it had started moving toward the wall.

It was the firmware in the Technician that was faulty


----------

