Quoting zeke (Reply 298): There is a reason why Boeing and Airbus have stopped offering a great deal of customization of their aircraft these days, they detract from the core product, cause lots of issues, and little added value. Every country on the A400 has a different spec, that should never had been allowed to transpire.

This statement is true when dealing with commercial product. It is less true when dealing with military product. And while we do try to standardize as much as we can, the nature of the military product forced us to work with unique configurations that introduce variability to our process. You can never eliminate the error in your process or product, you can only hope that your process can catch the errors and correct the defect (whether parts or process) as appropriate.

This is true for the A400 as well as the P-8A. Fortunately, with the P-8A there is only a few customer with about a handful of configurations.

bt

Quoting zeke (Reply 298): You derive enjoyment by putting Airbus down, and the employees that died. No one that is mentally healthy I know derives enjoyment from such things. All you are interested in in your petty point scoring, you have shown no concern at all regarding this accident, to you its a big game.

A new low, even for you.

No concern?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 149): Quoting Grizzly410 (Reply 141): Long time lurker, decided to join due to this sad event which directly affects me and my colleagues. Thank you for joining, and my sincerest condolences to you and your colleagues.

And first you play the victim card:

Quoting zeke (Reply 216): I earn nothing from what I posted, all I get in return is personal attacks instead of thanks.

And now appoint yourself judge and jury.

I'm quite comfortable with my mental health. I hope you can say the same. It's not me making the kind of pitiable rantings you've made above.

In the mean time, I'll go with:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 215): In short, you look silly trying to tell people to not have discussions on a discussion forum.

There's a update from defensenews.com regarding the crash.....



"MADRID — Several safety protocols were allegedly ignored during the final assembly of the A400M military plane which crashed in Spain, killing four, reportedly to make up for delays in delivery, online news site El Confidencial said Tuesday.

"Several protocols were ignored," it said citing unnamed aeronautical sector sources.

The computer system that controls the plane's engines, the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), "should have been tested before, in a simulator, to check if everything worked," it added.

The sources claimed the protocols were skipped because Airbus was in a hurry to make up for delays in the development and delivery of the A400M military cargo and troop transport plane which is assembled in Seville.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ay-be-behind-a400m-crash/28352321/

Quoting mffoda (Reply 302): The sources claimed the protocols were skipped because Airbus was in a hurry to make up for delays in the development and delivery of the A400M military cargo and troop transport plane which is assembled in Seville.

If true, that's utterly insane.

Cheers
A

Not sure what "El Confidencial" is but the language they use is pretty inflammatory and the sources as vague as you can get.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 302): There's a update from defensenews.com regarding the crash..... "MADRID — Several safety protocols were allegedly ignored during the final assembly of the A400M military plane which crashed in Spain, killing four, reportedly to make up for delays in delivery, online news site El Confidencial said Tuesday. "Several protocols were ignored," it said citing unnamed aeronautical sector sources.

Note the by-line is: "Agence France-Presse 11:50 a.m. EDT June 2, 2015" so the origin of the report is AFP.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 303): The sources claimed the protocols were skipped because Airbus was in a hurry to make up for delays in the development and delivery of the A400M military cargo and troop transport plane which is assembled in Seville. If true, that's utterly insane.

I sure could see that the aircraft was loaded with the incorrect software for ground testing might be used during manufacturing being missed by Quality Assurance before flight.

I just really have a hard time believing that protocols were skipped and intentionally known non certified software would be loaded before first flight.

They had certification issues before and took a year or more delay to certify software. Airbus should be more than aware of certification issues.

I guess we will eventually find out.


Okie

Quoting angad84 (Reply 303): Quoting mffoda (Reply 302): The sources claimed the protocols were skipped because Airbus was in a hurry to make up for delays in the development and delivery of the A400M military cargo and troop transport plane which is assembled in Seville. If true, that's utterly insane.

I can imagine what happened - I seen it happen before in automotive where we shipped 1500 engine controllers without the final calibrations just because a manufacturing engineer decided to "optimize" the manufacturing process... The scary thing was that the engines actually started and run, just they run like crap. The problem was only found during the test drive of the car from the plant to the holding lot before being shipped out.

I don't think this is an "airbus" stuff up but some low level manager who was under pressure from people above deciding to take a shortcut.

To clarify, the source is an AFP translation of http://www.elconfidencial.com/espana...a-desde-alemania-a-sevilla_866140/ which can be translated using Google.

That translation is somewhat rough but the meaning is evident:

Quote: "Someone does not have checked the operation of the FADEC well and should have checked before in the simulator, everything worked correctly", this newspaper reported sources in the aeronautical sector. In the FAL (Final Assembly Line) in Seville there is a control unit and testing. "Many protocols jumped . If the plane had made ​​the running engine at high speed on land prior to the first flight would have paralyzed engines before the aircraft to fly, "they said the same sources. "And it was all for the rush."

It does sound like the source is a less-than-happy engineer:

Quote: A prestigious aeronautical engineer, with 12 years of professional experience not only in the Andalusian capital but in Toulouse and Hamburg, described El Confidencial the state of mind and lack of support. "We are crushed. Too many managers do not know what a plane, "he notes. This engineer senior manager remarked to this newspaper that does not want his name published for fear of reprisals from the Airbus management. "Here in Seville, we live in a bubble. We pay well, but we are not happy with what we do. Management has put aside the technical and management has fostered. What does that mean? That tomorrow we are not the core of the company and the R & D + i have what the French and Germans. I have worked in Germany and France, but here we have to keep our know-how ".

It also claims that the magistrate has lifted the "gag order".

Update from Airbus:

AOT-of-19-May.aspx" target="_blank">http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com...as-follow-up-to-AOT-of-19-May.aspx

Quote: CITAAM confirmed that engines 1, 2 and 3 experienced power frozen after lift-off and did not respond to the crew’s attempts to control the power setting in the normal way, whilst engine 4 responded to throttle demands. When the power levers were set to “flight idle” in an attempt to reduce power, the power reduced but then remained at “flight idle” on the three affected engines for the remainder of the flight despite attempts by the crew to regain power. This statement is consistent with those three engines being affected by the issue addressed with our AOT.

Working URL
http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com...as-follow-up-to-AOT-of-19-May.aspx

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 309): Update from Airbus:

Interesting that it seems to line up with what the unnamed engineer said to the spanish website (El Confidencial).

Cheers
A

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 309): engines 1, 2 and 3 experienced power frozen

Interesting how they don't say why the power was frozen. It leads to the speculation that the engine software stopped responding. The Spiegel report earlier said:

Quote: Shortly after the start of the test machine three engines had received contradictory orders from the computers and then turned off the power.

Ref: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...ftware-problemen-ab-a-1034421.html

I'm not sure this is consistent with a computer crash, it's more consistent with an "interface issue" where some aspect of the aircraft and engine software are incompatible so communication is garbled.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 309): This statement is consistent with those three engines being affected by the issue addressed with our AOT.

And as far as I know no one has stated exactly what kinds of checks are contained in the previous AOT, but they're widely said to be checks on the engine software.

A famous financial newspaper says something I've been wanting to read for a while:

Quote: Meanwhile, the medical condition of the crew injured in the crash is improving. One of them has been discharged from hospital. The other has left intensive care, though remains in serious condition, Airbus said.

A non-machine translation would be:

Quote: If the plane had undergone ​​the ground high-power engine run test, the engine-paralyzing issue would have been detected before first flight

It's hard to dispute the logic, but it doesn't tell us what went wrong, either. The only item of information we can infer, apparently, is that MSN23 did not perform a ground high-power engine run before FF. Is that even possibile?

I'm new to this thread, so I'm unsure if this info has been presented already, or not, but:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-a...-power-to-engines-froze-1433327924
So now Airbus has admitted that 3 of the 4 engines remained on idle and didn't respond at all to the pilot inputs.

Best,

OMP777X

Quoting OMP777X (Reply 314): So now Airbus has admitted that 3 of the 4 engines remained on idle and didn't respond at all to the pilot inputs.

No. The airplane would never have gotten off the ground if that had happened. The power from 3 of the 4 engines got "frozen" at max during/after takeoff. The crew moved the throttles to flight idle in an attempt to recover the situation and power from the same 3 engines then got "frozen" at idle.

I'm curious, are there no emergency engine controls available to the pilots in case of a failure of the ECU or FADEC? It seems to me that it would be wise to provide some sort of override system in the event of this type of failure (it could happen on any aircraft with digital engine controls regardless of the builder.)

Disclaimer: I am not a pilot, nor a test pilot.

Why would a test pilot, experiencing control issues with 3 of 4 engines, pull the throttle back to idle on all 3 at only 1500 ft? Would it not be better to continue to climb while the engines are making power, and get to an altitude where you have more options?

And then, after reaching a safe altitude (and having several minutes to think about the issue, talk with engineers on the ground, etc.) try reducing the power on a single engine to troubleshoot the issue? If they had regained control of one engine, then they could move on to others; but had that one engine became uncontrollable at idle power (as is the actual case) then they would have had reasonable indication that it's unwise to reduce the power on the remaining engines which are keeping them in the air.

Are first flights set up to diagnose/work these kinds of complex issues, or were regular line pilots on board?

Quoting jollo (Reply 313): The only item of information we can infer, apparently, is that MSN23 did not perform a ground high-power engine run before FF. Is that even possibile?

As above:

Quoting wingman (Reply 304): Not sure what "El Confidencial" is but the language they use is pretty inflammatory and the sources as vague as you can get.

and seems to not be very credible. Airbus has said it is a problem with the engines and said it is due to a serious problem in final assembly, and never said anything about software not being run in a simulator or any lack of high-power taxi testing. However, given it was due to a problem in final assembly, it is a natural question to ask how come such a serious problem was not discovered. I suspect "El Confidencial" engineer was passing along gossip.

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 317): Why would a test pilot, experiencing control issues with 3 of 4 engines, pull the throttle back to idle on all 3 at only 1500 ft?

Disclaimer: I also am not pilot and the fillowing is speculation.

What they apparently did was apply full power for takeoff as is normal. When they got past V2, reached a desired/appropriate altitude, etc. they placed the throttles in the managed power detent. When the 3 engines did not reduce power they likely pulled the throttles out of the detent and back in an effort to reduce power until they reached flight idle at which point the 3 engines finally reduced power, going to flight idle. When they advanced the throttles again the 3 engines did not respond.

Quoting hivue (Reply 315): No. The airplane would never have gotten off the ground if that had happened. The power from 3 of the 4 engines got "frozen" at max during/after takeoff. The crew moved the throttles to flight idle in an attempt to recover the situation and power from the same 3 engines then got "frozen" at idle.

TBH, I wasn't trying to describe the actual technical malfunction or how it came about, but was more or less just making the point that Airbus acknowledged that the Spanish investigators have reached that conclusion. That being said, you're description seems to be spot on.

Quoting hivue (Reply 319): What they apparently did was apply full power for takeoff as is normal. When they got past V2, reached a desired/appropriate altitude, etc. they placed the throttles in the managed power detent. When the 3 engines did not reduce power they likely pulled the throttles out of the detent and back in an effort to reduce power until they reached flight idle at which point the 3 engines finally reduced power, going to flight idle. When they advanced the throttles again the 3 engines did not respond.

That must have been an awful realization to have come to while you're in such a dangerous stage of flight. I cannot even imagine what they must've been feeling or thinking when that all went down.
  

Quoting OMP777X (Reply 320): That must have been an awful realization to have come to while you're in such a dangerous stage of flight. I cannot even imagine what they must've been feeling or thinking when that all went down.

Which is precisely why I can't understand the decision. 1500 ft altitude, engines not responding to throttle inputs - so you move them to idle to see what happens? The only possible outcomes are:

1) the engines stay at high power - SAFE
2) the engines power down to idle but respond to subsequent throttle control - SAFE
3) the engines power down to idle and quit responding again - CRASH

Leaving the throttles alone while they still had good power to climb, climbing to higher altitude, and THEN troubleshooting seems like it would have greatly reduced their risk.

But again, I'm not a pilot let alone a test pilot. And I imagine things happened very quickly for them. It just seems like a bad choice to me.

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 321): the engines stay at high power - SAFE

I doubt that. I believe they always take off with max power. At max power they likely would have exceeded Vmo pretty quickly. Also, although this is WAY out of my area of expertise, I think there may be issues with propellers at max power without sufficient load on them (they couldn't climb steeply forever). My understanding is that turboprops are way different from pure turbine engines.

EDIT: Here is a link to an A400 video including a takeoff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRQw7T4eUD4

[Edited 2015-06-03 17:00:00]

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 321): Which is precisely why I can't understand the decision. 1500 ft altitude, engines not responding to throttle inputs - so you move them to idle to see what happens? The only possible outcomes are:

Fly by wire. There is no throttle connection.
You take off at max power detent the next step is to the managed power detent on the engine control quadrant.
Everything is controlled electronically.
Either the engines rolled back at 1500ft or that was when the pilots followed normal procedures and moved the controls to the managed power detent that the engines rolled back.
The best I can tell that was the point that the pilots had a clue that there was a malfunction.
It was then only 90 seconds from 1500ft to terra firma.
That is my understanding right now.

We will have to wait for the report from the FDR and CVR to get the exact sequence and what efforts they made to try to make the plane fly.

Okie

[Edited 2015-06-03 18:26:35]

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 299): No one on here, except for yourself has professed to be an A400 expert, they have speculated from what has been publicly released and quite honestly, most of the discussion that has been had has been levelled headed, without jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

Except I have pointed out time and again problems with what has been in the press. The is a lot of confirmation bias on this thread, every news article all of a sudden becomes fact.

How many people apart from myself stuck to the line that the 3 engine failed immediately after takeoff ? I had to repeat the statement multiple times that you cannot climb to 1500' and accelerate with 3 engines failed. People were still posting 3 engines failed.

How many people apart from myself raised the issue only started AFTER the standard thrust reduction altitude at 1500 '?

My posts are up above for all to see, made WEEKS ago.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 299): No one here has given any semblance of "point scoring" one manufacturer over another. Everyone has expressed remorse at the death and injuries of the unfortunate Airbus employees involved

Lots of it, lots of people in denial thinking that Airbus is responsible for the engine as well. How many posts have I explained that the engine manufacturer is responsible for the engine and the EEC ?

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 299): The only person who seems intent on making this a manufacturer discussion is yourself.

No, mosts post, including posts made by yourself cannot differentiate between the engine and the airframe TCDS holders.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 299): What does seem, if what has been released publicly, is true, is that Airbus have a quality control issue on the A400.

That is called confirmation bias. You are fitting "facts" to match a perception.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 299): What I will say here is that Airbus are making all the right noises, they are admitting quality control issues, they seem to be going out of their way to keep everyone as up to date as possible. Airbus have not always been so transparent when it has come to accident investigations, hopefully this is the way of the future.

Airbus has been very open on investigations for years, chalk and cheese between AF447 and MH370. Airbus released heaps of information, Boeing has been silent on MH370.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 299): What I am finding puzzling here though, is surely this aircraft had engine runs after the software was installed, taxi tests and the like, why didn't this fault surface during those tests.

Exactly, the engines will not start, you will not get through ground runs, unless the engines are reporting the correct information back to the aircraft. Airbus does not see what is happening inside the EEC, it just sees what the engine reports to the aircraft. The FMC will not even work unless the EEC is reporting the correct engine type back to the aircraft.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 301): A new low, even for you. No concern?

I stand by what I have said. Every one of your posts in my view is nothing more than an underhanded insult aimed at petty point scoring exercise.

We all see you hate Airbus with a passion, it is in every one of your posts. I have posted facts above which cannot be questioned, e.g. you cannot climb and accelerate with 3 engine failed immediately after takeoff, , you ignore them because it does not fit the anti Airbus story you want to pedal.

Quoting Okie (Reply 306): I sure could see that the aircraft was loaded with the incorrect software for ground testing might be used during manufacturing being missed by Quality Assurance before flight.

No, where and how do you think software is loaded into an EEC ? Do you think you would upload a new software version like its an iphone ?

Do you understand how you would go about loading a new EEC software version on a car ?

What happens on a car if you dont load the EEC software correctly ?

Can you successfully load EEC software on a car and still damage your transmission and engine ?

If you load new EEC software, can you actually modify the software being loaded ?

Quoting Okie (Reply 323): Fly by wire. There is no throttle connection. You take off at max power detent the next step is to the managed power detent on the engine control quadrant. Everything is controlled electronically. Either the engines rolled back at 1500ft or that was when the pilots followed normal procedures and moved the controls to the managed power detent that the engines rolled back. The best I can tell that was the point that the pilots had a clue that there was a malfunction. It was then only 90 seconds from 1500ft to terra firma. That is my understanding right now.

You are so far off on understanding how any of these systems work. You dont even understand the simple difference between FADEC and an EEC. I have explained it above, you ignored what I have posted.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): Except I have pointed out time and again problems with what has been in the press. The is a lot of confirmation bias on this thread, every news article all of a sudden becomes fact.

Not sure everyone takes what is in the press as fact, just about everyone on these boards has scant regard for what is sometimes printed. However, what else is there to go on ? There are statements attributed to Airbus staff (managers), stating there are quality control issues on the A400 program in Seville, with what little has officially been released, most of the speculation on this topic has been reasonable, unlike some other accidents. Unless you have inside information which you want to share with this rest of us, then you are doing what everyone else is....speculating on a theory.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): How many people apart from myself stuck to the line that the 3 engine failed immediately after takeoff ? I had to repeat the statement multiple times that you cannot climb to 1500' and accelerate with 3 engines failed. People were still posting 3 engines failed.

Seriously doubt that anyone apart from the most naïve of people would think the aircraft was able to climb and get as far as it did, with 3 engines basically useless in flight.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): Lots of it, lots of people in denial thinking that Airbus is responsible for the engine as well. How many posts have I explained that the engine manufacturer is responsible for the engine and the EEC ?

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): No, mosts post, including posts made by yourself cannot differentiate between the engine and the airframe TCDS holders.

Again, most people do not care who makes the engines, software, EEC, FADEC (nor how they perform or integrate with the airframe), seat cushions, whatever, they only see that a brand new aircraft crashed on its maiden flight. This particular aircraft was Airbus, it could've been Boeing, Lockheed, Embraer, it doesn't make a difference, except that Airbus were the unlucky ones on this occasion. The reality in the public is that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for everything on that aircraft, no matter how far you are willing to defend Airbus.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): Exactly, the engines will not start, you will not get through ground runs, unless the engines are reporting the correct information back to the aircraft. Airbus does not see what is happening inside the EEC, it just sees what the engine reports to the aircraft. The FMC will not even work unless the EEC is reporting the correct engine type back to the aircraft.

Then what the hell happened to it ? You shoot down other posters theories, that are based on what has been published, but don't provide a viable theory of your own.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): Airbus has been very open on investigations for years, chalk and cheese between AF447 and MH370. Airbus released heaps of information, Boeing has been silent on MH370.

I will agree to disagree on that. As for MH370, IF Boeing has real information on what happened to it, then they are doing as asked and keeping quiet. I have my own theory, but then so do most people.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 318): However, given it was due to a problem in final assembly, it is a natural question to ask how come such a serious problem was not discovered. I suspect "El Confidencial" engineer was passing along gossip.

Fair enough. However, we've stuck with a binary solution set:

* either a max-power engine test was performed on the ground, as I believe is almost universal standard procedure before first flight -> MSN23 was affected by a state-dependent issue that could allow engines to run without a hitch up to take off regimes on the ground, but would manifest itself fatally only *after* take-off. Maybe not impossible, but unlikely, IMO.

* or no max-power engine test was performed on the ground before first flight to "cut a corner" and save a few hours (days at best) as alleged by the "gossip" -> *very* unlikely, IMO

?  

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 325): There are statements attributed to Airbus staff (managers), stating there are quality control issues on the A400 program in Seville

An identified QA issue to me does not mean something is unsafe, all that means to me it makes production expensive and longer than normal.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 325): Seriously doubt that anyone apart from the most naïve of people would think the aircraft was able to climb and get as far as it did, with 3 engines basically useless in flight.

Did you count how many people above posted that, and how many times I needed to correct that ?

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 325): The reality in the public is that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for everything on that aircraft, no matter how far you are willing to defend Airbus.

However the reality is I have given a number of examples above where airframe manufactures have done nothing wrong, and have been let down by suppliers. Who on this thread apart from myself has given consideration that nothing was wrong with the aircraft at all ? Do you think an airframe without any Airbus manufacturing defects can not crash if there is an problem within the EEC ?

Airbus has come out to say that there was nothing structurally wrong with the airframe, yet all the attention is directed at them, not the engine supplier.

I don't have to question why, as I know Airbus bashing is the normal a.net sport.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 325): You shoot down other posters theories, that are based on what has been published, but don't provide a viable theory of your own.

I dont have a theory. I only know the information Airbus had available to them after the accident. That tells us what happened, which I posted above very early on in this thread, it does not explain why.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 325): I will agree to disagree on that. As for MH370, IF Boeing has real information on what happened to it, then they are doing as asked and keeping quiet. I have my own theory, but then so do most people.

Which is absolutely hypercritical, your government (i.e. you) is funding the search for it, not Boeing.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): Except I have pointed out time and again problems with what has been in the press. The is a lot of confirmation bias on this thread, every news article all of a sudden becomes fact.

No, every news article becomes something to discuss. That's what we do here. Some stories gain credence as other information becomes public, others lose credence.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): Every one of your posts in my view is nothing more than an underhanded insult aimed at petty point scoring exercise.

Sorry you feel that way. Things I'm posting are about this incident, and this incident is never going to be a happy one for Airbus, so posts related to it can inevitably be viewed as being anti-Airbus. That's just what comes with this kind of incident.

Others could look at

Quoting zeke (Reply 117): MH370

Quoting zeke (Reply 127): MH370

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): MH370

and see a very questionable pattern of behavior.

Quoting zeke (Reply 324): We all see you hate Airbus with a passion, it is in every one of your posts. I have posted facts above which cannot be questioned, e.g. you cannot climb and accelerate with 3 engine failed immediately after takeoff, , you ignore them because it does not fit the anti Airbus story you want to pedal.

No, I do not hate Airbus with a passion. Personally, I think you're hyper-sensitive about this event. I didn't post anything at all related to climbing with three engines failed immediately after takeoff because I know that it wasn't the case given we had the charts at #35 very early on. You say this is not a point scoring exercise yet you keep wanting your score card updated? Fine. Zeke is correct, you cannot climb and accelerate with 3 engine failed immediately after takeoff.

Looking back on it, the actual first report was

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 88): According to this article, three engines went out shortly after takeoff: http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/articl...bwerken-des-A400M-ausgefallen.html

Clearly the report was "shortly after takeoff" and not "immediately after takeoff", so your score card only gets a half a point.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...guration-error-caused-plane-crash/

And from that article.

Airbus has since been able to obtain the flight data, which Lahoud said confirms that the engine control software had been improperly configured during the installation of the engines on the ill-fated aircraft.

That would indicate an Airbus issue if the article is correct not the engine manufacturer.

Okie

Look, guys.
It is not an A or B thing. It is a tragic plane crash where there clearly was a problem with the aircraft (it crashed).
It could have been pilot error, it could have been structural, it could have been a myriad of other
possibilities. However, the only information we have been given is that the aircraft left the ground, climbed to 1500 feet,
lost power to three engines, and then lost altitude and crashed shortly after takeoff.

Airbus spokesmen have stated it was not a structural problem, but a software engine control problem.
It would be nice if the focus of discussion (at a discussion website) was on how or why this could have happened.

Sniping at each other does not really advance the understanding of how or why this can occur in a modern advanced
airplane. Presumably, as systems integrator and with overall responsibility, Airbus has to find the answer and provide a
corrective solution... just like Boeing with the 787 battery, Airbus with the 380 wing rib cracks, etc.

Quoting mayohoo (Reply 330): Presumably, as systems integrator and with overall responsibility, Airbus has to find the answer and provide a corrective solution... just like Boeing with the 787 battery, Airbus with the 380 wing rib cracks, etc.

Airbus has in fact already issued the AOT that "introduces additional detailed checks" for all future engine and ECU installation. Even if this doesn't directly address the root cause, it's at least an additional layer in the "swiss cheese" of safety.

It could be as simple as "Ensure the ECU firmware EEPROM is firmly inserted"...

What about a Part 2 now?

My desktop or my smartphone start emitting fumes and the power supply of the street that I am in wobbles a little bit every time I try to load this page...

Regards...

B8887

Looks like prototypes could be back in the air soon, according to AFP via http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Wor...m-flight-suspension-next-week.ashx :

Quote: MADRID: Spain could decide to resume A400M plane flights after a meeting with Airbus officials Monday to discuss the causes of a deadly crash of one of the planes last month, Defense Minister Pedro Morenes said in an interview published Saturday. "We have scheduled a meeting Monday with the company (Airbus Defence & Space) to place a series of questions which will allow us to give this flight certification with all guarantees," he told daily newspaper El Pais. "If the responses are positive, the test flights of prototypes which have been suspended will resume and after that we will authorise the rest of the flights," he added.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 328): No, every news article becomes something to discuss. That's what we do here. Some stories gain credence as other information becomes public, others lose credence.

Pasting an excerpt of others work and providing a link like replies 66, 109, 142, 162 etc is not a discussion, in academic circles it is known as plagiarism. A discussion only follows if intelligent original content and comment is added.

Turning the thread into place where every news article related to the crash is mindlessly linked in like its a google news feed bot is not a discussion, it is also against the forum rules on the use of copyright material.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 328): and see a very questionable pattern of behavior.

Is personal attack on me as I have raised very legitimate comparisons between events and how they have been handled ?

With the A400 they have the aircraft, they have the data, they have a witness, they know what happened, they just do not know why. The investigation will resolve the why and it will not happen again.

Over the lifespan of the A400 there probably will be fewer civilian passengers carried in the A400 than there is carried in 777s on a daily basis.

With MH370 we have no aircraft, no data, no witness, we dont know what happened, and let alone why it happened, yet hundreds of thousands of civilians are carried on the aircraft. The investigation has nothing to work with, we dont know why, it may happen again, we have learned nothing from that large loss of life.

The A400 crashed during an test flight, essential people only, permit to fly. MH370 crashed on a regular passenger service, members of the public, standard airworthiness certificate. MH370 in one accident killed the equivalent of 60 of the A400 crashes.

The lessons learned from the A400 crash during a test flight to the travelling public has a much smaller safety impact than working out what happened with MH370 during a regular passenger service.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 328): Personally, I think you're hyper-sensitive about this event.

Of course I am, you have not stopped to think for one second that this industry is small, and others may actually know people who died in the accident.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 328): I didn't post anything at all related to climbing with three engines failed immediately after takeoff because I know that it wasn't the case given we had the charts at #35 very early on.

Reply 181 clearly contradicts that statement, "Several reports have suggested that as many as three of the aircraft’s four engines failed during the A400M’s departure from Seville"

Seems people have knowingly posted information they knew was false at the time ("because I know that it wasn't the case given we had the charts at #35"), and now deny ever posting that information.

Quoting mayohoo (Reply 330): Airbus spokesmen have stated it was not a structural problem, but a software engine control problem. It would be nice if the focus of discussion (at a discussion website) was on how or why this could have happened.

That would be a nice change.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 331): Airbus has in fact already issued the AOT that "introduces additional detailed checks" for all future engine and ECU installation. Even if this doesn't directly address the root cause, it's at least an additional layer in the "swiss cheese" of safety.

No different to QF32 when they asked operators to check the oil pipes on the engines.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 331): It could be as simple as "Ensure the ECU firmware EEPROM is firmly inserted"...

That is not the sort of package anyone would use in a high vibration, shock, and temperature environment. The EEC in the TP400-D6 has more lines of code in it than the A380 engine. They are not simplistic EEPROMS, they are complex multi channel parallel processors with auto fall over.

Quoting zeke (Reply 334): Quoting seat55a (Reply 331): It could be as simple as "Ensure the ECU firmware EEPROM is firmly inserted"... That is not the sort of package anyone would use in a high vibration, shock, and temperature environment. The EEC in the TP400-D6 has more lines of code in it than the A380 engine. They are not simplistic EEPROMS, they are complex multi channel parallel processors with auto fall over.

I do understand that the computers are complex. Firmware installation could still be one or more hardware packages, or it could be modified with a diagnostic computer plugged in - the hardware method would seem simpler to field-replace, but you would know the architecture better than I do.

I was just struck by the Airbus statement that the AOT gives further detailed check steps to be done at time of engine installation. To me this suggests validating the physical setup. Also the code will have gone through QA and can be auto-verified to some extent, but the physical installation can't be pre-validated.

On a completely different subject I have read that A400M has the router required for ACARS communication. I would think that military customers wouldn't want this enabled on their delivered units, they might not want to deliver the position and aircraft health info to the wide world! But I wonder what was enabled on this test flight.

[Edited 2015-06-06 23:40:35]

Quoting seat55a (Reply 335): I do understand that the computers are complex. Firmware installation could still be one or more hardware packages, or it could be modified with a diagnostic computer plugged in - the hardware method would seem simpler to field-replace, but you would know the architecture better than I do.

EEC software upgrades are normally performed these days while still installed on the engine, it takes about 30 minutes per EEC, on smaller engines like found on business jets it is still common to remove the EEC and do the software upgrade on the bench, it is more like a 4 hour task per engine. The software upgrade will require the DC and AC power to be supplied to the EEC, the installer program that comes with the software update will do the install and verification automatically and will tell the mechanic if it passed or failed. The disc comes with a part number on it, and the maintenance logs include an entry for the software that is loaded. The EEC in this case is more complex, it controls the engine and props.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 335): I was just struck by the Airbus statement that the AOT gives further detailed check steps to be done at time of engine installation. To me this suggests validating the physical setup

I am not surprised at all, like I pointed out above, they gave similar instructions after QF32 for the physical inspection of oil pipes.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 335): Also the code will have gone through QA and can be auto-verified to some extent, but the physical installation can't be pre-validated.

During the software load, they are normally given 3 chances to load the software. the installed includes a verification module which will read the software in the EEC. If you have ever done a bios update on a computer or router, you will know that even if you have got a confirmed good upload, the device can still fall over on reboot.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 335): On a completely different subject I have read that A400M has the router required for ACARS communication. I would think that military customers wouldn't want this enabled on their delivered units, they might not want to deliver the position and aircraft health info to the wide world! But I wonder what was enabled on this test flight.

Military aircraft operating in civilian airspace are easier to accommodate if they have the datalinks required to communicate to ATC. These links can be encrypted or turned off, most of the larger military aircraft you see flying have ACARS for CNS/ATM. They have a software installed that allows the text in the ACARS messages to be encrypted.

The test flight had a air to ground datalink, that is standard for all of their test flights. It is not ACARS, it is much higher bandwidth.

Quoting zeke (Reply 334): Pasting an excerpt of others work and providing a link like replies 66, 109, 142, 162 etc is not a discussion, in academic circles it is known as plagiarism.

dictionary.com shows you are wrong yet again:

Quote: plagiarism [pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz-] noun an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author

I guess you don't read too many academic papers. They are filled with citations of the type you seem to think aren't acceptable. Also copyright rules in general and for this site specifically allow for free use quotes with citation. For instance, this forum's rules say:

Quote: You are permitted to post a summary of an article or quote several lines of it and a link to the full story, but not the full article.

Amazing to see such an embarrassing desire to stifle discussion on a discussion forum.

Quoting zeke (Reply 334): Is personal attack on me as I have raised very legitimate comparisons between events and how they have been handled ?

If you want to see a personal attack, look no further than:

Quoting zeke (Reply 298): You derive enjoyment by putting Airbus down, and the employees that died. No one that is mentally healthy I know derives enjoyment from such things.

That's about as low as it gets. Pointing out that someone is (again) taking a thread off-topic is not a personal attack.

As for your 'legitimate' comparison to MH370, no, your interjection of MH370 is not legitimate, it has solely been an illegitimate attempt to drag this thread off-topic, which is against forum rules. No one could read:

Quoting zeke (Reply 127): Where is your concerns over the 787 fire report during testing ? Where is your concern over MH370 ? Where is your concern over Boeing not releasing to the public what it knows about MH370 ?

and conclude otherwise.

No one else has posted here about MH370 except to point out that it is off topic, which to me is a good indication that it is indeed off-topic.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 337): I guess you don't read too many academic papers.

I actually read a number of them, as an IEEE member I get access to a vast library.

This is an example of what is expected in academic circles, http://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/ac...oosing-whether-quote-or-paraphrase most universities and academic journals have similar published guidelines.

Does dictionary.com issue academic degrees, or publish academic papers ?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 337): That's about as low as it gets. Pointing out that someone is (again) taking a thread off-topic is not a personal attack.

I actually know someone who lost their life in that crash, I take what you have posted very personally. You just dont know when to stop pressing buttons.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 337): No one else has posted here about MH370 except to point out that it is off topic, which to me is a good indication that it is indeed off-topic.

I know knew someone who died in the A400 crash, all I see you trashing their professionalism. They were taking known risks on an flight that was a permit to fly, essential crew only. I mentioned other incidents as examples of the unbalanced fake concerns being presented on this thread regarding the A400 crash on the safety of the airframe on the public.

In reply 334 I have clearly shown what is known about the A400 crash, and the blasé attitude towards the MH370 where we dont know what happened, let alone why during a schedule passenger operation, not a test flight with essential crew only. With the A400 we have the airframe, the data, and a witness, the investigation will uncover the why. We will learn from it, and make sure it does not happen again. The people who lost their lives will leave a legacy that will save others in the future.

Reply 181 clearly contradicts your claim in reply 328 "I didn't post anything at all related to climbing with three engines failed immediately after takeoff because I know that it wasn't the case given we had the charts at #35 very early on".

Aviation Week Reported the Crash was due to software loaded to fix high AOA and angle of Bank flying.

Quoting zeke (Reply 334): in academic circles it is known as plagiarism.

No, it isn't. I saw this part days ago and I believe that you are misappropriating a word that doesn't belong here.

Quoting zeke (Reply 338): Does dictionary.com issue academic degrees, or publish academic papers ?

That wasn't his point. He used dictionary.com to lecture you on what the word "plagiarism" means which you apparently are accusing him of doing. All of the # citations that you used are linking directly to the source which in "academic circles" I quote you is called "sourcing". So in "academic circles", Revelation has by no means "plagiarized" any of the citations that you claim he has done. If he had paraphrased and still gave a source, he still hasn't committed plagiarism. In none of these instances, he is claiming credit or omitting the sources from the readers in this thread.

Let's review:
66:
Airbus A400 Crashes In Spain (by notaxonrotax May 9 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Not plagiarism.
109:
Airbus A400 Crashes In Spain (by notaxonrotax May 9 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Not plagiarism.
142:
Airbus A400 Crashes In Spain (by notaxonrotax May 9 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Not plagiarism.
162:
Airbus A400 Crashes In Spain (by notaxonrotax May 9 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Not plagiarism.

Please do go ahead and create an offshoot thread lecturing us on the usage of the word "plagiarism".

Quoting zeke (Reply 338): I actually know someone who lost their life in that crash

So in other words, you're way too emotionally invested in this thread that you've resorted to attacking people left and right when all they're doing is linking to sources, having a discussion on new sources, etc. You've gotten way too aggressive over who has been saying what. Revelation is free to talk as much as he wants on the subject as much as you do. The only difference is that you're attacking people and he's not. You know what you are really doing? Trying to shut down any healthy debate and/or discussions on this topic because you apparently know people that were killed in the incident. We all know people who were killed in one form or another but that doesn't mean the discussion must stop because the great "zeke" has declared the subject to be verboten.

I suggest you divest yourself from this thread before you give yourself an aneurysm.

Now can we (specifically zeke) return to the discussion on the A400M crash instead of this thread devolving into personal attack thread?

[Edited 2015-06-07 13:06:23]

Quoting mffoda (Reply 302): The sources claimed the protocols were skipped because Airbus was in a hurry to make up for delays in the development and delivery of the A400M military cargo and troop transport plane which is assembled in Seville.

I would not consider El Confidencial a trustworthy source, even less for these matters. Nevertheless, the words of that engineer do correctly capture the sentiment of the Sevilla employees.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 333): Looks like prototypes could be back in the air soon, according to AFP

This looks like a translation or wording error. The prototypes have been in the air all along, MSN2 and MSN6 have been routinely flying. What could be back in the air soon are the production a/c, which operate under a different authorization.

The plane crashed. All reports suggest there was a software mishap. For this to happen, presumably errors in loading or running the software program occurred or there was faulty software that was insufficiently tested.

What steps are normally done to test and fail-safe the software prior to integrating it with the hardware?

What steps are normally done after integrating it with the hardware on the ground prior to flight-testing?

What tests are then done in the air at a low altitude and higher altitude to give the plane a chance to recover if there is a mishap?

Since the plane crashed, presumably sue to the software glitch, where did the QA issue occur in the sequence and what steps were compromised or missed?

Quoting r2rho (Reply 341): The prototypes have been in the air all along, MSN2 and MSN6 have been routinely flying.

In addition, Airbus is sending MSN6 to the Paris air show.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 346): In addition, Airbus is sending MSN6 to the Paris air show.

Not a big surprise there. Will be an awkward display though, with the majority of people knowing one just crashed and killed people.

We all recall how much they wanted to get the A350 to fly by at the Paris Air Show even though it had literally just flown. I wish Boeing/Bombardier cared that much!

Pretty interesting article.

Quote:

"Fatal A400M crash linked to data-wipe mistake"

"And it has now emerged that Spanish investigators suspect files needed to interpret its engine readings had been deleted by mistake."

"It said the focus of the inquiry was a theory that files known as "torque calibration parameters" had been accidentally deleted during a software installation process ahead of the plane's first flight."

Link:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33078767

The inquiry seems to be advancing quite well.

Regards.

B8887

Quoting B8887 (Reply 348): Pretty interesting article. Quote: "Fatal A400M crash linked to data-wipe mistake" "And it has now emerged that Spanish investigators suspect files needed to interpret its engine readings had been deleted by mistake." "It said the focus of the inquiry was a theory that files known as "torque calibration parameters" had been accidentally deleted during a software installation process ahead of the plane's first flight." Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33078767 The inquiry seems to be advancing quite well. Regards.

It's a little hard to believe that the system could appear to boot normally with vital files missing.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 349): It's a little hard to believe that the system could appear to boot normally with vital files missing.

+1

Unthinkable, I'd say.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 349): It's a little hard to believe that the system could appear to boot normally with vital files missing.

While it may seem hard to believe, it could be related to some type of fault protection intended to isolate one set of software code from another for security or even trouble-shooting purposes. If that was indeed the reason then it makes the QA process for installing the software obviously very weak, as it appears to have been, since the installation process allowed code to be deleted or modified. But I'm still wondering why this issue wasn't caught during ground/taxi tests? Unless updated or modified software was installed after all of the ground/taxi tests were completed and just before the first and final flight.

Here is a little more insight.

http://www.computerworld.com/article...ed-to-fatal-a400m-plane-crash.html

They apparently had an approval for the new software that had never been tested according to the article and extra checks were to be run on the software.

The other interesting note was that there was suppose to be a fault warning at 400ft (agl?) if there was an issue with the ECU.
So than in itself makes you wonder if a ground run would even pick up the fault issue if one of the parameters was 400ft agl.


Okie