| Recurring |
unknown |
a) The article does not mention any previous incidents of software failure within the same organization.
b) The article does not mention any similar incidents happening at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was related to the design phase. The incident occurred due to a technical fault with the alarm system of the Emirates Cable Car, which transports visitors across the River Thames in east London. The fault in the alarm system led to the cable car breaking down, leaving families and children suspended 300ft in the air for over half an hour [13436]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Olympic cable car breakdown was within the system. The incident was caused by a technical fault with the alarm system of the cable car, as reported by Transport for London. This internal system failure led to the cable cars coming to a halt and leaving passengers suspended mid-air for nearly 40 minutes [13436]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurred due to non-human actions, specifically a technical fault with the alarm system of the Emirates Cable Car. This fault led to the cable car breaking down and leaving passengers suspended over the Thames for nearly 40 minutes in sweltering conditions [13436]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident occurred due to a hardware issue. The article mentions that the Olympic cable car broke down due to a technical fault with the alarm system, which is a hardware component [13436]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was non-malicious. The incident was attributed to a technical fault with the alarm system of the Emirates Cable Car, causing it to break down and leaving passengers suspended in the air for nearly 40 minutes [13436]. There is no indication in the article that the failure was due to malicious intent or any deliberate actions to harm the system. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
<Article 13436> The software failure incident related to the Olympic cable car breakdown was caused by a technical fault with the alarm system, leading to the suspension of the cable cars with passengers on board for nearly 40 minutes [13436]. This incident aligns more with the category of accidental_decisions, as it was a result of an unintended technical fault rather than poor decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not explicitly attributed to development incompetence. The incident was described as a technical fault with the alarm system causing the breakdown of the Emirates Cable Car [13436].
(b) The software failure incident in the article was described as a technical fault with the alarm system, leading to the breakdown of the cable car. This indicates that the failure was accidental rather than intentional or due to incompetence [13436]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the cable car breakdown at the Emirates Cable Car was temporary. The incident lasted for nearly 40 minutes, from when the cable car broke down at 11:45 am until it was fixed by 12:18 pm [13436]. The delay was caused by a technical fault with the alarm system, which led to the suspension of families and children 300ft in the air for over half an hour. The passengers had to endure the delay in sweltering heat as temperatures in London hit almost 28C. The system was back up and running after the technical fault was resolved [13436]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article can be categorized as a crash. The Emirates Cable Car broke down due to a technical fault with the alarm system, leading to the system losing its state and not performing its intended function of transporting visitors across the River Thames [Article 13436].
(b) omission: The incident can also be classified as an omission. The cable car omitted to perform its intended function of transporting passengers smoothly when it came to a halt, leaving families and children suspended 300ft in the air for over half an hour [Article 13436].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident can be considered as a timing failure. Although the cable car eventually resumed operation after being fixed, the delay caused by the technical fault resulted in visitors being stuck above the Thames for around 40 minutes, which was too late compared to the usual five-minute crossing time [Article 13436].
(d) value: There is no specific indication in the article that the software failure incident resulted in the system performing its intended functions incorrectly (value failure).
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the article can be described as a system failure that led to a disruption in service, causing inconvenience to passengers and requiring emergency measures to address the situation. |