| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The incident involving a software vulnerability in the A400M military plane occurred in 2015, where data needed to run the engines was accidentally erased during software installation by Airbus workers, leading to a fatal crash [65037].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
There is no specific mention in the provided article about a similar incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase:
The incident involving the Airbus A400M military plane crashing in May 2015 was attributed to a software vulnerability that led to the erasure of critical engine data during a software installation on the ground. This design flaw, where data needed to run the engines was accidentally erased during software installation, contributed to the engines freezing minutes after take-off, ultimately resulting in the crash [65037].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase:
During the operation of the A400M aircraft, the pilots were not adequately warned about the problem with the engines until they failed. The pilots were unaware of the issue with the engines and were unable to understand how to run them due to missing data, leading to a fatal chain of events that resulted in the crash. Additionally, the troubleshooting system of the aircraft did not assist the pilots in addressing the engine failure, further contributing to the operational failure during the flight [65037]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident involving the Airbus A400M military plane was primarily due to contributing factors that originated from within the system. The incident was caused by data needed to run the engines being accidentally erased during software installation on the ground by Airbus workers. This led to the engines freezing minutes after take-off, resulting in a fatal crash [65037]. Additionally, the article mentions that the engine-makers had warned Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in October 2014 about software installation errors that could lead to a loss of engine data, indicating an internal system issue [65037]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the A400M military plane crash was primarily due to non-human actions. The incident occurred because data needed to run the engines was accidentally erased during software installation on the ground by Airbus workers. This led to the engines freezing minutes after take-off, ultimately resulting in the crash [65037].
(b) Human actions also played a role in the software failure incident. The engine-makers had warned Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in October 2014 that software installation errors could lead to a loss of engine data, and that technicians may not receive any warning before take-off that a problem had occurred. The response to this warning was deemed inadequate, indicating a human factor in the failure incident [65037]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The incident involving the Airbus A400M military plane crashing was attributed to a software vulnerability that led to the erasure of data needed to run the engines when Airbus workers installed software on the ground. This resulted in the engines freezing minutes after take-off, ultimately leading to the crash [Article 65037].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The software vulnerability in the A400M military plane, which contributed to the fatal crash, was related to errors in software installation that compromised the engines. The engine-makers had warned Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in October 2014 that software installation errors could lead to a loss of engine data, and technicians may not receive any warning before take-off about a problem [Article 65037]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the A400M military plane crash was non-malicious. The incident was attributed to a software vulnerability that led to data being accidentally erased during software installation on the ground, causing the engines to fail during a test flight [65037]. The report highlighted poor coordination, misjudgments, and regulatory confusion surrounding the installation of the engine software, indicating that the failure was not due to malicious intent but rather a combination of technical errors and inadequate risk analysis. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the A400M military plane crash was primarily due to poor decisions. The incident occurred because data needed to run the engines was accidentally erased when Airbus workers installed software on the ground. This led to the engines freezing minutes after take-off, resulting in the fatal crash. The Spanish military investigators' report highlighted poor coordination and misjudgments that plagued the project, confirming that the engines were compromised by data being wiped [65037]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the case of the A400M military plane crash. The incident occurred because data needed to run the engines was accidentally erased when Airbus workers installed software on the ground. This accidental erasure of data led to the engines freezing minutes after take-off, resulting in the fatal crash. The engine-makers had warned Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in October 2014 that software installation errors could lead to a loss of engine data, indicating a lack of attention to detail and professional competence in the development process [65037].
(b) The software failure incident was accidental in nature as the erasure of critical engine data was not intentional but occurred due to a mistake during the software installation process. The accidental deletion of the engine data led to a chain of events that ultimately resulted in the tragic crash of the A400M military plane during a test flight [65037]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Airbus A400M crash was temporary. The incident occurred due to a combination of contributing factors introduced by certain circumstances but not all. Specifically, the incident was triggered by the accidental erasure of data needed to run the engines during software installation on the ground. This led to the engines freezing minutes after take-off, ultimately resulting in the crash. The incident was not a permanent failure caused by all circumstances but rather a temporary failure caused by specific factors [65037]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the Airbus A400M military plane crash near Seville in May 2015 resulted in a crash where the engines froze minutes after take-off, leading to the death of four crew members [65037].
(b) omission: The software failure incident involved the accidental erasure of data needed to run the engines during software installation on the ground. This omission of data led to the pilots having no warning about the problem until the engines failed [65037].
(c) timing: The software failure incident involved a timing issue where the data for three engines was wiped during the software installation process, and those files were never restored in the subsequent uploading process, leading to the engines freezing shortly after take-off [65037].
(d) value: The software failure incident resulted in the system performing its intended functions incorrectly, as the engines were compromised by the data being wiped during the software installation process, ultimately leading to the crash of the aircraft [65037].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not exhibit a byzantine behavior as described in the articles.
(f) other: The software failure incident also involved a regulatory confusion regarding the responsibility for installing the engine software between Airbus and the engine-makers, Europrop International (EPI). There was disagreement on who should have been responsible for the software installation, with EPI arguing it should have been loaded by its own staff using EPI systems, while Airbus argued it had the authority under military rules to install the software [65037]. |