| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to faulty parts on Boeing 737 planes, including the 737 Max aircraft, is an issue that has happened again within the same organization. This incident adds to the series of problems Boeing has faced with its 737 Max planes, including the grounding of the aircraft worldwide after fatal crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia. The newly discovered issue with the faulty slat track assemblies is another setback for Boeing as it works to address safety concerns and get the 737 Max back in the air [85690]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
unknown |
The provided article does not mention any software failure incident related to the development phases of design or operation. Therefore, the information about the software failure incident related to these specific development phases is unknown. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the faulty parts on Boeing 737 planes, specifically the slat track assemblies, originated from within the system. Boeing discovered the problem during a meeting with the parts supplier when employees noticed that some parts were not heat treated, indicating a potential safety issue [85690]. This indicates an internal manufacturing or quality control issue within Boeing's processes that led to the identification of the faulty parts. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is not related to non-human actions but rather to faulty parts on the wings of Boeing 737 planes. The issue was discovered during a meeting with the parts supplier when Boeing employees noticed that some parts were not heat treated, indicating a potential safety issue [85690]. This indicates that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect rather than non-human actions.
(b) The software failure incident in this case is not related to human actions but rather to a manufacturing issue with the slat track assemblies on Boeing 737 planes. Boeing and the FAA advised airlines to inspect and repair the faulty parts, indicating that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect rather than human actions [85690]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is related to hardware. Boeing identified faulty parts on the wings of some of its 737 planes, including the 737 Max aircraft, specifically the slat track assemblies. The issue was discovered during a meeting with the parts supplier when Boeing employees noticed that some parts were not heat treated, indicating a potential safety issue [85690]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
The software failure incident reported in the article does not involve a malicious software failure. The issue with faulty parts on the wings of Boeing 737 planes, specifically the slat track assemblies, was due to a manufacturing defect where some of the parts were not heat treated, leading to potential safety concerns. This falls under the category of a non-malicious failure as it was not caused by intentional harm but rather by a mistake in the manufacturing process [85690]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
The software failure incident reported in the article does not relate to poor or accidental decisions. Instead, it is related to faulty parts on the wings of Boeing 737 planes, specifically the slat track assemblies, which were found to not meet manufacturing standards and may need to be replaced to prevent potential failures or cracks [85690]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is not mentioned in the provided article [85690].
(b) The software failure incident related to an accidental factor is mentioned in the article [85690]. Boeing discovered the problem with faulty parts during a meeting with the parts supplier when employees noticed that some parts were not heat treated, leading them to believe there might be a safety issue. This indicates that the issue was accidental and not intentional [85690]. |
| Duration |
unknown |
The software failure incident reported in the article does not directly relate to a permanent or temporary software failure. The issue mentioned in the article pertains to faulty parts on Boeing 737 planes, specifically the slat track assemblies, which are physical components of the aircraft's wings. This incident does not involve software failure but rather a manufacturing defect in the physical parts of the aircraft. Therefore, the concept of permanent or temporary software failure does not apply in this context. |
| Behaviour |
omission, other |
(a) crash: The article does not mention any software crash as the cause of the failure incident. [85690]
(b) omission: The faulty parts on the wings of the Boeing 737 planes were identified as not meeting manufacturing standards, which could lead to premature failure or cracking. This omission in meeting the standards could result in the system omitting to perform its intended functions of maintaining the structural integrity of the aircraft wings. [85690]
(c) timing: The issue with the faulty parts on the wings of the Boeing 737 planes does not seem to be related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions but at incorrect times. [85690]
(d) value: The software failure incident is not directly related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The issue lies more in the manufacturing defect of the parts rather than the software itself. [85690]
(e) byzantine: The article does not mention any byzantine behavior of the software system in this failure incident. [85690]
(f) other: The other behavior in this case could be categorized as a failure due to a manufacturing defect in the parts used in the aircraft, specifically the slat track assemblies on the wings. This manufacturing flaw could lead to potential safety issues with the aircraft, highlighting the importance of quality control in the production process. [85690] |