| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted to the bigger aircraft due to a communication error causing take-off issues happened at one_organization. The incident led to the aircraft not responding to the pilot's normal take-off commands, requiring extra thrust for a safe departure. An internal investigation was carried out, and the operator took action to improve information flow between operational departments to reduce the risk of a similar event occurring again within the same organization [106473].
(b) The articles do not mention any similar incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to the design phase. The incident occurred because of a communication error where an email about the change in aircraft type was not passed on, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted to the bigger craft. This design flaw in the communication process between the Operational Control Centre (OCC) and the Operational Handling Department (OHD) resulted in the incorrect passenger distribution, causing take-off issues for the pilot [106473].
(b) The software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. The article mentions that the details were altered in the relevant software, but the Passenger Services Department (PSD) was not informed about the change in aircraft type. This lack of communication and operational oversight led to the passengers still being seated in the old configuration, contributing to the take-off issue experienced by the pilot during the flight [106473]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is primarily within_system. The failure occurred due to a communication error within the Operational Control Centre (OCC) in Budapest, Hungary, which resulted in the automated message about the aircraft change not being received by the Operational Handling Department (OHD) and Passenger Services Department (PSD) at Luton Airport. This internal communication breakdown led to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted in the software, causing the imbalance in passenger distribution on the aircraft [106473]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to non-human actions. The failure occurred because of a communication error where an email about the change in aircraft from an A320 to an A321 was not passed on, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted to the bigger craft. This non-human error resulted in too many passengers being seated at the front of the plane, causing take-off issues for the pilot [106473].
(b) Human actions also played a role in this software failure incident. The Operational Control Centre (OCC) in Budapest sent an automated message about the aircraft change to the Operational Handling Department (OHD) and Passenger Services Department (PSD) at Luton. However, due to a "technical issue," this message was not received. Additionally, the Passenger Services Department (PSD) was not informed about the change in aircraft type, leading to the passengers being seated in the old configuration. Improved communication and information flow between operational departments could have mitigated this human error [106473]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not directly related to hardware issues. The incident was primarily caused by a communication error where an email about the change in aircraft type was not passed on due to a technical issue, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted accordingly [106473].
(b) The software failure incident was primarily caused by a communication error in the software system, where the automated message about the change in aircraft type was not received due to a technical issue. This led to the passenger seating plan not being updated in the software, resulting in too many passengers being seated at the front of the plane, causing take-off issues for the pilot [106473]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was non-malicious. The failure occurred due to a communication error where an email about the change in aircraft type was not passed on, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted to the bigger craft. This resulted in too many passengers being seated at the front of the plane, causing take-off issues for the pilot [106473]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident was poor_decisions. The failure occurred due to a communication error where an email about the change in aircraft type was not passed on, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted to the bigger craft. This resulted in too many passengers being seated at the front of the plane, causing take-off issues for the pilot [106473]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not directly attributed to development incompetence. The issue stemmed from a communication error and a technical issue that led to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted to the bigger aircraft, causing take-off issues [106473].
(b) The software failure incident in the article was more aligned with an accidental failure. The failure was a result of a communication error, where an email about the aircraft change was not passed on, and a technical issue that prevented the message from being received. These accidental factors led to the software not updating the passenger seating plan, causing the pilot to face take-off issues due to the incorrect distribution of passengers [106473]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident in the reported article appears to be temporary. The incident was caused by a communication error where an email about the change in aircraft type was not passed on due to a technical issue, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted in the software. This specific circumstance of the technical issue contributed to the temporary failure, as once the issue was noticed, corrective actions were taken to adjust the details in the relevant software and inform the Passenger Services Department (PSD) to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future [106473]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article did not involve a crash where the system lost state and did not perform any of its intended functions. The incident was related to a communication error that led to incorrect passenger distribution on the aircraft, causing take-off issues for the pilot [106473].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can be categorized under omission, as the system omitted to perform its intended functions at an instance. Specifically, the email about the change in aircraft from A320 to A321 was not passed on, leading to the passenger seating plan not being adjusted accordingly [106473].
(c) timing: The incident did not involve a timing failure where the system performed its intended functions too late or too early. The issue was more related to the incorrect passenger distribution due to the omission of updating the seating plan for the larger aircraft [106473].
(d) value: The software failure incident did not result from the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Instead, the issue stemmed from the incorrect passenger distribution caused by the lack of updating the seating plan for the changed aircraft type [106473].
(e) byzantine: The incident did not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The failure was more straightforward, involving a communication error and lack of information flow between operational departments [106473].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be categorized as an omission combined with a communication breakdown between departments, leading to incorrect passenger distribution on the aircraft. The incident highlights the importance of effective communication and coordination in ensuring operational safety [106473]. |