| Recurring |
unknown |
<Article 135022> does not mention any specific software failure incident related to either one_organization or multiple_organization. Therefore, the information to answer this question is unknown. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
Unknown |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident in this case seems to be within_system. The article mentions that the plane lost control over its flap, which is a component of the aircraft system that helps slow down the plane for landing [135022]. This indicates an internal technical issue within the aircraft system that led to the software failure incident. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
a) The software failure incident in this case was not directly attributed to non-human actions. The article mentions that the plane lost control over its flap, which is a mechanical component that helps slow down the aircraft for landing. This indicates a technical difficulty with the aircraft's mechanical system rather than a non-human action [135022].
b) The software failure incident was not explicitly linked to human actions in the provided article. The focus was on the technical difficulty related to the aircraft's flap control, indicating a mechanical issue rather than a failure caused by human actions [135022]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to hardware. The article mentions that the plane lost control over its flap, which is a hardware component that slows down the plane for landing. The spokesperson mentioned that the aircraft had lost control over its flap, which is a physical component of the aircraft's hardware system [135022].
(b) There is no specific mention of the software being a contributing factor to the failure incident in the articles. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
<Article 135022> The software failure incident described in the article is non-malicious. The incident was attributed to technical difficulties with the plane's flap control system, which is a component related to the aircraft's landing mechanism. The spokesperson mentioned that the aircraft lost control over its flap, which is crucial for slowing down the plane during landing. This technical issue led to the plane circling for almost two hours before safely landing back at Perth Airport. There is no indication in the article that the software failure was caused by malicious intent or human actions aimed at harming the system [135022]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
<Article 135022> The software failure incident described in the article is related to a technical difficulty with the plane's flap control system, which caused the aircraft to lose control over its flap. This issue led to the plane having to circle for almost two hours before landing back at Perth Airport. The failure appears to be more aligned with the category of accidental_decisions, as it was likely caused by a mistake or unintended issue with the flap control system rather than a deliberate poor decision [135022]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to development incompetence or accidental factors. Therefore, the specific cause of the technical difficulty experienced by the plane, such as a flap control issue, is not attributed to development incompetence or accidental factors in the provided information. |
| Duration |
temporary |
<Article 135022> The software failure incident in this case was temporary. The article mentions that the plane lost control of its flap, which is a technical difficulty that occurred after takeoff. This led to the plane circling for almost two hours before landing back at Perth Airport. The issue with the flap causing the plane to land faster than normal and relying more on brakes indicates a temporary software failure incident that was resolved upon landing [135022]. |
| Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in this case did not involve a crash where the system lost state and did not perform any of its intended functions. The article mentions that the plane landed safely after experiencing technical difficulties with its flap, indicating that the system was still operational to some extent [135022].
(b) omission: The software failure incident did not involve omission where the system omitted to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The article does not mention any specific instances where the system failed to perform its functions [135022].
(c) timing: The software failure incident did not involve timing issues where the system performed its intended functions too late or too early. The article does not indicate any delays or early executions in the system's operations [135022].
(d) value: The software failure incident did not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly in terms of providing incorrect outputs or results. The issue with the flap control was related to the physical operation of the aircraft rather than the software providing incorrect values or outputs [135022].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not exhibit byzantine behavior where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The article describes the technical difficulty with the flap control as a mechanical issue rather than a software-related inconsistency [135022].
(f) other: The software failure incident in this case was related to a technical difficulty with the flap control system on the aircraft, which impacted the landing process. This behavior could be categorized as a mechanical malfunction rather than a specific software-related failure mode [135022]. |