Published Date: 2015-12-12
| Postmortem Analysis | |
|---|---|
| Timeline | 1. The software failure incident involving hoverboards catching fire occurred in December 2015 [Article 56924]. 2. The hoverboard fires were reported as of December 2015 [Article 45901]. |
| System | The software failure incident described in the news articles did not involve a software failure. Therefore, the question cannot be answered as it does not pertain to software systems. |
| Responsible Organization | 1. The manufacturers of the self-balancing scooters (hoverboards) were responsible for causing the software failure incident due to the use of cheap and low-quality rechargeable lithium-ion batteries [56924, 45901]. |
| Impacted Organization | 1. Consumers purchasing self-balancing scooters, commonly known as hoverboards, were impacted by the software failure incident [56924, 45901]. 2. Major airlines such as American, Alaska, Delta, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Southwest, and United Airlines were impacted as they banned hoverboards on passenger flights due to safety concerns [45901]. 3. The US Postal Service was impacted as they stopped shipping hoverboards by air [45901]. 4. Retailers like Amazon, Target, and Overstock.com were impacted as they suspended sales or stopped selling hoverboards altogether [45901]. |
| Software Causes | unknown |
| Non-software Causes | 1. The failure incidents were caused by the quality of the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries inside the self-balancing scooters, which were prone to defects due to being cheaply made [56924]. 2. The hoverboard fires were attributed to the highly flammable electrolytes in the lithium-ion batteries, which could ignite and lead to significant fires when the batteries short-circuited or were damaged [56924]. 3. Defective chargers were also identified as a potential cause of problems with the hoverboards, as severe overcharging could lead to battery failure [56924]. 4. The lack of safety standards specific to hoverboards contributed to the failure incidents, as these products were new and did not have established safety regulations in place [45901]. 5. Counterfeit components, such as batteries and chargers, were prevalent in the hoverboard market, making it difficult to ensure the quality and safety of the products [45901]. |
| Impacts | 1. The self-balancing scooters, commonly known as hoverboards, experienced multiple incidents of catching fire, leading to property damage, including burning down a house in Louisiana, causing significant damage to a home in New York, and forcing shoppers to evacuate a mall in Washington [56924]. 2. Major airlines, including American, Alaska, Delta, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Southwest, and United Airlines, banned hoverboards on passenger flights due to safety concerns related to the lithium-ion batteries catching fire [45901]. 3. The US Postal Service also stopped shipping hoverboards by air, and retailers like Amazon, Target, and Overstock.com suspended or stopped selling hoverboards altogether [45901]. 4. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported at least 60 incidents of hoverboard fires causing over $2 million in property damage in the United States [45901]. 5. The CPSC recalled half a million hoverboards in the United States due to overheating lithium-ion batteries, posing a serious risk of fire [45901]. |
| Preventions | 1. Use of high-quality lithium-ion batteries from reputable manufacturers like LG or Samsung could have prevented the software failure incident [56924]. 2. Implementation of proper quality control measures during the manufacturing process to ensure the batteries are free from defects and impurities that could lead to short circuits [56924]. 3. Adoption of advanced cooling fans and heat-sink systems, similar to those used in high-powered electric cars like Tesla, to maintain safe operating temperatures for the batteries [56924]. 4. Strict adherence to safety standards and regulations for lithium-ion batteries and electronic devices, including thorough testing and certification of hoverboards as a whole, not just individual components like batteries and chargers [45901]. 5. Development and enforcement of specific safety standards for hoverboards to address the unique risks associated with these devices, such as overheating lithium-ion batteries and potential fire hazards [45901]. |
| Fixes | 1. Implementing stricter quality control measures for the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries used in self-balancing scooters to ensure they are not prone to defects [56924]. 2. Enforcing safety standards and regulations for hoverboards to prevent the use of cheap components and ensure proper manufacturing practices [56924]. 3. Conducting thorough investigations into the root causes of hoverboard fires to identify specific points of failure and address them effectively [45901]. 4. Developing and adhering to voluntary safety standards, such as UL 2272, for hoverboards to ensure they meet specific safety requirements [45901]. 5. Banning or recalling hoverboards that do not meet safety standards to protect consumers from potential fire hazards [45901]. | References | 1. Jay Whitacre, Professor of Materials Science & Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University [Article 56924] 2. US Consumer Product Safety Commission [Article 45901] 3. CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson [Article 45901] 4. Jessica Horne, a victim of a hoverboard fire incident [Article 45901] 5. Sales manager for Chinese hoverboard manufacturer CHIC [Article 45901] 6. John Drengenberg, UL consumer safety director [Article 45901] 7. Sean Kane, product safety researcher from The Safety Institute [Article 45901] 8. Jay Sung, CEO of electric-scooter company EcoReco [Article 45901] |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring | one_organization, multiple_organization | (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - The incident of hoverboards catching fire due to lithium-ion battery issues has been reported multiple times with different brands of hoverboards. For example, a New York man filed a lawsuit after his Swagway hoverboard exploded while charging [45901]. - The incident of hoverboards catching fire has also led to recalls and bans by regulatory bodies. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled half a million hoverboards in the United States due to overheating lithium-ion batteries [45901]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - The hoverboard fires caused by lithium-ion battery issues have been reported across different brands and manufacturers. The incidents have occurred with various hoverboard brands, indicating a widespread problem in the industry [45901]. - The US airline industry, including American, Alaska, Delta, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Southwest, and United Airlines, have banned hoverboards on passenger flights due to safety concerns related to the lithium-ion battery fires [45901]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incidents related to the development phases such as design or operation. Therefore, it is unknown whether the failure was due to contributing factors introduced by system development, system updates, or procedures to operate or maintain the system. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) | within_system, outside_system | (a) The articles discuss a software failure incident related to hoverboards catching on fire due to issues with the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries inside the scooters. The problem originates from within the system, specifically with the quality of the batteries being used in the hoverboards. The batteries are prone to defects, such as misalignment of the separator between the anode and cathode, which can lead to a short circuit and subsequent fire [56924, 45901]. (b) Additionally, the articles mention that the hoverboard fires are not solely caused by the batteries but also by other components like the cut-off switch, which can fail and contribute to the safety risks associated with the devices. This failure of the cut-off switch could be considered as a contributing factor originating from outside the system, as it is a safety feature that should prevent overcharging but may not be included or properly functioning in some hoverboards [45901]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) | non-human_actions, human_actions | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: - The incidents of hoverboards catching fire were primarily attributed to the quality of the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries inside the scooters. The batteries were prone to defects, such as misaligned separators or impurities causing punctures, leading to short circuits and subsequent fires [56924]. - The science behind hoverboard fires involves the highly flammable liquid electrolyte inside lithium-ion batteries, which can explode if the battery short-circuits, such as by puncturing the separator between the positive and negative sides of the battery [45901]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - The incidents of hoverboards catching fire were also linked to potential human actions, such as using defective chargers that could overcharge the cells, leading to failures even in perfectly made cells [56924]. - The lack of safety standards specific to hoverboards and the presence of counterfeit components, including batteries and chargers, due to cost-cutting measures by manufacturers, were highlighted as potential human-related factors contributing to the hoverboard fires [45901]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incidents related to hardware or software. Therefore, the information about the software failure incident related to hardware or software is unknown. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) | non-malicious | (a) The articles do not mention any malicious intent behind the software failure incidents related to hoverboards catching on fire. The incidents are attributed to the quality of the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries used in the hoverboards, which are prone to defects due to being cheaply made. The failures are a result of inherent defects in the batteries, such as misalignment of the separator between the anode and cathode, leading to short circuits and subsequent fires [56924, 45901]. (b) The software failure incidents related to hoverboards catching on fire are non-malicious in nature. The failures are primarily due to the use of cheap components, particularly low-quality lithium-ion batteries, in the manufacturing of the hoverboards. These cheap batteries are more prone to defects, such as punctures in the separator, which can lead to short circuits and fires. The incidents are a result of poor quality control and cost-cutting measures rather than intentional harm to the system [56924, 45901]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incidents related to poor decisions or accidental decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incidents related to development incompetence or accidental factors. |
| Duration | unknown | The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to a permanent or temporary duration. |
| Behaviour | omission, value, other | (a) crash: The articles do not mention any instances of software crashing. (b) omission: The software failure incident related to hoverboards catching fire can be categorized as an omission. The failure occurs when the lithium-ion batteries in the hoverboards explode, causing fires and damage to property [56924, 45901]. (c) timing: The software failure incident does not align with the timing category as the issue is not related to the system performing its intended functions too late or too early. (d) value: The failure of the hoverboards catching fire can be considered a value failure as the system (hoverboards) is performing its intended function of providing transportation, but the batteries used in the system are of low quality, leading to fires [56924, 45901]. (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure. (f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is a defect in the hardware component (lithium-ion batteries) rather than a direct software failure. The issue stems from the quality and defects in the batteries used in the hoverboards, leading to safety hazards and fires [56924, 45901]. |
| Layer | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | None | None |
| Communication | None | None |
| Application | None | None |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Consequence | harm, property, non-human, theoretical_consequence | (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - There were no reports of people losing their lives due to the software failure incidents discussed in the articles [56924, 45901]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - The articles mention incidents where people were physically harmed due to the hoverboard fires. For example, a New York man filed a lawsuit after his Swagway hoverboard exploded while charging, and a Louisiana family lost their home after their 12-year-old son's Fit Turbo hoverboard exploded [45901]. (c) basic: People's access to food or shelter was impacted because of the software failure - There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted by the software failure incidents discussed in the articles [56924, 45901]. (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data were impacted due to the software failure - The articles highlight significant property damage caused by the hoverboard fires, with incidents resulting in the destruction of bedrooms, entire homes, and property damage totaling over $2 million [45901]. (e) delay: People had to postpone an activity due to the software failure - There is no mention of people having to postpone activities due to the software failure incidents discussed in the articles [56924, 45901]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incidents primarily impacted the hoverboards themselves, leading to fires and explosions, but there is no specific mention of non-human entities being impacted [56924, 45901]. (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure - There were significant observed consequences of the software failure incidents, including fires, property damage, and physical harm to individuals [56924, 45901]. (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur - The articles discuss potential consequences of hoverboard fires, such as the risk of explosions, property damage, and physical harm, which did occur in some instances [56924, 45901]. (i) other: Was there consequence(s) of the software failure not described in the (a to h) options? What is the other consequence(s)? - There are no other consequences of the software failure incidents mentioned in the articles beyond those covered in the options (a) to (h) [56924, 45901]. |
| Domain | transportation, manufacturing, other | (a) The failed system was related to the production and distribution of information as it involved self-balancing scooters, commonly known as "hoverboards," catching on fire due to defects in the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries used in these devices [Article 56924, Article 45901]. (b) The failed system was also related to transportation as the US airline industry banned hoverboards on passenger flights due to safety concerns regarding the lithium-ion batteries causing fires in these devices [Article 45901]. (m) The failed system could be categorized under "other" as it was a consumer product (hoverboards) that did not fit into traditional industry categories but was associated with safety hazards and incidents related to the use of lithium-ion batteries [Article 56924, Article 45901]. |
Article ID: 56924
Article ID: 45901