Incident: Faulty Bomb Detectors Endanger British Soldiers in Afghanistan

Published Date: 2010-03-03

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident with the bomb detectors not working was reported on March 3, 2010, in Article 1193.
System unknown
Responsible Organization 1. Ministry of Defence (MoD) [1193]
Impacted Organization 1. British soldiers in Afghanistan [1193]
Software Causes 1. Unknown
Non-software Causes 1. Wear and tear: The article mentions that wear and tear accounted for the one in ten bomb detectors that were not working, leading to the need for repairs [1193].
Impacts 1. The software failure incident of one in ten Army bomb detectors not working put British soldiers in Afghanistan at risk, as they rely on these detectors to locate deadly improvised explosive devices laid by Taliban insurgents [1193]. 2. The failure of the hand-held bomb detectors contributed to the deaths of nearly 80% of UK soldiers killed in the warzone the previous year [1193]. 3. The shortfall in working bomb detectors renewed criticism of the government for failing to properly equip the forces in Helmand, leading to concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the troops in combat situations [1193].
Preventions 1. Regular maintenance and quality checks on the bomb detectors could have prevented the software failure incident by ensuring that all devices were in proper working condition [1193]. 2. Implementing a more robust testing and validation process during the procurement of the bomb detectors to catch any faulty devices before they are deployed in the field [1193]. 3. Investing in better training for soldiers on how to properly use and maintain the bomb detectors to prevent issues related to wear and tear [1193].
Fixes 1. Conduct thorough maintenance and repair of the hand-held bomb detectors to address wear and tear issues that are causing the software failure incident [1193].
References 1. Figures released by ministers 2. Written Commons answer by the Government's defence equipment spokesman Quentin Davies 3. Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey 4. Defence Select Committee report 5. Statements from the Ministry of Defence (MoD)

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring unknown (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - The article does not mention any specific previous incidents within the same organization related to the software failure incident with the bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces [1193]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - The article does not provide information about similar incidents happening at other organizations or with their products and services related to the software failure incident with the bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces [1193].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be inferred from the article. The article mentions that one in ten bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces, specifically the hand-held Vallon devices, were not 'fit for purpose' despite being 'in service' [1193]. This indicates a failure in the design or development phase where the detectors were not meeting the required specifications or functionality, potentially due to issues introduced during system development or updates. (b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is also evident in the article. It is stated that wear and tear accounted for the one in ten bomb detectors that were not working, and they were being repaired [1193]. This suggests that the failure of some detectors was due to factors introduced during the operation or misuse of the system, leading to wear and tear issues that required repairs.
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the bomb detectors not working was primarily due to wear and tear within the system. The Ministry of Defence mentioned that the one in ten bomb detectors that were not working were undergoing repairs due to wear and tear [1193]. This indicates an internal system issue within the bomb detectors themselves.
Nature (Human/Non-human) human_actions (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: - The article does not specifically mention a software failure incident caused by non-human actions. Therefore, it is unknown. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - The article discusses a situation where one in ten bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces is not working due to wear and tear, which can be attributed to human actions such as maintenance, handling, or environmental conditions [1193].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware (a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware: - The article mentions that one in ten bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces is not working due to wear and tear, which is a hardware-related issue [1193]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to software: - The article does not specifically mention any software-related issues contributing to the failure of the bomb detectors. Therefore, there is no direct evidence of a software-related failure in this incident.
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) non-malicious (a) The software failure incident related to the bomb detectors not working does not seem to be malicious. The article mentions that the reason for the detectors not working was wear and tear, which indicates a non-malicious cause [1193].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) unknown The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident related to poor decisions or accidental decisions. Therefore, the intent of the software failure incident in this context is unknown.
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) accidental (a) The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident related to development incompetence. (b) The incident mentioned in the articles is related to the failure of bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces, specifically the hand-held Vallon devices. The failure of these detectors, with 9% not being 'fit for purpose,' can be attributed to accidental factors such as wear and tear, as mentioned by the Ministry of Defence. The article states that the detectors were being repaired due to wear and tear, indicating an accidental cause for the failure [1193].
Duration unknown The articles do not mention any specific software failure incident related to the bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces. The focus is on the physical devices themselves, specifically the hand-held Vallon bomb detectors, and their operational status rather than any software-related issues. Therefore, it is unknown whether the software failure incident was permanent or temporary based on the provided articles.
Behaviour omission, other (a) crash: The article does not specifically mention a software crash as the cause of the failure incident. (b) omission: The article highlights that 9% of the hand-held bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces were not 'fit for purpose', indicating an omission in performing their intended function of detecting explosive devices [Article 1193]. (c) timing: There is no mention of a timing-related failure in the software system in the articles. (d) value: The article does not provide information about the software system performing its intended functions incorrectly. (e) byzantine: The article does not describe the software system behaving with inconsistent responses or interactions. (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in this case could be categorized as an omission, where the system failed to perform its intended function of detecting explosive devices due to the detectors not being 'fit for purpose' [Article 1193].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence death, harm, theoretical_consequence (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - The article mentions that home-made bombs accounted for the deaths of nearly 80% of UK soldiers killed in the warzone last year, indicating that the faulty bomb detectors could have contributed to these fatalities [1193].
Domain government (a) The failed system was intended to support the defense industry. The software failure incident involved hand-held bomb detectors used by the Armed Forces, specifically the Vallon devices, which were reported to have a 9% failure rate, putting British soldiers at risk in Afghanistan [Article 1193]. (l) The failed system was also related to the government sector. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) was criticized for being 'deliberately obstructive' in disclosing financial information and for squandering millions in procurement practices related to military hardware, including warships, submarines, and planes [Article 1193].

Sources

Back to List