Incident: Gray Eagle Drone Software Reliability Issues and Failures.

Published Date: 2012-06-15

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident with the Gray Eagle drone occurred in March 2011 as mentioned in Article 12468.
System 1. Gray Eagle drone's flight control surfaces subsystem 2. Faulty chip in the Gray Eagle drone 3. Gray Eagle drone's software [12468]
Responsible Organization 1. The software failure incident with the Gray Eagle drone was caused by poor reliability across all major subsystems, including a faulty chip that blocked a subsystem from sending commands to a portion of the aircraft's flight control surfaces [12468].
Impacted Organization 1. The Army [12468]
Software Causes 1. Unstable software mentioned in Greer's report, leading to 11 unplanned software revisions [12468].
Non-software Causes 1. Poor reliability across all major subsystems led to delays in the Gray Eagle drone development [12468]. 2. A faulty chip blocked a subsystem from sending commands to a portion of the aircraft's flight control surfaces, leading to a drone crash in California [12468]. 3. The drone's mean times between failures were below the required minimum, indicating issues with hardware reliability [12468].
Impacts 1. Delays in the development and testing of the Gray Eagle drone due to poor reliability across major subsystems, including a crash in California caused by a faulty chip blocking commands to flight control surfaces [12468]. 2. Reduction in available flight hours and lower mean times between failures for the drone and its components, falling short of required minimums [12468]. 3. The Gray Eagle meeting only four of seven key performance parameters for the fiscal year, with system reliability falling short of predicted growth, potentially impacting upcoming tests [12468]. 4. Unplanned software revisions and instability in the Gray Eagle's software, leading to the need for adequate readiness before testing can resume [12468].
Preventions 1. Implementing thorough software testing procedures before deployment could have prevented the software failure incident [12468]. 2. Conducting more rigorous quality assurance checks on the software to identify and address any potential issues prior to operational use could have helped prevent the failure [12468]. 3. Enhancing the software development process to include more robust error handling mechanisms and redundancy features could have mitigated the impact of software failures [12468].
Fixes 1. Conduct thorough testing before resuming flight testing to ensure adequate readiness and satisfaction of testing entrance criteria as mentioned in Greer's report [12468]. 2. Address the instability of the software by stabilizing the Gray Eagle's software to prevent further incidents and reduce the need for unplanned software revisions [12468].
References 1. Edward Greer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation 2. Col. Timothy Baxter, Army's project manager for unmanned aircraft systems 3. Inside Defense news outlet

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization (a) The software failure incident related to the Gray Eagle drone has happened again within the same organization. The article mentions that the Gray Eagle's software is unstable, and fixes to problems have led to 11 unplanned software revisions. Additionally, the report notes that testing should only be resumed when the system demonstrates adequate readiness and satisfies testing entrance criteria, indicating ongoing software issues within the organization [12468]. (b) There is no specific mention in the article of a similar software failure incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services.
Phase (Design/Operation) design (a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident from the article. The Gray Eagle drone faced issues with its software stability, leading to 11 unplanned software revisions. The report mentioned that the software was unstable, and fixes to problems resulted in multiple software revisions [12468]. (b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article.
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Gray Eagle drone mentioned in the article is primarily attributed to factors within the system. The article highlights issues such as poor reliability across major subsystems, faulty chips causing crashes, short mean times between failures for the drone and its components, and unstable software leading to multiple unplanned software revisions [12468]. These factors point to internal challenges and deficiencies within the system itself that have contributed to the software failures. (b) outside_system: The article does not provide specific information indicating that the software failure incident was primarily due to contributing factors originating from outside the system.
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident related to non-human actions in the Gray Eagle drone was primarily due to poor reliability across all major subsystems, including a faulty chip that blocked a subsystem from sending commands to a portion of the aircraft's flight control surfaces. This non-human factor led to the drone crashing in California and subsequent flight testing suspension [12468]. (b) The software failure incident also had elements related to human actions. The report mentioned that the Gray Eagle's software was unstable, leading to 11 unplanned software revisions. Additionally, the report emphasized the need for testing to be resumed only when the system demonstrates adequate readiness and satisfies testing entrance criteria, indicating the importance of human actions in ensuring the software's stability and reliability [12468].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware, software (a) The software failure incident related to hardware can be seen in the article where a Gray Eagle drone crashed in California due to a faulty chip blocking a subsystem from sending commands to a portion of the aircraft's flight control surfaces. This incident led to the suspension of flight testing until the faulty chip was replaced [12468]. (b) The software failure incident related to software can be observed in the article mentioning that the Gray Eagle's software is unstable, leading to 11 unplanned software revisions. The report also highlights that fixes to software problems have been made, but testing should only be resumed when the system demonstrates adequate readiness and satisfies testing entrance criteria [12468].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) non-malicious (a) The articles do not mention any malicious intent or actions contributing to the software failure incident related to the Gray Eagle drone. The issues mentioned primarily revolve around poor reliability, faulty chips, delays, and software instability [12468]. (b) The software failure incident related to the Gray Eagle drone appears to be non-malicious. The failures are attributed to technical issues such as poor reliability across major subsystems, faulty chips, and software instability. These issues have led to delays, crashes, and the need for multiple software revisions, impacting the drone's performance and testing schedules [12468].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) accidental_decisions (a) The software failure incident related to the Gray Eagle drone mentioned in the article does not directly point to poor decisions as the intent behind the failure. The issues mentioned, such as poor reliability across major subsystems, faulty chips, and software instability, seem more related to technical challenges and design flaws rather than poor decisions. (b) The software failure incident seems to be more aligned with accidental decisions or unintended consequences rather than deliberate poor decisions. The incident mentions issues like faulty chips causing crashes, software instability leading to multiple unplanned software revisions, and overall technical challenges that have impacted the drone's performance [12468].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence, accidental (a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article. The report mentions that the Gray Eagle's software is unstable, and fixes to problems "have led to 11 unplanned software revisions" [12468]. This indicates that there were issues in the initial development process that required multiple revisions to address, pointing towards a lack of professional competence in the software development for the drone. (b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is also highlighted in the article. For example, a Gray Eagle drone crashed in California after a faulty chip blocked a subsystem from sending commands to a portion of the aircraft's flight control surfaces [12468]. This incident was caused by an accidental fault in the chip, leading to a software failure that resulted in the drone crash.
Duration permanent, temporary The software failure incident related to the Gray Eagle drone mentioned in Article 12468 can be categorized as both temporary and permanent: (a) Permanent: The software failure incident can be considered permanent as the article mentions that the Gray Eagle drone's software is unstable, leading to 11 unplanned software revisions. This indicates ongoing issues with the software that are not easily resolved, suggesting a more permanent nature of the failure [12468]. (b) Temporary: On the other hand, the article also mentions that fixes to software problems have been implemented, and software reliability has improved over time. This suggests that while there have been temporary failures and issues with the software, efforts have been made to address and rectify them, indicating a temporary aspect to the software failure incident as well [12468].
Behaviour crash, omission, other (a) crash: The Gray Eagle drone experienced a crash in California after a faulty chip blocked a subsystem from sending commands to a portion of the aircraft's flight control surfaces, leading to the suspension of flight testing [12468]. (b) omission: The software of the Gray Eagle drone had poor reliability across all major subsystems, leading to delays and failures in meeting key performance parameters. The software was also mentioned to be unstable, requiring 11 unplanned software revisions [12468]. (c) timing: The software of the Gray Eagle drone caused delays in the testing schedule, with the system reliability falling short of predicted growth. Testing was recommended to be resumed only when the system demonstrates adequate readiness and satisfies testing entrance criteria [12468]. (d) value: The software of the Gray Eagle drone had issues with system reliability, with mean times between failures falling short of required minimums. For example, the drone itself had an average failure every 25 hours, below the required minimum of 100 hours [12468]. (e) byzantine: The software of the Gray Eagle drone was mentioned to have had fixes to problems that led to 11 unplanned software revisions. Despite improvements in software reliability, the software was still considered unstable, requiring careful testing before resuming operations [12468]. (f) other: The software of the Gray Eagle drone was reported to have led to delays, failures in meeting key performance parameters, and issues with system reliability. Additionally, the software was described as necessary for the operation of the drone, highlighting its critical role in the Army's unmanned air force operations [12468].

IoT System Layer

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

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence delay, non-human, theoretical_consequence (a) death: The articles do not mention any deaths resulting from the software failure incident. [12468] (b) harm: The articles do not mention any physical harm to individuals resulting from the software failure incident. [12468] (c) basic: The articles do not mention any impact on people's access to food or shelter due to the software failure incident. [12468] (d) property: The articles do not mention any impact on people's material goods, money, or data due to the software failure incident. [12468] (e) delay: The software failure incident led to delays in the testing and operation of the Gray Eagle drone. For example, in March 2011, a Gray Eagle drone crashed in California due to a faulty chip, leading to the suspension of flight testing. Testing was resumed after the faulty chip was replaced, but the Army was left with fewer available flight hours. Additionally, the Gray Eagle faced delays in meeting key performance parameters and system reliability falling short of predicted growth, which could be problematic for upcoming tests. [12468] (f) non-human: The software failure incident impacted the Gray Eagle drone, which is a non-human entity. The faulty chip in the drone caused a subsystem to fail, leading to the crash in California and subsequent testing delays. The Gray Eagle's software was also mentioned to be unstable, requiring multiple unplanned software revisions. [12468] (g) no_consequence: The articles do not mention that there were no real observed consequences of the software failure incident. [12468] (h) theoretical_consequence: The articles discuss potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as the impact on the Pentagon's plans to double its unmanned air force, the importance of the Gray Eagle drone in providing support to soldiers in combat, and the significance of drones in the U.S. military's operations against terrorists. There are concerns raised about the system reliability falling short of predicted growth, which could pose problems for future tests. [12468] (i) other: The articles do not mention any other specific consequences of the software failure incident. [12468]
Domain government (a) The failed system, the Gray Eagle drone, is intended to support the defense industry. The Gray Eagle is described as the Army's own version of the Air Force's Predator drone, which is a key component in the Pentagon's plans to double its unmanned air force and is essential for combat support in Afghanistan [12468].

Sources

Back to List