| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident happened again at Air India, the same organization. The article mentions that a Dreamliner operated by Air India had a transponder failure last month, indicating a recurring issue with software glitches in their Boeing 787 planes [24638].
(b) The software failure incident involving the Boeing 787 planes is not explicitly mentioned to have occurred at multiple organizations in the provided article. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The glitch was noticed by pilots during a flight from Melbourne to New Delhi, indicating a problem with the software system itself rather than its operation or misuse. Engineers were flown in to fix the glitch, suggesting that the issue was related to the system development or updates rather than operational factors [24638]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is within_system. The glitch was noticed by the pilots during the flight from Melbourne to New Delhi, prompting the diversion of the Boeing 787 plane to Kuala Lumpur. Engineers were flown in to fix the glitch, indicating that the issue originated from within the system of the aircraft itself [Article 24638]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the Air India Boeing 787 was due to a glitch that occurred during a flight from Melbourne to New Delhi. Engineers had to fly from Hong Kong to fix the glitch, indicating a failure due to contributing factors introduced without human participation [Article 24638].
(b) The article does not provide specific information about the software failure incident being caused by human actions. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not attributed to hardware issues but rather to a software glitch. The article mentions that pilots noticed a software glitch during a flight from Melbourne to New Delhi, leading to the diversion of the Boeing 787 plane to Kuala Lumpur for engineers to fix the issue [24638].
(b) The software failure incident was specifically attributed to a software glitch. The article states that engineers flew from Hong Kong to fix the glitch, and Air India was awaiting a detailed report on what caused the software glitch. Additionally, Boeing mentioned that they were working with Air India to provide support for the incident [24638]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident mentioned in the article does not indicate any malicious intent. It was described as a software glitch that was noticed by the pilots during a flight from Melbourne to New Delhi. Engineers were flown in to fix the glitch, and it was mentioned that it was not a major snag. Boeing was also working with Air India to provide support in resolving the issue [24638].
(b) The software failure incident appears to be non-malicious, as it was attributed to a software glitch that occurred during the flight. There is no indication in the article that the glitch was caused by any malicious activity or intent to harm the system. The focus was on fixing the issue to ensure the safety of the passengers and the aircraft [24638]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident involving the Boeing 787 plane diverted to Kuala Lumpur by Air India was not attributed to poor decisions. The article mentions that engineers flew from Hong Kong to fix the glitch, indicating a proactive response to address the issue. Additionally, the Air India spokesman mentioned that it was not a major snag, but due to the presence of passengers on board, they did not want to take any chances [Article 24638].
(b) The software glitch that led to the diversion of the Boeing 787 plane to Kuala Lumpur was more of an accidental decision rather than a deliberate poor decision. The article highlights that the glitch was noticed by the pilots during the flight from Melbourne to New Delhi, prompting the diversion for safety reasons. The decision to divert the plane was made to ensure the safety of the passengers on board, indicating an unintended consequence of the software failure [Article 24638]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software glitch that occurred on the Air India Boeing 787 plane was not described as a major snag, indicating that it may not have been a critical issue. The article mentions that engineers flew from Hong Kong to fix the glitch, suggesting that the incident could be attributed to development incompetence, possibly related to the software programming or configuration on the aircraft [Article 24638].
(b) The article does not provide specific details indicating that the software glitch was accidental. The incident is described as a glitch that was noticed by the pilots during the flight, leading to the decision to divert the plane to Kuala Lumpur for repairs. The focus is more on the response to the glitch rather than the cause being accidental [Article 24638]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software glitch experienced by Air India's Boeing 787 plane during a flight from Melbourne to New Delhi was temporary in nature. The glitch prompted the pilots to divert the plane to Kuala Lumpur, and engineers flew from Hong Kong to fix the issue. The spokesman for Air India mentioned that it was not a major snag, indicating that the software failure was temporary and could be resolved with the intervention of engineers [Article 24638]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, other |
(a) crash: The software glitch in the Boeing 787 plane caused the pilots to divert the flight to Kuala Lumpur, indicating a failure due to the system losing state and not performing its intended functions [Article 24638].
(b) omission: The article does not mention any instance of the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance.
(c) timing: The article does not mention any instance of the system performing its intended functions correctly, but too late or too early.
(d) value: The article does not mention any instance of the system performing its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The article does not mention any instance of the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The software glitch in the Boeing 787 plane was described as not a major snag, but significant enough to divert the flight for passenger safety, indicating a behavior that does not fit precisely into the crash category [Article 24638]. |