The Ariane Flight Failure was a situation in which the self-destruction of a space-faring rocket was caused by a failure in proper software testing. Below we’ll give a brief overview, some problems that happened, and I will be giving my own thoughts on this. We’ll then wrap up and move to describing a test cases which could have been used to prevent failure. To begin, the Ariane-5 Rocket was due to enter space, but during the launch sequence, the craft swiveled out of control, broke up, and then exploded. The events that lead up to the explosion were simple: There was a nominal and smooth launch up to H0-36 seconds, then at around H0-36.7 seconds the Inertial Reference Systems ceased to function. The backup IRS was also down. Two nozzles of the solid rocket boosters swiveled into the extreme position, which then caused the rocket to abruptly veer off course. The rupture of the links between the solid boosters caused the self-destruct sequence to correctly begin (but prematurely). The initial failures were that the on-board computer used calculations sent by the IRS, but these calculations were actually output of an exception …show more content…
For one, the most important issue that I saw was that 3 of the 7 variables which could produce operand errors were unprotected. In the report, the groups found that it produced a high margin of safety. However, this shouldn’t be assumed like this. A high margin of safety still has a certain marginal chance of fault. This needs to be compensated for in the event that it does fail (as it did). Secondly, the specifications actually required that the processor of the IRS should shutdown on fault. Yet another error in specification requirements. Thirdly, the software used by the Ariane-5 was also used by the Ariane-4, but was not updated to compensate for the changes made to the A-5. Honestly, this could have been prevented with the proper test cases implemented, which will be covered:
On November 28, 2004 at about 10:00 a.m. mountain standard time, a Canadair (now Bombardier) CL-600-2A12 (Challenger 600), tail number N873G, crashed into the ground during takeoff at Montrose Regional Airport (MJT), Montrose, Colorado. The aircraft was registered to Hop-a-Jet, Inc., and operated by Air Castle Corporation doing business as Global Aviation. (Insert Here)The flight was operating under Part 135 Code of Federal Regulations. The captain filed the flight under an IFR Flight plan. Of the six passengers on board, three died from fatal injuries and the other three sustained major injuries. The aircraft was totaled due to the impact with the ground and a post-crash fire.
Additionally, our Profitability Index was 94 with a profit of $923,660 for this round. As is stated in the application model reference, any score that is 100 and greater is what is desired. However, the exception to this rule is Downtime and Disaster Damage, which requires the score to be under 100 to be acceptable. After analyzing the summary report and looking at the controls that were selected, DTL Power believes that it has, for the most part, chosen the most effective controls to meet its goals. However, to decrease downtime and ensure that DTL Power has the appropriate controls implemented, the cybersecurity team shall review the controls under their management to either make changes or not.... ...
The cause for the American Airlines 191 crash was the stall with its roll to the left. The stall was created by the left wing outboard leading edge slat retraction. This caused the loss of stall warning alarms and the failure of the slat indication systems that were supposed to indicate changes between the left and right wings and inboard-outboard slats. The maintenance group caused damage to the left wing and engine number one separation. The improper maintenance procedures led to the separation of the engine and pylon assembly.
Another theory is that the pilot, Jason Dahl might have purposefully crashed the plane to prevent the hijackers from taking it over. Or perhaps that Dahl had cut off the planes fuel with out the hijackers being aware. It was said that the plane looked like it went straight down; and that the plane had almost completely disintegrated on impact leaving a hole several feet deep.
According to “A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis…”, both authors stated that HFACS was developed based off from the Swiss Cheese model to provide a tool to assist in the investigation process to identify the probable human cause (Wiegmann and Shappell, 2003). Moreover, the HFACS is broken down into four categories to identify the failure occur. In other words, leading up to adverse events the HFACS will identify the type error occur.
Firefighters extinguished the fire and then shut down the locomotive. When the locomotive was shut down, no other locomotive was started. This meant that the air compressor was left off while the air brakes were slowly leaking. The train’s “reset safety control” system, which sets the entire train’s brakes should the engine fail, was not wired to go off. About an hour after firefighters shut down the train, the pressure in the air brakes had dropped low enough to allow the train to start rolling. The derailed 17 minutes later when it was 11.6 kilometers (7.21 mi)
Highlighted in their code of conduct, clear and concise internal regulations and expectations concerning operational safety are outlined to provide company-wide compliance (Sustainability Report, 2015). Additionally, these regulations are substantiated by the company’s three levels of verification, which are labeled as self-verification (individual site corroboration), assurance (internal risk assessment team), and audit (independent verification) (Sustainability Report, 2015). While the first two internal systems are vital to the success of the intended safety strategies, the presence of the company’s independent assessment team assures an accurate and non-biased portrayal of compliance information, which validates the company’s transparency efforts. The company’s appointment of Carl Sandlin as their Independent Expert was intended to assist in the implementation of recommendations set out by an internal investigation, which the company has completed 25 out of 26 sanctions (BP, 2012; Sustainability Report, 2015). Moreover, these developments may be a result from past allegations that BP’s auditing systems only accounted for a safety system presence and failed to assess the quality of their structures, verification of correct usage, and system efficiency (Allford & Carson, 2015). Although the cause for these developments resulted from tragic events, these internal improvements provide authenticity to the company’s transparency and create a foundation for company-wide safety compliance in both current and future business endeavors. For example, BP has successfully screened 19 potential projects for their impact on the local communities and environment (Sustainability Report, 2015). However, their ultimate success is derived on their ability
The Challenger disaster of 1986 was a shock felt around the country. During liftoff, the shuttle exploded, creating a fireball in the sky. The seven astronauts on board were killed and the shuttle was obliterated. Immediately after the catastrophe, blame was spread to various people who were in charge of creating the shuttle and the parts of the shuttle itself. The Presidential Commission was decisive in blaming the disaster on a faulty O-ring, used to connect the pieces of the craft. On the other hand, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, in The Golem at Large, believe that blame cannot be isolated to any person or reason of failure. The authors prove that there are too many factors to decide concretely as to why the Challenger exploded. Collins and Pinch do believe that it was the organizational culture of NASA and Morton Thiokol that allowed the disaster. While NASA and Thiokol were deciding whether to launch, there was not a concrete reason to postpone the mission.
Reported by (McCown, 2013), the Instrument Landing System (ILS) was not switched on and the crew are unable to use instrument to align the aircraft with the runway. This has resulted in the crew to have flown above the standard height for approach, needing a sudden drop in both speed and altitude when the aircraft is near the airport. When the crew was decreasing altitude and speed, they allowed their speed to drop significantly below the approach speed causing the aircraft to further lose altitude and crash. This was due to the crew not using the aircraft’s auto throttle system to control airspeed.
...ial approaches which are Normal Accident and HROs, although it seems certain that both of them tends to limit the progression that can contribute toward achieving to highly protective systems. This is because the scope of the problems is too narrow and the potential of the solutions is too limited as well. Hence, Laporte and Consolini et.al., (1991) as cited in Marais, et.al., (2004) conclude that the most interesting feature of the high reliability organization is to prioritize both performance and security by the managerial oversight. In addition, the goal agreement must be an official announcement. In essence, it is recommended that there is a continuing need in the high risk organizations for more awareness of developing security system and high reliability environment in order to gain highly successful method to lower risk in an advance technology system.
In conclusion, many contribution factors led to the Crossair flight 3597 crash but is mainly triggered by Crossair’s incapability of assessment, pilot error and lastly the air traffic controller. Analysis of a flight crash is important so that we will know the causes, thus being able tackle it, making sure that there are no other flight crashes like Crossair flight 3597.
Travelling at a speed twice that of sound might seem to be something futuristic; however, this feat has already been achieved almost 40 years ago by the world’s only supersonic passenger aircraft-The Concorde. Concorde brought a revolution in the aviation industry by operating transatlantic flights in less than four hours. The slick and elegant aircraft with one of the most sophisticated engineering was one of the most coveted aircrafts of its time. However, this was all destined to end when Air France Flight 4590 was involved in a tragic disaster just outside the city of Paris on July 25, 2000. The crash killed 113 people, but more disastrous was its impact. The belief and confidence people had with Concorde gradually started to fade, and finally Concorde was grounded after two and a half years of the crash. Official reports state that the main cause of the crash was a piece of metal dropped by a Continental aircraft that flew moments before Concorde, but, over the last decade, the report has met a lot of criticism, and many alternative hypotheses have thus been proposed.
The “Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster” was an event that was bound to happen. Unfortunately, seven astronauts lost their life in a failure that could have easily been prevented. The failure of the rocket booster O-rings gave way to gas leaks through the external fuel tank which caused the explosion. NASA has came a long way since 1986, however history cannot be erased. In my opinion, this failure traces back to the management. It doesn't make sense to me that an O.K. to launch was given after insufficient testing, lack of communication, and disapproval from others involved in the build. The wrong people must have been given the wrong responsibilities. After reading the background, I can only think that the ones in charge were racing with time, considering economic & political
When I stepped into the large neatly organized white polished plane, I never though something would go wrong. I woke up and found myself on an extremely hot bright sunny desert island filled with shiny soft bright green palm trees containing rough bright yellow hard felt juicy apples. The simple strong plane I was in earlier shattered into little pieces of broken glass and metal when crashing onto the wet slimy coffee colored sand and burning with red orange colored flames. After my realization to this heart throbbing incident I began to run pressing my eight inch footsteps into the wet squishy slimy light brown sand looking in every direction with my wide open eyes filled with confusion in search of other survivors. After finding four other survivors we began moving our small petite weak legs fifty inches from the painful incident. Reaching our destination which was a tiny space filled with dark shade blocking the extreme heat coming from the bright blue sky, I felt my eyelids slowly moving down my light colored hazel eyes and found myself in a dream. I was awakened the next day from a grumbling noise coming from my empty stomach.
The training facility that Giffels firm was contracted to do civil engineering work for had recently switched from using jet fuel to liquid propane to prevent soil contamination. While this was a solution to environmental concerns it created new problems that Giffels found to be unaddressed with the lack of a design analysis for any safety systems.