People traditionally have been reluctant to install software updates because sometimes the update causes desired functionality to break. This time, the entire helicopter broke because the patch wasn't installed:
Military figures claim a software upgrade for the European-designed Taipan helicopter was not installed on Australia's entire fleet despite warnings it could be needed to prevent possible engine failures.
...
Defence is refusing to comment on the "ongoing" investigation into the March 28 incident, but several figures familiar with the Taipan fleet say a simple IT patch could prevent the potentially devastating "hot starting" of the aircraft.
A "hot start" occurs when a pilot restarts the engine during a mission, shortly after powering down, instead of simply leaving the engine to idle before taking off again.
Former Taipan pilots and mechanics say the helicopter's turboshaft engines are not meant to be switched on and off repeatedly during an operation and are instead supposed to be powered up at the start, then shut down at the end.
...
Within three months, the MRH-90's prime contractor Airbus Helicopters, along with the engine manufacturer parent company Safran, had developed a software fix that would make it impossible for a pilot to unsafely perform a "hot start".
Several ADF sources, who declined to be identified so they could speak candidly, have told the ABC that the software upgrade was only ever installed on a handful of Australia's now 47-strong Taipan fleet.
This is pretty interesting in that the motivation to not install the patch seems backwards from what we usually see in the security world.
8 comments:
Typical modern crap, 'fixing' things that aren't broken. Seems like basic training should have covered this issue: leave the engine running until you are sure you are done using it. I dunno, maybe today's helicopter pilots are a bunch of fliggertigibbets that can't follow basic operating protocol. On the other hand, I really like my power windows that open or close at just a touch of the button.
When turbochargers first came out for construction equipment, manuals detailed the damage that could occur if the engine was shut down without a sufficient amount of idling to reduce the temperature of the turbocharger. Of course, most people didn't have a clue, ignored the manual, and the life of new equipment was shortened due to the ignorance. The intense heat of the turbocharger would "cook" the oil, and lubrication was hampered.
I wonder if there is a cautionary note in the manual that pilots didn't read? Software is important, but examining the details of operation is important, too. It prevents allowing the errors of the software to cause unintended consequences.
The MH-90s have had 'chronic' issues, which is why they're being replaced with US mfg Blackhawks.
Wanna bet how much the Watermelons would whine if the military left those helicopter engines running for more than a minute when they were not airborne?
And what that would do to the next year's military budget?
I was in TRADOC at Fort Hunter-Liggett in '81-82. Before I got a 1 year great gig - operational testing of the brand new HMMWV ("Hummer"), I was one of several officers to be assigned to the testing of the upgrade of the Blackhawk. Seems like I learned a lot. One of them was - never get back into a helicopter. What we saw toward the end of 1981 was a system that was catastrophically complex, with numerable points of failure. And this thing was supposed to fly reliably, to move troops, gear and spot things. Right.
I have never set foot in a helicopter after that. And this is years before military hardware getting "software upgrades." Can't even imagine what the Windows version or whatever OS nightmare does to whirlybirds now. I'll take a Hummer or walk, no thank you.
James
The Aussies are buying 40 Blackhawks. That is a nice purchase order to get, but the US is running 2,135 according to Lockheed Martin. Puts things in perspective.
Does anyone know how many the Taliban were given, I wonder?
probably a poor description of what the update did. Made it seem like it was taking away a "feature" rather than preventing a disaster occurring from improper operation.
The problem being addressed (engine needing a long cooldown before being restarted) also seems like something the military folks could be unhappy with except in peacetime. I'm thinking about a rapid sortie with engine shutdown for refueling and then immediately restarted for next sortie. I guess it would depend on how long a cooldown was needed before the next restart.
My first thought was that of Matisim, someone decided idling wasted too much fuel and they were told "manual be damned" to shut down between flights.
Post a Comment