AF 447 - Was it a terrorist attack in a non-traditional sense?

Me | 6/7/09 | GeorgiaDawg32

[GeorgiaDawg32]

and that could very well be true too..I’m just trying to come with some reason for computer systems to systematically shut down over a period of 14 minutes..

[GeorgiaDawg32]

Of course a loose wire could be nothing more than a loose wire. Stuff happens.

exactly true, but that would imply that electrical connections capable of firing a spark/fire are located in the same box as network connections controlling aircraft functions (these cables would only carry data and not be capable of sparks/fire). IF that’s the case, something needs to be re-engineered in a hurry. However, if they’re in a separate box, the network box would have to be in extremely close proximity. I’m assuming that each separate box would be fireproofed which would allow for error messages indicating a fire which the crew could address.

Again, I’m no expert by any stretch and know nothing of the engineering of these things..I’m just guessing..

[GeorgiaDawg32]

As planes become smarter, and fly by wire permeates the entire industry, it is only a matter of time before terrorists start sneaking in brains rather than bombs.

My point exactly. In late May a bomb threat was called in. Everyone immediately assumes the caller means a boom boom plastic explosive or some sort, but what if they meant “software” bomb..everything was checked, nothing was found, their “test” bomb went completely unnoticed, then they decided to unleash the real thing..

Just guessing..

[Polynikes]

Interesting theory. It certainly could be, but I lean more to an Occam's Razor solution. Airbus does have a history software troubles apparently because of incompatible software used at various manufacturing sites. If more planes start to drop then terrorism becomes more likely
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2006/gb20061005_846432.htm

[DHC-2]

Nobody took credit for the Anthrax thing ... also didn’t seem to be a reason ... but the terrorism was real. We still don’t know “why” or “who” ... but it still happened. Software makes sense ... thanks for the interesting thought.

[mkjessup]

Not funny, not true, and not called for.

I apologize.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

that could very well be..like I said, I’m thinking outside the box and my guess is as good as anyone elses.

[Greysard]

Put simply, what if a virus or some other method of disrupting the software of the plane was planted to go off at a certain time which would, system by system, shut down the computer operation of the plane up to and including communications?

I'm not an expert on Airbus, but I know something about programming. First of all, we are talking about embedded systems and not about a PC on someone's desk. These embedded systems are just metal boxes with lots of weird connectors on them, and the connectors are usually hidden. To plant a virus into one of those boxes you need:

1. Figure out what OS the box is running. This is not easy because there are many RTOSes and none of them tell you what they are. Your car's engine controller probably runs an RTOS, do you know what it is?
2. Write a virus for that OS. This is hard because RTOSes often do not allow external software to be inserted. They are compiled and statically linked into an "image", and that image is the smallest unit of code upload. To make a virus you need to have access to source components of *everything* on that box, plus you need the development tools and setup that was used to build this particular image. You'd need to work for the box manufacturer to do that.
3. Insert a virus into the box. As I mentioned, you'd need to wipe the box clean and upload your own image. You need special tools for that. Note that boxes may check cryptographic signatures on images, and refuse to run if the signature doesn't match; but again if you are working for the box maker then it's doable.

But that's one box. There are many, made by different companies. You need a unique virus for each of them. And you'd need to test the whole thing on the lab bench before it makes any sense to do a test run on an airplane. It would take an amazing level of coordination to plant highly educated terrorists into key positions at all those companies. I don't think terrorists are that patient, and they can think of easier ways to do the same. I read about one interesting and almost undetectable method in a book (the Gap series, here).

Many people have access to the onboard computer, I would guess, for upgrades, software checks, etc.

Just like you have "access" to computers that run your car. You may see and touch the metal box, but without specialized tools and skills you can't do much to them. Besides, if the team of Air France mechanics is compromised then the terrorist doesn't need a computer to bring an airplane down.

Myself, I know only that there was a major failure on the airplane, maybe several, and it somehow prevented pilots from contacting the ground (but the automatic notifications continued.) To me the silence is telling because however busy the pilots were, they surely at least could hold the radio button down. The sequence is fairly lengthy (minutes,) so someone would have found time to call and report mayday. It's not like reporting an imminent crash is somehow optional. If the pilots reported nothing it's because they couldn't.

One possibility is that pilots were incapacitated somehow, and when the turbulence disconnected the autopilot (which is normal) there was nobody alive to take control. Then the airplane was just falling randomly, exceeding all its structural limits in the process and tearing its wings off.

[verga]

Up until 9/11 it was "unthinkable" that terrorists would take planes hostage to use as flying bombs.

It is only unthinkable until some one actually does it.

[mad_as_he$$]

Fire,hardware memory failure, a cascade where the instruction set is violated or even the crew taking a incorrect action. The I/O bus also could have been compromised some how.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

thanks for that explanation.

I never meant to imply the OS on an aircraft is the same as XP, etc..but someone somewhere has to have the knowledge to check said software, upgrade it when necessary, etc..

Unless and until we are prepared for EVERYTHING that can be thrown at us, we are at risk..

I’m simply guessing..

[GeorgiaDawg32]

agreed..what is apparent is there was a massive software failure..what caused it is anyones guess..

[ops33]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[ops33]

Good, logical analogy.

[Freee-dame]

Of course a loose wire could be nothing more than a loose wire. Stuff happens.

Remember the plane that went down almost immediately after taking off, landing on houses in a NYC suburb where lots of policemen and firemen lived. The conclusion was that something (wire?, bolt?) wasn't quite right. My question is who didn't fix the wire, etc., correctly. That crash that killed lots of people was so close to nine-eleven and too coincidental where it came down.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

I watched that from Buenos Aires..the Argentinians I was working with all said the same thing..”they hit you again”..

I discount nothing...and this is only my theory..it may be completely and totally off base but in my mind, it explains a lot..

[Hyzenthlay]

Even in that case, I don’t think this is likely to be terrorism. The object of terrorism is to cause terror... think of the swine flu, which has killed two people in this country, and the Air France crash, or any non-terrorist crash which has killed hundreds. Regardless of the death tolls, people seemed more scared of flying not because there might be a mechanical or electronic glitch that could bring down the plane and kill them, but because another passenger might have a disease that probably wouldn’t kill them. And questioning trust in the government? When a plane goes down, people question their trust in the mechanics and pilots, but when several thousand people in Mexico come down with a new flu strain, they’re panicked because our government hasn’t stockpiled enough medications for the entire population and can’t come up with a vaccine ‘fast enough’ for everyone to get vaccinated.

Now, I’m not saying this wasn’t terrorism, or that the swine flu was. But, what I’m saying is why go to the trouble of doing something extremely difficult and complicated and relatively ineffective that would likely require someone outside their ‘circle of power’ (hacking like that is NOT a ‘piece of cake’ for anyone, not even the best hackers) when they could point the media hype machine wherever they want in their sleep and have all the desired results? If they wanted us to mistrust our government over flights that crashed for plausible reasons, we’d already be hearing nothing on the news except how some corrupt (and probably Republican/capitalist, too) American official was somehow responsible for whatever hardware or software issue that brought down this plane...

[MurrietaMadman]

The history of Airbus software failures seems limited to CAD/CAM software

http://www.thelightisgreen.com/2007/09/big-it-disaster.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aSGkIYVa9IZk

From http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Fly_By_Wire_Aircraft.html

...Nonetheless the top concern for computerized, digital fly-by-wire systems is reliability, even more so than for analog systems. This is because a computer running software is often the only control path between the pilot and control surfaces.

If the computer software crashes, the pilot may not be able to control the aircraft. Therefore virtually all fly-by-wire systems are triply or quadruply redundant: they have three or four computers in parallel, and three or four separate wires to each control surface.

If one or two computers crash, the others continue working. In addition most early digital fly-by-wire aircraft also had an analog electric, mechanical or hydraulic backup control system.

The Space Shuttle has, in addition to the redundant set of computers running the primary software, a backup computer running a separately developed, reduced function system that can take over in the event of a fault that affects all of the computers in the redundant set.

This is intended to reduce the risk of total failure due to a generic software fault...

While my earlier post took an immediate turn away from the Airbus crash as terrorist act and focused on the why and who of terrorism, it would not surprise me, especially after reading of the reduncy built into the Airbus, that terrorism was responsible. But like many others here, nothing has convinced me one way or the other.

And no one has convinced me that hacking into any system cannot be done. Unlikely, maybe, in a package like an Airbus but not impossible and if it’s not impossible someone will make an effort.

Just my two cents.

[mad_as_he$$]

Airbus has had several crashes and/or near misses where the autopilot did what it was programmed to do but the crew was unaware that for example in one model the AP did not control certain flight functions or other parameters relating to performance. There is a program that runs on the History Channel about it cannot remember the name but I think it is one of the “Seconds from Disaster” series.

[MurrietaMadman]

Even into the Hudson River. Thanks for the additional information. You might find the following light commentary on political responsibility interesting and entertaining.

http://news.aol.com/videos/video/main/plane-crash-airbus-lands-on-hudson-river-in-new-york/727464173

More Airbus reports here
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a340.htm