Back to Squawk list
  • 47

Airbus Issues Urgent Safety Directive After Discovery of Solar Radiation Data Corruption Risk in A320 Family

Submitted
Airbus has called for immediate precautionary action across all global operators of A320 Family aircraft following the discovery of a rare but critical vulnerability linked to intense solar radiation. (aeroxplorer.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


frankvdh
Frank van der Hulst 20
As a former software engineer, I don't buy Airbus's explanation. Since a rollback to the previous version fixes the problem, the actual fault must logically be something that was changed in the latest update. Maybe they removed memory checking for flipped bits, or changed how the ECAS reacts when it finds that. But it was a change made by Airbus, not solely solar radiation.
JoanMintz
Joan Mintz 8
As another former software/hardware engineer, I agree 100%.
gbuxton
Gerald Buxton 3
One of those "just one line of code" upgrades that they wanted pushed out quickly? Doing QA testing for Positive Train Control on the train dispatcher's CTC software, that was always the excuse for just give it a quick look, we have to get this new (unrelated) feature out ASAP - maybe it got by because the test team was pressured to do so and never got a chance to find it.
But no matter the how, the rollback says it all.
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 5
" ... following the discovery of a rare but critical vulnerability linked to intense CORNER CUTTING".

I fixed it for them. :)
FlyingSeagull
Chris Browne 6
It's reported that over 5000 of the 6000 affected aircraft had already had the update (? Backdate?) applied by the time this became news.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/a320-return-to-service-airbus-software-fixes-easa-directive
RidgewoodNJ
Barry Morse 11
Odd. This article reports there have been no accidents or incidents. The New York Times previously reported a JetBlue diversion with 15 to 20 people sent to local hospitals to address non-life-threatening injuries. According to the website, this article was written with AI assistance. That would suggest an out-of- date data set or an AI hallucination.
betteryelp0j
GRg Jones 3
The article does have the JetBlue incident, specifically as the incident that exposed the problem.
One needs to scroll down through all the click-diversions and adds to read The Who;e thing.
gekfw69698
Gary King -5
...and your point is?
frankvdh
Frank van der Hulst 7
His point is that the article explicitly says there were no injuries or incidents, and yet we know of the JetBlue incident in which there were some (minor) injuries.
betteryelp0j
GRg Jones 6
I'm thinking his point was thinking the write up was AI written. The explanation of the actual AI use is there (as a caroted expansion):

" AI-assisted content
Portions of this article were created with assistance from AI tools to help with research, drafting, or copy editing. A human editor reviewed the work, verified key facts, and approved the final version.
AI outputs were edited for clarity, tone, and accuracy.
Sources and attributions follow AeroXplorer's editorial standards."
KicksOnRouteA66
Roger Anderson 6
A.k.a the whole thing was written in AI and the editor just blindly pressed approved.
scubaboy3c
Steven Williamson 3
Exactly. And since our current "AI" contains no actual intelligence, it's output requires human review. Generated by large language models, the "AI" simply predicts what word should come after previous words, it does not actually know what the words mean.
Bandrunner
Bandrunner 2
Acquired Imbecility.
RidgewoodNJ
Barry Morse 0
I'm confused. What do you mean by "point?"
volvodadfast
volvodadfast 5
The article fails to identify the specific event that was investigated that led to the Airbus directive.
zbeeblebrox
Douglas Friday 5
refer to https://ticotimes.net/2025/11/28/avianca-flight-disruptions-hit-costa-rica-and-all-central-america for details on that. That article says that it appears to have been a JetBlue flight in the US.

"The recall covers about 6,000 of the 11,300 A320-family jets in service globally, marking one of the largest such actions in the manufacturer’s history."
volvodadfast
volvodadfast 1
Thank you!
TommyTwoGloves
Tom Spanne 2
Perhaps the Airbus should be outfitted with radiation sensors to confirm the theory? Proof positive is all I ask for. The ELAC glich is alarming but the autopilot was able to override the computer command. Whatever the cause, we don’t need Carl Sagan to instruct us about the total reliance on computers to aviate, navigate and communicate. The human brain was designed to undertake these tasks. Thanks for your comment.
frankvdh
Frank van der Hulst 1
I think cosmic rays have probabilistic rather than deterministic effects. A circuit could be hit by one hign energy photon and do something unwanted, but it could also be hit by 1,000 of them and do nothing. So if you have a sensor, all it will tell you that it probably has been affected or probably hasn't, so no proof positive, sorry. I'll also gratuitously disagree that the human was designed to fly. Whilst flying has been designed for humans, there are lots of aspects that people generally aren't good at.
MikeInPA
Mike InPA 2
The JetBlue Airbus A320 flight was hit by a stream of high-energy particles from a distant supernova blast that traveled millions of years, according to Clive Dyer, a space and radiation expert from the University of Surrey who spoke to space.com.

Dyer, who has studied effects of solar radiation on aircraft electronics for decades, said the radiation levels were not strong enough to impact the flight — and noted it was likely due to a supernova.

Cosmic rays are created when massive stars explode in supernovas at the end of their lives, hurling protons across the universe at the speed of light.

As the particles fly towards Earth, they may hit an electronic circuit inside an aircraft sensor or onboard computer, disrupting the plane’s flight
FlyingSeagull
Chris Browne 3
The lack of political intervention in aircraft safety actions is refreshing. Lord knows we seen enough of that in recent years.
segulin
Tim Segulin 3
Compare the rapid Airbus handling of this event before something really bad happened with the 737 MAX 8 disaster. They may have been embarrassed by it but nobody died.
lordfarringdon
lordfarringdon 1
Something fishy about this:

Without a formal investigation, what evidence was there to establish so quickly that the causes of the Jet Blue instability and uncommanded decent was solar radiation?

Why did only one A320 Airbus aircraft get 'impacted' by this intense radiation which required all A320's to undergo a flight critical software update?

How does a software update prevent data corruption from solar radiation?


Why were no other aircraft in the world, Airbus, Boeing or anything else including other aircraft in the vicinity of the incident aircraft, affected by this solar radiation?


Why are not all operators of all types required to update their software and/or undergo physical shielding to prevent a reoccurrences since surely this is not a specific threat to A320's alone and we are just waiting for the same thing to happen to another type of Airbus or some other manufacturers type?

As I said, it all seems a bit too convenient to quickly blame it on an 'astronomical event. As some have suggested below, a likely reason for this is a software update that caused the JetBlue issue and needed an urgent patch on all A320's to fix.

If that is true, ie a software error caused in flight instability and an uncommanded decent resulting in passenger injuries, then why is this not being investigated much more thoroughly as would rightly be demanded if it was a Boeing aircraft?

Too many questions. I bet Airbus just hopes this quietly slides off the media focus.
pheliks
John Graham 1
Just another daily cover up with the gods of money believing we're stupid enough to accept this nonsense.
pheliks
John Graham 1
Maybe they should make a tin foil hat for the airplane
mikabjork
Mika Bjork 1
If it works, fix it until it doesn’t.
TommyTwoGloves
Tom Spanne 1
These errors can usually be attributed to human falability, not to the activity of our solar protector.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!