Airbus Issues Major A320 Recall, Threatening Global Flight Disruption (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0180236657
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/11/29/0515215/airbus-issues-major-a320-recall-threatening-global-flight-disruption
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-issues-major-a320-recall-after-flight-control-incident-2025-11-28/
> The setback appears to be among the largest recalls affecting Airbus in its 55-year history and comes weeks after the A320 overtook the Boeing 737 as the most-delivered model. At the time Airbus issued its bulletin to the plane's more than 350 operators, some 3,000 A320-family jets were in the air.
>
> The fix mainly involves reverting to earlier software and is relatively simple, but must be carried out before the planes can fly again, other than repositioning to repair centres, according to the bulletin to airlines seen by Reuters. Airlines from the United States to South America, Europe, India and New Zealand warned the repairs could potentially cause flight delays or cancellations.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-issues-major-a320-recall-after-flight-control-incident-2025-11-28/
Brooo (Score:3, Insightful)
Just do the Boeing thing and let the planes crash brooooo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have to [1]wine and dine a few gov't officials before that step. [leehamnews.com]
[1] https://leehamnews.com/2024/02/26/ultimately-congress-is-responsible-for-mess-at-faa-boeing-spirit-et-al/
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of interest, did DOGE go after the FAA at any time?
We had a Slashdot poster (posting as a/c of course) blaming DEI whenever anything went wrong at Boeing, as you can imagine that was a lot of posts.
That's concerning (Score:1)
They found out somebody accidentally installed Boeing bolts.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the Boeing issue was because no one had installed those "Boeing bolts".
This is apparently the problem being fixed (Score:1)
“Intense solar radiation may corrupt data critical to the functioning of flight controls,” Airbus stated, adding that “a significant number of A320 Family aircraft currently in-service” may be affected.
Replacing the software will take “a few hours” on most planes but for some 1000 aircraft, the process “will take weeks”, a source close to the issue told AFP."
Re: (Score:2)
They're not using ECC components on aircraft?
Perhaps they ought to invest in OTA updates? (Score:2)
Not saying it is easy, because it really is not (despite how easy it looks when your PC, or your phone, or you Tesla performs an over-the-air update), but it might become a real selling point to allow a remote technician to over-the-air update (or downgrade) planes firmware. Sure, there will be exceptions where this will not apply, but it would save their customers money (or does Airbus pay for all those repositioning flight and lost revenue?). There ought be a way to design a process to do this safely with
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, great idea. Do a remote OTA update on a plane about to carry 200 passengers to 40K feet without bothering to test it first. What could possibly go wrong.
Do you understand the difference in safety requirements between a car and an airliner?
I don't understand the outdated thinking. (Score:3)
The issue is a software thing, that is the easiest thing to conceal and misdirect.
Why can't they just falsify the update record, then if planes crash and people die simply shift the blame to the pilots? I thought Airbus were trying to be a major player in modern aerospace? So unprofessional. Sad.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that this defect managed to proliferate through their entire fleet of 6000+ aircraft sold to major carriers ought to show you that they're well on their way!
I commend their bravery (Score:5, Insightful)
... for calling themselves out when they think there may be a major issue with their airplanes.
Unlike another major manufacturer that hides, dithers, and delays.
Re:Wait, AI missing from this news (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it's quite surprising. What we know from the [1]EAD [usersmatth...0268-e1pdf] :
- The risk is related to solar storms (so more accurately atmospheric neutrons).
- Most of the airplanes will undergo a software rollback to a previous version.
- Some of the airplanes will need a hardware retrofit... but this is just because the software upload cannot be performed as easily on the affected equipment.
So where does this lead us to ? An error in the EDAC/ECC code protecting the memory from neutrons-induced bit flips ? From a hardware perspective it is the most likely explanation, but it would be suprising to have such a bug introduced in a software update since this would be quite a low-level function which would be unlikely to be updated. A bug in the error handling code when such an error happens ? This could be more likely, since error handling structures can be shared between several components. Especially if the error in question is very rare (e.g. double error in the same word) and is not correctly tested during regression testing.
[1] file:UsersmatthieuDownloadsEASAEAD2025-0268-E1pdf
Re:Wait, AI missing from this news (Score:4, Informative)
I botched up the link, here is the correct one: [1]EAD [europa.eu]
[1] https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2025_0268_E.pdf/EAD_2025-0268-E_1
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Airplanes are connected to the internet and private networks for their airlines This is how they get diagnostics data on the ground. There should be an automatic update feature, so I imagine all they have to do is increment the version number of the old code to more advance of the new code, and presto, fixed planes. I wonder if their software releases are staggered to prevent faulty updates from causing huge issues, and do a 10% new, 90% last version for testing and validation.
Re: (Score:3)
I would be surprised if software updating an aircraft is that simple. It probably needs to be controlled and tested after the update, with records kept by maintenance staff, and notifications sent to pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't complete idiots, if the solution was that simple they would do it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
From the directive:
"This condition, if not corrected, could lead in the worst-case scenario to an uncommanded elevator
movement that may result in exceeding the aircraftâ(TM)s structural capability."
Thats a bit worrying. Surely the fuselage should be able to cope with any possible elevator input or am I being naive?
Re: (Score:1)
This was after [1]15 were already injured due to this issue [cbsnews.com].
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/jetblue-mexico-flight-emergency-landing-florida-tampa/
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they got lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the incident that triggered it apparently. Tbh a 100 foot drop in altitude in 7 seconds is hardly divebombing territory.