FAA Pushes Air Traffic Control Systems Into Service

An anonymous reader points us to this AP story about the FAA forcing new air traffic control systems into service, over the objections of technicians and air traffic controllers. The Transportation Department's Inspector General notes that many critical bugs remain unfixed. We reviewed a book that discussed the lessons to be learned from software engineering projects; and we had a recent story about Great Britain having all sorts of problems with their new air traffic control software.

Comments

Do what Microsoft does

[alen]

Roll it out into production and patch it later. Only full production testing will find all the bugs.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[PolyDwarf]

I thought Microsoft rolled it out into production, and then charged for the patches later?

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[medcalf]

Boy, do I not want to be the pilot finding the bugs! That said, there's been a lot of discussion of this system over the past couple of years within the aviation community, and it appears that once the system is ready, it will be a great productivity boost to the controllers, while reducing their stress and strain in trying to track high-density, high-speed traffic.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[morgajel]

problem is people WILL die first time this fucks up. remeber the panic from the 90's when the phonesystem blacked out.
this has the potential to be _MUCH_ worse.

bad FAA, no cookie!

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[atrowe]

"DVD burner Windows XP compatibility."

Have you been reading his sex tips for geeks again?

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[whovian]

WFM, STARS-1.0-rc1, build 2002060119

--Pilot, SWA flt 1499, dep MDW 11:25, arr 4:10 ELP

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[phliar]

problem is people WILL die first time this fucks up.

Unlikely. Remember, airplanes have been flying since before computers and radar.

If the system goes down, the controllers will revert to manual. Of course the capacity of the system is greatly reduced, and there will be delays. Lots of pissed of passengers, but no dead ones.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[phliar]

I am predicting a divide by zero error the first time one of these systems tracks a plane landing in a below-sea-level area.

Why and when would anyone ever want to divide something by an altitude?

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[fishbowl]

before computers and radar, landings weren't 2 minutes apart.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[Jucius Maximus]

"Why and when would anyone ever want to divide something by an altitude?"

Maybe there is an emergency situation and they need to do some aerodynamic calculations. For that they will need the density of the air.

density = pressure / (accel due to gravity * height)

Where height is derived the altitute (it's not the distance between the plane and the ground.) Also, there are probably a bunch of other relevant calculations where you multiply or divide by altitute and this there would be a zero floating around in your calculations.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[phliar]

"Why and when would anyone ever want to divide something by an altitude?"

Maybe there is an emergency situation and they need to do some aerodynamic calculations. For that they will need the density of the air.

density = pressure / (accel due to gravity * height)

You're not suggesting that the ATC computer needs to do this, I hope.

The only person that might ever need to worry about aerodynamics of this sort is the pilot. Or rather, something like an air-data computer in the airplane. Not ATC.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[jeremyp]

There must be something seriously wrong with that formula. It states that for small values of height the density is extremely large. At zero altitude, there is a sigularity. Having been at sea level several times, I can safely say that density is not infinite there.

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[Abreu]

No way!

I work for one of the major US airlines (not in the US, though), and I can safely assure you that thre are more redundant backup systems in your average airport's ATC than in the web server room at a large site like Mozilla.org (havent been able to download the darned thing since yesterday's morning)

Yes, the last resort backup systems includes de Controllers taking binoculars and landing the planes by sight, but that has happened very rarely (and to my knowledge, nobody found out)

Re:Do what Microsoft does

[Abreu]

Also, lets remember that most pilots who fly big planes in the major US airlines can remember that time, and some even were there

Most 747 pilots for the US airlines are more than 50 years old and almost all were originally trained at the US Air Force.

And the situation is similar in other international airlines... Thats what you get in an industry where company seniority is everything.

uhh...

[MaxVlast]

Don't they remember the disaster when the ATC shut down a few years back? It's not like this thing is a web browser.

New traffic control system

[t_allardyce]

Yeah, the controllers are pissed off because they based the new system on one of those bad ATC games with flashy graphics. It now runs on a Windows 98 machine and crashes every 1024 planes

Bugs and air-traffic control..

[ldopa1]

Even a buggy air-traffic control system is better than the one they have now. Every 3 days or so, the radar screens drop horizontal so that air traffic controllers can keep track of their dots while the computer goes down and then comes back up.

This is not a pretty sight. Each ATC can have 30+ planes on their screen, and when the computer goes down, they screen drops horizontal, the ATC whips out little flags with numbers on them and keeps them on top of the now anonymous dots.

So I think ANY improvement is a good thing.

On the blacker side: The bugs themselves could be a good thing. Maybe one of these "bugs" will misreport the location of things like the Sears Tower, or the Capitol Building and a hijacked plane will slam into "Al's Meats and More" instead of the intended target.... (yes, I'm still REALLY angry about the Pentagon/WTC/Penn. terrorist attacks)

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[soulcuttr]

I don't know a whole lot about the way that this system interacts with navigation in planes themselves, but I don't believe air traffic controllers guided those terrorist airplanes into the towers. So I don't see that your "blacker side" has any reasonable chance of occurring.

-Sou|cuttr

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[rhost89]

Sounds like your more mad at Al's Meat Market :)

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[geekoid]

yeah, but why are you mad at Al? he's just a humble butcher who offers more then just meat.

Seriously though, known bugs can be better to deal with then a whole set of new bugs. Espcially if the new bugs miss-report altitudes.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[GreyPoopon]

Even a buggy air-traffic control system is better than the one they have now.

I'm not sure I agree with you. From your description, it sounds like they have it pretty bad, but after reading the letter that was linked to by the original post, I think what they're getting may be even worse. Recovery times when the computer goes down are between 90 minutes and 3 hours! They're not supposed to use their existing system as an emergency backup. The FAA technicians were FORCED (by a clause in their contract) to give the system (in Syracuse) their stamp of approval, even though they don't feel it's safe for real world use. And the folks on the project can't even get close to agreeing on the number of CRITICAL trouble reports that are still outstanding. In my mind, anything marked as CRITICAL is a safety hazard.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[oni]

The planes have independant navigational systems.

yeah, I was just gonna say I'm pretty sure terrorists are cleared for VFR.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[monkeydo]

Could you please cite a refrence for your fanciful story of controllers with flipping screens and numbered flags? Or did you hear that "from a friend who knows a guy who works in a tower somewhere?"

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[delcielo]

My understanding is that they've decided that Mohammed Atta actually went to the WTC ahead of time with a hand-held GPS. Once there he just captured his location as a user-defined waypoint, then passed on the coordinates to the terrorists assigned to the second plane.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[phliar]

Maybe one of these "bugs" will misreport the location of things like the Sears Tower, or the Capitol Building....

No sane pilot relies on ATC to keep herself from flying into a building or a mountain.

Even while on "radar vectors" (means the controller has identified your blip on the scope and gives you headings to fly) a pilot will always know where he is at all times. (The pilots who don't might not see old age.)

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[thogard]

Maybe its because 99.9999% of corse deviations aren't a problem. There is this stuff called weather and airplanes fly in it. It has quite an effect on aircraft and has been know to do things like drop aiplanes 5000 feet in a few seconds.

ATC only gives hints at where the planes are supposed to be going except in the landing enviroment.

The way the old system works is simple, you say I want to fly from point A to point B and if I can't land at point B, I'll go to point C. My plane goes this fast and I would like to go at an altitude of about somany feet. ATC then says you can take off from point A (within 30 min or so) and fly on airway V-whatever to some vor at a specifc altitude. You get assinged chuncks of airspace and you get exclusive use of that. The assumption of the old system is that the radio is going to break and since the pilot has all the details before they leave the ground, its all safe.

This works nothing like what you read in your OOD programming book.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[slickwillie]

Maybe that's one of the bugs in the old system. Causes planes to disable their transponders, fly into tall or unusually shaped buildings (and miss the White House), and delete Arab-sounding names from the passenger list.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[phliar]

There's so many powerful things that could be done; the least of which, of course, is detecting deviations from course within seconds and relaying that information simultaneously to ATC as well as to NORAD so that F16s can be scrambled

Hey! Let's maintain some perspective here! First: most VFR traffic may not even be visible to ATC (sectors can turn off 1200 replies); and IFR traffic, how many times have you heard on frequency: "Cessna 1234, verify RIGHT turn heading 310" or "say altitude" -- that usually means the pilot turned the wrong way or went past the assigned altitude. Scrambling F-16s is expensive!

I wish the FAA would spend a little brainpower on things like making equipment certification (e.g. IFR GPS installations) for Part 91 ops easier instead of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. It always amuses me that I'm legal shooting an NDB approach with a 50 year old Narco receiver, but illegal with a "VFR only" panel-mount moving-map GPS. I also wish they'd pay controllers real money and upgrade ATC radar instead of crap like more "security" at tiny airports. And some real weather reporting and briefing instead of closing every FSS in sight.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[monkeydo]

You're citing something you saw over a decade ago as current events? I have been in several towers and TRACON facilities since then, and I have never heard of such a thing.

What type of facility does the FAA operate in Jefferson City, MO? It must have been TRACON or ARTCC since tower controllers are usually just looking out the window anyway. Maybe someone was pulling you leg.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[Abreu]

Hear, Hear!

I am actually sick of people blaming the airlines and the airport ATC/security/insert-division-here for the 9-11 attacks.

The US goverment (and only the US goverment) is to blame

You simply can't have international policy the way the US has without pissing off many people, including people who are so fanatic that their lives mean little compared to their hate.

So if you know that you are going to piss off people, then for chrissakes, dont be so naive to think that this couldnt have happened.

Lets hope and pray that next time theres a very rich guy with a serious grudge with the US, he doesnt get some plutonium from cash-strapped nuclear physicists in the former USSR.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[monkeydo]

Planes deviate ALL THE TIME, even in the Class A. Airplanes have radio failures, even in the Class A. Pilots get busy and don't respond to ATC. They might even have an emergency that causes tehm to lose contact and deviate from their assigned course. This actually happens quite frequently, even in the Class A. I don't know where you got this image you have that above FL180 everyone is just trotting along within feet of their assigned path talking to ATC every 30-45 seconds.

If you don't have radio comm with ATC or if you ignore ATC instructions for any significant period of time, you WILL get an F16 escort. That's why that golfer that bought the farm in SD after flying without comm from FL had an F16 escort long before the plane went down.

You might today, but most likely not. A year ago your certainly wouldn't have. The first thing a controller will do if you are NORDO is communicate with other aircraft in the vicinty to keep them out of your way and try to establish visual contact. The only place you would likely see jets scrambled prior to 9/11 would be in the defense zones.
Payne Stewart's plane had an escort, because it was clear that it was on autopilot, and no one on board was in control. However, F16's were not scrambled to intercept, controllers requested assistance from several F15 fighters on training maneuvers in the area. The plane was also not deviating from it's course, it just never stopped climbing after departure.

It's also why it's kind of weird we couldn't scramble any planes to help out on 9/11. Not suggesting any conspiracies, but one has to admit we responded faster to the lone golfer flying over the country off flight plan than we did to 4 commercial jets doing so.

Pure FUD. It isn't weird at all. NO PLANES WERE SCRAMBLED IN THE PAYNE STEWART CASE! Once it was clear that the plane was going to just keep on flying it was escorted by fighters to make sure airspace was clear and track it's progress. Prior to 9/11 there was no protocol in place to scramble fighters for anything. This would require alert fighters on the runways at bases all across the country and CAP 24 hours a day. We had that for a couple of weeks after 9/11, but it stopped some time ago.

There was no indication of hijacking on any of the planes on 9/11. None of the controllers talking to either of the planes had any idea about the others, or what was really going on. When the first plane crashed into the WTC, almost everybody thought it was an accident. Even in DC where there has been restricted airspace over the White House for years, there are hundreds of incursions every year. Prior to 9/11 most of these simply resulted in stern warnings. Even post 9/11 jets aren't scrambled everytime some pilot forgets his "immediate turn" when departing National.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[monkeydo]

If you try to fly from Mexico into the U.S. without talking to ATC, you'll get an escort.

Prior to 9/11 you wouldn't get a fighter escort. Most likely you'll just be shadowed by Customs or the Coast Guard to your point of landing. But this has nothing to do with obeying ATC or fear of terrorists. It has everything to do with unlawfully entering US airspace. Of course this is a completely different problem than US planes diverting from their filght plans.

If you violate restricted airspace, you'll get an escort.

Depending on the reason for the restricted airspace, this might happen today, but not a year ago. There is restricted airspace everywhere, and it is violated all the time. Usually you'll just get a stern warning from controllers, sometimes nothing. If it's a big deal the FAA may be waiting for you when you land.

We don't need fighters in the air 24/7, but we should have fighters on strip alert around the country. Always.

Aside from the great expense this would generate for very little benefit (what would the fighters do exactly) there are legal issues as well. Federal law prohibts the use of the military to enforce the law against US citizens, this is why the Coast Guard and ot the Navy conducts interdiction against suspected smugglers. If the planes aren't aready in the air they'll never do any good anyway. The controllers at Dulles recognized the threat and notified the White House when the plane that hit the Pentagon was 14 miles away, this was after both Trade Towers were hit, and most everyone had an idea of what was going on. That would give fighters less than a minute and a half just to be there and watch the plane crash into it's intended target.

Re:Bugs and air-traffic control..

[monkeydo]

Agreed. But my point is that there WERE procedures in place before 9/11 that called for intercepts, the situations in which they were called for were just apparently lacking.

The ADIZ (and DEWIZ in Alsaka) is simply a buffer zone to allow NORAD to identify all tracks entering US airspace. In the link you copied, you'll notice that identification of unknown tracks is initiated by NORAD, not ATC, but idntification is performed by ATC not fighter jets. NORAD is not Customs or Boarder Patrol. Once they establish that you aren't a cruise missle they aren't going to care what you are. It will be up to the FAA/Customs/Boarder Patrol if you get busted or not.

This is what the FAA has to say about ADIZ intercepts:

"Identification intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted under increased states of readiness. Unless otherwise directed by the control agency, intercepted aircraft will be identified by type only. When specific information is required (i.e. markings, serial numbers, etc.) the interceptor aircrew will respond only if the request can be conducted in a safe manner. During hours of darkness or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), identification of unknown aircraft will be by type only. The interception pattern described below is the typical peacetime method used by air interceptor aircrews. In all situations, the interceptor aircrew will use caution to avoid startling the intercepted aircrew and/or passengers."

In other words, they don't care who you are and what you are doing. They just want to know what TYPE of aircraft you are flying. You could be "intercepted" in your Cessna flying across the boarder and you wouldn't even know it.

This isn't using the military to enforce the law against U.S. citizens. It is using the military to protect U.S. airspace, something I consider much more important than protecting some of the countries we choose to protect.

The terrorists on 9/11 would not have responded to an intercept. Besides, that requires time and distance, a luxury that you don't have over that part of the US. The only option would be a shoot down, but when do you make that dicision? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot fleeing suspects in the back (something about due process) but you would advocate shooting down US commercial aircraft without time to make an informed dicision? That's assinine.

It doesn't cost any more to pay a fighter pilot (already employed by the military) to be ready to fly in 5 minutes, and it doesn't cost significantly more to park a pair of interceptors near the end of the runway rather than in the hanger with no weapons on board.

If you can have fighters in the air in 5 minutes, within 5 minutes of any airspace in the US, you must keep all civil aircraft at least 15 minutes from any major population areas. How do propose to do this? Most major airports are IN cities. Once a plane is 10 minutes off it's ground track it could be in the White House, the Pentagon, Sear's tower, Downtown LA, the Statue of Liberty, etc. F16's wouldn't have done any good on 9/11.

I agree, I don't want MPs on every street corner like in Israel.

They aren't MP's they are soldiers, and unlike most of the NG at airports in this country they have real bullets, and they are quite well trained. They still can't prevent suicide bombers. What makes you think we can with less invasive steps?

I agree that the diversion of domestic planes was unexpected (notwithstanding recent news regarding the info the FBI had), but what if (hypothetical) Cuba decided to send a few "commercial jets" our way?

If they were tracked from Cuba they would probably be forced down at a field in Florida and met by Border Patrol/Customs/USCG most likely NOT military.

What if a foreign air force "came in low" over the Atlantic?

I know of no foreign airforce that could accompish this, but if they did quite simply we would be screwed, yesterday today and tommorow. If a foreign airforce can fly across the Atlantic with enough force to do damage and get here undetected, does it matter what we do when they get here? Should we set up SAM sites on the Eastern Seaboard?

Not a very good article

[alen]

Not much specifics. Basically says the union hates it and the FAA and Raytheon say it's OK. It lists a few problems, but doesn't say if it could be the result of user error. We all know how users always say the system crashed when it's really their mistake. I'm not saying it's good to go for production, but it could be another time when the union is afraid that it will automate too well and result in people's jobs being lost.

Re:Not a very good article

[nullard]

It lists a few problems, but doesn't say if it could be the result of user error. We all know how users always say the system crashed when it's really their mistake

Does it matter? I know I wouldn't care why the system crashed if I was in the plane. I'd just want to get home alive. If the system crashes because of user error, then that is a serious flaw.

Re:Not a very good article

[elmegil]

I'd say this sounds kinda of like how NASA and Morton Thiokol management said it was ok to set the Challenger off that morning. Unions can be many bad things, but when it comes to people's safety I'm thinking we want to go with the most conservative view on the subject.

Re:Not a very good article

[ceswiedler]

Do you know how many times the conservative estimate is wrong? There was probably a conservative report of a potential terrorist attack each of the 365 days last year. Would you like the FAA to ground all airplanes every single day?

Clearly, conservative is good when you're talking about people's lives. Also clearly, it is possible to be too conservative.

Re:Not a very good article

[gwernol]

Does it matter? I know I wouldn't care why the system crashed if I was in the plane. I'd just want to get home alive. If the system crashes because of user error, then that is a serious flaw.

I'd say it matters a great deal. If the problems are user errors then the solution is training, not software fixes - or at least UI programming changes, not changes to the core software. My point is that the nature of the problems tells us what to fix.

More to the point, because the original article doesn't give a single example of the sort of problems being reported it is very hard to evaluate the competing claims that the system is "seriously flawed" or "okay". Is this a union worried for its members' jobs crying wolf? Or is this a management team riding roughshod over the legitimate safety concerns of the people who know?

We can't tell from an article that merely rehashes the claims of both sides without presenting any supporting evidence.

Re:Not a very good article

[sphealey]

Basically says the union hates it and the FAA and Raytheon say it's OK. It lists a few problems, but doesn't say if it could be the result of user error.

Here's an article that discusses these issues from the controller's perspective..

I am aware of the high-tech world's hated for anything that smacks of unionization. However, everything I have heard from the pilot's side (particularly GA pilots) is that the FAA is, well, not doing too well these days. And that the front-line controllers are probably more right on these issues than their bosses.

sPh

Re:Not a very good article

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The Yorktown incident comes to mind (and yes, I know that some claim it's not NT's fault -- but it's not relevant here).

Someone was able to bring the ship to a complete halt because of user error. Do we really want the same sort of thing to happen in ATC?

Re:Not a very good article

[nullard]

Someone was able to bring the ship to a complete halt because of user error. Do we really want the same sort of thing to happen in ATC?

That was exactly my point. The system should not crash - ever. I don't care why it crashed. If it's user error then the system needs to be designed so that user error cannot bring it down.

Management can blame the ATC workers all they want if the system crashes, but the fact is that the system is down and the planes are still in the air and need ATC.

Hummm ... on that note ..

[TheViffer]

some useful web sites to think about for the next couple of months.

Amtrak
Greyhound
Hertz

Wonderful

[cnkeller]

FAA spokesman Scott Brenner said the only problems are the normal bugs that accompany any new technology.

Except when by web browser crashes, it doesn't slam me into the ground in a firey mass of twisted, molten metal.

Seriously, I thought design philosophies such as the CMM level 5 (used on the space shuttle design), should prevent things like this from happening. I'm sure it's safe to fly, but stories like this don't inspire me to full confidence.

Re:Wonderful

[Leven Valera]

CMM Level 5 is a fantastic set of coding standards. So much time is spent on each line that it's absolutely perfect by the time it leaves the building.

The problem with Level 5 is the same as the benefit. So much time is spent on QC that govt. contractors, working for the lowest bidder, and Fed programmers, can't afford to work to that level of quality.

C'est la vie.

LV

Re:Wonderful

[JordanH]

• I thought design philosophies such as the CMM [cmu.edu] level 5 (used on the space shuttle design)

CMM does not eliminate bugs, but it does aim to improve processes such that bugs could be far lessened.

In any case, CMM (at any level) did not exist when the Space Shuttle software was implemented. As far as I can tell, the CMM first came into being around 1987. There were no CMM level 5 shops existing for years after that. Note also from this link that the study referenced on page 11 does show that defects (aka bugs) do get shipped on software system developed with CMM level 5, although they are much decreased.

I believe the basic Space Shuttle software was implemented in the late 70s, independently, by groups at IBM and Rockwell. You might be referring to new software they now field for use with the Space Shuttle. I don't know.

Re:Wonderful

[jdavidb]

The official print copy of the CMM includes a case study about the space shuttle. It's a coworkers book and I haven't read it, so I'm not sure what the case study is really about. (I stick to the online PDF's, which don't include the case study.)

The new system rocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

My internship with Raytheon was actually doing development work for this project. Although they were still behind schedule then, what they did have up and running at the time sure looked a hell of a lot better than the old system.

On a side note, I talked with someone from the FAA about the old system and the hackability of it. I was told that they deemed the US ATC system virtually hack-proof for the simple fact that the hardware was so antiquated that anyone wanting to do malicious damage either wouldn't know how, or it would be such an arduous and tedious task that they'd eventually give up!

Re:The new system rocks!

[binaryDigit]

I was told that they deemed the US ATC system virtually hack-proof for the simple fact that the hardware was so antiquated that anyone wanting to do malicious damage either wouldn't know how, or it would be such an arduous and tedious task that they'd eventually give up!

Why would someone want to hack into it, it does such a good job of going down all by itself.

Actually, this is kinda sad + interesting. If someone did hack the old system and brought it down, the atc'ers wouldn't be phased a bit, to them, just another atc system glitch.

Unfortunately, it looks like the new system will follow in the old systems footsteps.

Re:The new system rocks!

[geekoid]

they can deal with it going down, there are procedure in place. The problem is with false data.

Re:The new system rocks!

[isaac]

My internship with Raytheon was actually doing development work for this project. Although they were still behind schedule then, what they did have up and running at the time sure looked a hell of a lot better than the old system.

Are you an air traffic controller? The salient question is not whether the Raytheon system looks better, but whether it works better. According to some of the people who actually have to work with the system in the real world on a daily basis, it doesn't work better.

The old system wasn't pretty, or even the most reliable, but at least its most common failure mode leaves radar data on the screen, albeit without flight or transponder information. The STARS system, according to the DOT memo linked at the top, sometimes fails to display some planes AT ALL which seems a much, much more serious failure mode. I also wonder if STARS can suffer a computer outage and still display unadorned radar data (as the existing system typically can), or if it's entirely and totally computer dependent.

-Isaac

Re:The new system rocks!

[binaryDigit]

The problem is with false data.

Yes, I was aware of that, just being a smart *ss. Plus, what are the odds of the system staying up long enough for anyone to do any type of decent hack anyway?

Re:The new system rocks!

[mickwd]

Maybe it's hack-proof the same way my old K6-233 machine is hack-proof?

It isn't connected to the internet.

Re:The new system rocks!

[thogard]

The new system is based on the concept that the computer is doing the controlling and the people are doing the communinicating. The old system was based on the people doing the controllig and the computer helping them with a manual task. One of these situations is workable when the computer crashes and one isn't.

So far Australia, UK and Tahiti all have had new systems that have crashed in the last year. It takes days to reroute and fix up the messes when London goes down. Australia has about as many planes in the air as the state of Missouri so they don't count as a busy airspace (but their rules and airspace plans make it look that way). Tahiti has some good controllers that can work around issues but because the new computer allows them to break the old rules (east is odd, west is even altitudes), there were two 747's flying at the same altittude and using GPS linked autopilots. In still air (like a calm night in the tropics), the GPS autopilot can get a 747 with in about 100 meters of the centerline between LAX and PPT VORs and the air pressure altimeter will keep the planes within 20 ft of their assigned altitudes. The new rules (only allowed by the new computer system) two planes were assigned to a collision course. Fortunately both planes had radar and they had options that didn't mess with other trafic but what happens when this same situation happens between Dulles and LaGuardia or between London and Hannover? In thouse cases if you change your course, you will go into areas that have been assigned to parallel flights.

I've been making money coding for over 20 years and I can say that in some applications computers are evil. I think this is one of them.

Re:The new system rocks!

[c_g12]

I interned at Raytheon in Canada, working on their Canadian version CAATS. One thing I was impressed about was that the software was prepared for system failure by having redundant servers, independently running processes, and Emergency Modes. At least NAV Canada isn't making the mistake of shoehorning in CAATS; they're progressively phasing it in and will run it in parallel with the old system for a while.

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[SirSlud]

Even Open Source will suck hard if you deploy immature software. This sounds more like a case of bad management and premature deployment than any fault of their platform.

Sorry, I'm not sure this can be turned into a pro-Linux thing. Of course, with my luck, you might just be trolling playfully.

Hrm.... subscription to Risks Digest required?

[vkg]

It's the classic disaster scenario: the designers/programmers know it's hosed, the management forces them to ship anyway.

You Have Been Warned.

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[alen]

Only problem is that the problems aren't OS related, but application related. And the article doesn't say what system they run it on. Could already be Linux. Or it could be another UNIX, or NT/2000 or a mainframe on the backend.

Can the courts get involved?

[ViceClown]

I hate to suggest getting the courts involved because things seem to get bogged down there. Can the technicians - or better yet the public sue to block the FAA from using the new system? According to the article the FAA invoked their "emergency powers" to force the new system in place in Syracuse against the inspectors and certifiers' recomendations. This sounds like a horrible mess waiting to happen. Besides, if we grant the FAA emergency power - they might get crazy and build a death star! Ok, all kidding aside - I wonder if the public can sue to block the use of the new system until it actually passes tests and inspections. Anyone? Is this possible?????

Re:Can the courts get involved?

[fishbowl]

>Can the technicians - or better yet the public >sue to block the FAA from using the new system?

Why sue? The technicians themselves could have shown some backbone and refused to install the buggy system. (Ensuring that scabs don't install
it anyway is a bit problematic, but it would instantly be bigger news).

The public has all the power in the world, but absolutely NO consciousness of this. They could refuse to travel. One day would probably end the industry...

It's not buggy enough to get the pilots' attention. If it was, not one single plane would take off. Scab pilot or no scab pilot.
Well, the pilots with a deathwish would fly, but that's about it.

Unfortunately, we as a society tend not to really want to change things or reduce the authority of bureaucracies, do we?

Re:Can the courts get involved?

[ViceClown]

I would guess that having the techs get in the way would be a federal time to which real prison time, if not certainly a pain in the ass would be attached. I think it's time to write the congress persons in your areas.

Re:Can the courts get involved?

[ViceClown]

Good idea. I think Im going to forward this stuff on to our local news outlets in and around Philadelphia. I fly out of Phillly International on business occasionally. The way things run it's bad enough.. this could be a disaster :-(

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[Steve Cowan]

That's ridiculous. Open Source software, as good as it may be, will not be used for mission-critical applications such as air traffic control in the foreseeable future, because there is little or no accountability.

Think about it: the software fails, two planes crash into each other. Who's respsonsible? There is no direct line of accountability.

Tragedy waiting to happen?

[fishbowl]

People who are versed in such matters, including FAA technicians and ATC's, have expressed strong concerns that this system is ready.

They aren't serious enough to (a.) refuse to follow the order to install it, or (b.) refuse to report to work if it is installed. So, if there's ever a disaster directly caused by the known flaws in this system, they're part of the same conspiracy. Whoever made this decision should have done so with the understanding that if they're wrong, they might be held accountable for more than just negligence.

But, people want that paycheck more than they want to protect human lives. So pilots won't be refusing to fly, ATC's won't be halting takeoffs, and FAA managers won't be yelling fire.

If these people really cared, we'd be seeing empty skies like Sept 12th.

So either the systems aren't all that bad, or the people who have the power to stop the madness immediately are chickenshits.

Let's start in Syracuse. Why didn't these "FAA technicians" put their money where their mouth is, and throw their wooden shoes into the machinery? Because they didn't, they should be the first people to answer for any accident that comes from this flawed system. They capitualted, didn't they?

Re:Tragedy waiting to happen?

[ViceClown]

Obviously we don't know what exactly happend in Syracuse but Im sure pressure was brought to bear. If the FAA invoked it's emergency powers then Im sure the techs couldn't do anything about it. Throwing their wooden shoes into the machinery would probably constitute a federal crime, however, so Im sure the techs weren't too keen on going to jail. It's scary, however, that the FAA would invoked it's emergency powers during something other than an emergency just to force something out the door. This is horse shit. The techs have to certify systems for a reason. Over riding them defeats the purpose of having them there in the first place!

Re:Tragedy waiting to happen?

[fishbowl]

>Throwing their wooden shoes into the machinery
>would probably constitute a federal crime,
>however, so Im sure the techs weren't too keen
>on going to jail.

Then they didn't care enough... This is the essence of civil disobediance. Not defying authority in secret, hoping the status quo changes, but openly defying it, knowing that you do the noble thing by facing the consequences.

No I honestly don't expect the FAA techs to give up their jobs and get arrested for what they believe in, any more than I expect everyone who smokes pot to speak up (or even to vote).

But the bottom line is, they really don't think it's that dangerous, do they? If there was some *certainty* that the flaws in this system are dangerous enough to routinely cause air disasters,
I bet you'd be seeing clear skies. Federal crime or no federal crime.

Remember, you don't "just go to jail", you do get a hearing where you get to state your case. If *everyone* involved in this system had refused to take part in it, I think the FAA would be more interested in keeping the story OUT of the press and OUT of a courtroom.

As it happens, it's just a sidebar story in the travel section. The system may nor be ready for production, but it's not bad enough for the whole industry to walk off, ask for the head of the person responsible, and march on the capitol steps either, now is it?

Wake me up when it's front page news.

Re:Tragedy waiting to happen?

[ViceClown]

Ok, I just read the memo to the FAA administrator regarding the state of the situation. The next site to get the new system is Philadelphia which is where I live. This is now an escallated issue for me and local news outlets are going to hear about it. Oh boy, here we go... :-)

Cheerios, - JP

Re:Tragedy waiting to happen?

[rodgerd]

Perhaps you should ask people who lived through the Reagan era. It was pretty clear then that Republican governments will do anything, up to and including bringing the millitary in, to force policies down ATCs throats.

It's not a question if it has bugs...

[1984]

...or if it has more or less than existing systems (and workflows).

It's: "Is there a net decrease in aircraft safety during movements?"

If not, then it's not necessarily an issue.

Re:It's not a question if it has bugs...

[poot_rootbeer]

"Is there a net decrease in aircraft safety during movements?"

Sure, the likelihood of accident increases when the air traffic controller is sitting on the toilet instead of in front of the radar screens, but that's true of EVERY traffic control system.

Article I read a while ago...

[singularity]

I read an article about a year ago (I wish I could find it now) that talked about radar systems at smaller airports.

Two systems had been developed, one by some guy who worked at such a smaller airport, and one was developed by someone like Raytheon Co.

The system was basically this: The smaller airport would be fed the radar system from a nearby large airport. So if you were flying into Bowman Field, in Louisville, KY, they would be getting fed the signal from Louisville International Airport (SDF). It allowed smaller airports to have the technology of larger airports without having to expend as much money to get it.

The gentlemen who had developed his sytem basically used existing wiring coming from the larger airport and simply sent the signal across that. He hooked up a screen, and had a perfectly good signal. The FAA went on to ask him (he was an FAA employee already) to develop the technology for wide-spread deployment, which he did.

Along comes Raytheon Co. (or whomever the company was) and decides that is a lucritive contract to get. The company comes up with a system costing about ten times as much and about 80% as effective.

Who does the FAA end up going with? Let me answer the question this way: The FAA emplyee did not contribute to any campaigns.

Re:Article I read a while ago...

[ipjohnson]

dont' worry I've seen it before and laughed then as well. I'm sorry but they have a few tools to aid an ATC system not be an ATC system.

I've been doing ATC coding for a few years so I have a pretty good idea what goes into ATC systems of this size and I'm sorry but its hard enough to nail down requirements with 10 coders with excelent domain knowledge and 10 years experience. Its not something you can just throw your hat in the ring every great once in a while, its a job ... so yeah an open source indever is a joke.

Re:Article I read a while ago...

[sheckard]

What you're talking about is called a BRITE scope. Basically it's used for smaller airports in the vicinity of the radar from larger airports. It's basically a repeater of the radar display from the larger airport, just slid over and centered over the smaller airport.

This has some operational advantages (the biggest being that there's a radar display of local traffic, obviously), but has some glaring deficiencies. Basically it's used in areas where traffic loads don't justify the upkeep and maintenance of a radar installation. Contrary to popular belief, most smaller airports don't have any radar coverage. Airplanes can still operate safely in a non-radar environment, even while "in the clouds" (or IMC as it's called), there's just a different set of rules to follow.

Re:Article I read a while ago...

[WNight]

You may have been coding ATC systems for a while, but that doesn't give you a lot of credibility in the issue of building a strong crashproof system.

I come from an environment where if an embedded system crashes once in a year it's a failure. And this is only for telephony and other non-life critical applications.

It's hard to imagine how a system can be so badly screwed up that it dies for a few hours at a time every few months.

Even then, where's the backup system waiting to take over without any loss of functionality?

People who work in glass design teams shouldn't throw stones...

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[JordoCrouse]

Such a troll....

Imagine: the buggy (and needless to say proprietary) flight control software is installed. Two months later, plane crashes are at an all time high. The FAA is in an uproar, the media is clamoring for a solution, America is in turmoil.


I'm just not seeing this happen. First of all, the old systems sucked just as bad, and they're keeping them around for backups. Secondly, the biggest danger here is mid-air collisions, and modern aircraft have at least good enough proximity alarms to avoid a problem. I would be more worried about smaller private craft than commercial airliners.

What's that? It's the phone. Who is it? Someone named Linux Torvalds...says he has a solution to our problems.

Wrong. This is serious life or death stuff. Even with real time extensions and a VM that doesn't change every 30 days, Linux is neither designed nor intended to handle high load real time situations. Open source software just simply isn't hardened enough to do anything approaching the complexity of a major air traffic control system.

Don't get me wrong - Linux is a good operating system, and its fun as hell to use and hack on, but a good engineer knows that there is a right tool for every job, and Linux just isn't a legimate choice for a high priority real time system like the ATC.

High tech not necessarily the best solution...

[sphealey]

Here's an interesting article from the New Yorker discussing why high-tech screens may not be the best solution for problems like ATC.

Avweb has also had some interesting articles about England's experiement with new ATC systems.

sPh

Re:High tech not necessarily the best solution...

[Chris Johnson]

What I find really fascinating about that is, I use my computer desktop like it was a real one.

The orderly rows of icons are a Windows thing, and I use a Mac. The aspect of MacOS (8.6) that I use in this respect is 'clipping' files, and when I have bits of text that I need to remain aware of, I drag 'em to the desktop. I throw 'em away when they're no longer relevant. This is apparently just like normal desktops are used- in fact I've taken to keeping post-its and blank business cards around just to write tiny notes on- like the ATCs with their slips, I want a SMALL written note, not a manuscript.

I wonder if anyone's ever going to work out something even better for this than MacOS text clipping drag-and-drop. If Microsoft did it, you'd be able to embed movies into the clippings, and they'd be kept in a complicated filing system that you could view and search 27 different ways and people would spend all their time changing the fonts and layout of their clippings ;)

Gives a whole new meaning..

[RailGunner]

This gives a whole new meaning to Blue Screen of Death..

Re:Gives a whole new meaning..

[dieMSdie]

Blue Skies of Death, anyone?

Raytheon Canada

[asavage]

Raytheon Canada has developed Canadian Automated Air Traffic System (CAATS) and Military Automated Air Traffic System (MAATS) for a Nav canada contract and are currently selling it to other countries as well. The software works really well (I have seen it firsthand). It was developed in Richmond, BC.

Always having to reinvent the wheel

[Kagato]

The problem with STARS is they have to introduce a whole new way of doing everything. I saw a neat discovery channel thing on it and they showed the simulated testing. (It failed certain parts of the testing by the way.)

Here's my gripe. The air traffic control system has been sucking the big one since the 80s (or even before that.) Old technology layered with even older technology. Every other year dateline or 60 minutes does a story on how much it all sucks. Alright, so what's the solution?

Well, according to the contracting some new whiz bang solution that is the end all of be all. So where are we, a couple billion down the hole for the a POS.

What needed to happen is not a total whiz bang solution. It needed to start with a system that emulated everything that the current system did using current technology. Something modular (so you could add new features later on) and something that could scale to meet larger needs. Oh, and something that could have been rolled a good ten years ago.

But noooo, that's too simple, and doesn't put a couple billion into the contractors pocket. Of course the ass clowns in congress are just as much to blame as they approved this.

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[geekoid]

bull.
who is accountable if Windows crashes? no one, thats who.
at least woth OS, you can have developer look at the code, address issues. If your talking about getting an existing operating system and using it, you can begin your testing process sooner, and cheaper.
OTOH you can write the code from scratch, and open it up.

With OS you can have a team, assign resposibilities, and have someone in charge of the OS who will be hel accountable. You can not do that with a 3rd party closed spource product, especially from a company the size of MS.

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[Dimensio]

There's something amusing about that line of reasoning: open source can't be used, not because it's necessarily inferior to closed source but because if something goes wrong we won't be able to blame anyone...

...anyway, you're confusing open source with anonymous development. Open source simply means that the source is available for modification if necessary. If you keep track of who makes what mods, then you could track a mistake either to the original author or to someone who screwed up some code in their revision of the software.

Re:Release early, release often

[Kredal]

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

We at the FAA are very sorry for the loss of your husband/wife/child aboard AA/United/whoever flight number 123. Their death, and the deaths of all 206 other passengers and crew was caused by a minor glitch in the software used to keep track of all commercial jets in the air. You will be relieved to know that this glitch has been fixed, and is available as a patch to the local air traffic control center.

Thank you for your continued trust in the airline industry!

Signed,
FAA Bigwig

--------

I'd rather the software WORK before I trust my life with it, thank you very much.

Flight Safety.

[lionchild]

I'll try not to stray offtopic here.

In the past, I've flown alot for business. I enjoy flying, actually, even in some of the cramped up economy spaces.

Before 9/11, I wasn't overly concerned about our planes running into things. The skyes are awfully big up there, and cities, aside from the obvious ones like NY and LA, are pretty easy to miss or avoid with all the land between them.

And as I think about it, the one thing that takes away my fears about a plane running into something, is that guy in the very front seat of the bus. Y'see, I know several pilots, and none of them are foolish enough to believe the ATC, when they're looking out the front of the plane and see a building comming at them quickly.

These are men and women who have, (proportedly), been highly trained and qualified to get us from point A to point B, safely. And I know most, if hopefully not all of them are smart enough to make good decisions when what they see doesn't match what the ATC is telling them.

In the same vein, there are men and women, who hopefully have good training and good instincts about being ATC's, that when a bug comes up, they're smarter than it is, and will make decisions that avoid the loss of life and property.

Sometimes, alas, you must trust the User to do the right thing. And in this case, we get Trained Users to do the job. Let them do their job.

Re:Flight Safety.

[sheckard]

ATC does not separate planes from buildings.

Or even other planes in certain circumstances. That's the pilot's responsibility at all times: see and avoid. Pilots are real good at it. That's why you don't hear about many mid-air collisions anymore, especially on airliners with the high-tech boxes that call out known traffic, and even bark out instructions on how to move out of the way (TCAS.)

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked close to this project (down the hall) for many years. Believe me, STARS has been tested for the past 4 years at least. They FAA has several phases of tests that they perform on new equipment that can take many years to complete. The FAA wouldn't let this out the door if it was not ready and not necessary to replace all the old equipment out in the field that is falling apart, and older than many people who read Slashdot.

Of course, the air traffic controller's union is upset about this. Most air traffic controllers have a very short career (burn-out) and don't want to have to learn a new way of doing things.

Looks ok to me...so far...

[peterdaly]

-- quote
According to the article the FAA invoked their "emergency powers" to force the new system in place in Syracuse against the inspectors and certifiers' recomendations. This sounds like a horrible mess waiting to happen.
--

Well, I work in a building right in line with the SYR main runway. I can tell how lined up a plane is by what section of the parking lot they fly over (we are talking a 20 car lot.) The planes are so close I can see which ones need to be repainted or washed.

So far...I'm still alive, that's a good sign. Also, recently I have seen some planes lining up with the runway much closer than before, I wonder if that means the controllers can handle the traffic better? That would be a good sign for if the system as a whole if it is rolled out in other places.

Anyway, when the system in SYR has problems, I'll be either the first...or last...to notify slashdot.

-Pete

Re:Looks ok to me...so far...

[Kredal]

At the point that they're that close, it's all on the pilots as to where they land. The controller will tell them to circle until it's their turn to land.

In busier airports at night (think LAX, DFW, ATL) you can see the planes lined up 2 minutes apart. That's what the controllers do. The pilots are responsible for centering themselves on the runway, and landing without crashing into the ground.

Re:Looks ok to me...so far...

[Sabalon]

Living on the approach path to ATL, it was very errie on 9/11 being outside and not seeing all the planes lined up and hearing them.

Re:Looks ok to me...so far...

[Kredal]

Ya, I bet it felt a lot like the first dream sequence in "Vanilla Sky" where he's running around Times Square, and he's the only person there...

Reality Check - from a student pilot.

[noahbagels]

Please read:
The ATC / Control Tower is never responsible for controlling the aircraft, nor actually guiding aircraft between hills/etc. Even in a busy place like the San Francisco Bay, the ATC advises of traffic and coordinates inbound and outbound traffic lanes to keep traffic well spaced. ATC typical instructions, even with hills very nearby (1nm) usually consist of a destination landmark or vector, and an altitude.

Not to rant or anything, but from what I understand, the current system is incredibly out of date. It is important, not only to update the ATC gear, but that the FAA institude a complete overhaul of avionics. It is now possible with less than $1000 of gear to have in-flight collision detectors based on GPS, but this is uncommon on private aircraft costing $100k+.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Reality Check - from a student pilot.

[kcbrown]

The ATC / Control Tower is never responsible for controlling the aircraft, nor actually guiding aircraft between hills/etc.

Uh, not quite.

What you say is true for aircraft operating under VFR (Visual Flight Rules), but not for aircraft operating under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules). When you're operating IFR, if the controller gives you a vector, you follow the vector.

Now, that said, it's still the pilot's responsibility to clear terrain, but without GPS-based terrain avoidance it's damned near impossible to guarantee terrain avoidance when you're IFR, in the soup, and on vectors unless you're intimately familiar with the terrain and your own location.

The bummer of it is that it's when you're relatively low (thus closer to terrain), in relatively busy airspace (you're talking to approach control, who's usually talking to a bunch of different airplanes, and it's a party line so you have to continuously monitor the ATC frequency listening for your callsign), and are having to do a lot of different things (like listen to the ATIS [Automated Terminal Information Service] at the destination airport to get weather, runway info, etc., brief the approach you'll be making into the destination airport, set up the radios and the navigation instruments for the approach, etc., all while listening to the ATC party line frequency for instructions) that it's most likely that you'll be receiving vectors from ATC. That means that if you're in the soup, you have very little time to handle terrain avoidance, which is why GPS-based terrain avoidance gear is such good stuff to have.

Bottom line is that ATC can vector planes into terrain, and it actually has done so occasionally. It doesn't happen often. But it happens. And that's with all the equipment working, at that.

Yeah, it could be a lot better. But the FAA governs aviation with an iron fist, so you're only allowed to use technology that it deems suitable. And the FAA moves at a glacial pace when it comes to allowing new technology in airplanes. It's why modern general aviation airplanes are still using aircooled piston engines that were literally designed back in the 1940's, and why everyone is still using AM radios for communications.

Re:Reality Check - from a student pilot.

[phliar]

The ATC / Control Tower is never responsible for controlling the aircraft ... Even in a busy place like the San Francisco Bay, the ATC advises of traffic and coordinates inbound and outbound traffic lanes to keep traffic well spaced. ATC typical instructions, even with hills very nearby (1nm) usually consist of a destination landmark or vector, and an altitude.

If you're VFR! If you're IFR (and I'm an instrument rated pilot, flying in the San Francisco Bay Area) you bet ATC "controls" you. I put that in quotes, because as an instructor of mine once said, "you are the one who's going to die if he vectors you into a hillside." That said, if you're IFR (every airline flight is IFR) then ATC separates you from other traffic [airline traffic stays in Class B airspace], and gives you radar vectors. "Cherokee 12345, vector for traffic, turn left heading 275." However, the gist of your argument holds: regardless of what ATC will or won't do, no pilot should let ATC put him or her into a bad situation.

Sadly, a couple of years ago two pilots in the area flew a vector into a hill. They thought they were IFR, the controller thought they were VFR; he gave them a vector and then as his workload increased, he forgot about them. The lesson is: fly every ATC instruction as though he's trying to kill you. Sure, it's his responsibility, but it's your life.

It is important, not only to update the ATC gear, but that the FAA institude a complete overhaul of avionics.

Not so fast!!! The airplanes I like to fly (tube-and-fabric taildraggers, sailplanes, aerobatics) cost $20,000. TCAD-like [collision avoidance] devices are around $20,000 installed. See the problem?

Re:Reality Check - from a student pilot.

[monkeydo]

airline traffic stays in Class B airspace

Did they change the airspace rules again? Last time I checked most airlines fly above FL180, in Class A airspace. Of course they also have to fly in Class B (at the largest airports) or Class C (large airports) airspace if they want to land, and they'll have to fly through Class E airspace to get there.

The lesson is: fly every ATC instruction as though he's trying to kill you. Sure, it's his responsibility, but it's your life.

No it isn't, and that attitude has killed hundreds of pilots. I suggest you reread the FAR's. As PIC it is always your responsibility to fly the plane safely no matter what the guy on the gournd tells you.

The airplanes I like to fly (tube-and-fabric taildraggers, sailplanes, aerobatics) cost $20,000. TCAD-like [collision avoidance] devices are around $20,000 installed. See the problem?

I don't see the problem. The FAA already mandates aircraft carry certain equipment in controlled airspace. If they mandate TCAD for certain airspace, you'll either have to comply or stay out.

conspiracy theory

[shren]

I wonder if they're pushing it through because the new software has some nice government supplied code to send the Air Force a fax in the case of a dangerously misdirected plane. If the system does that, then the use of the emergency powers act would be justified because the new system provides "critical homeland security" - not that they'll tell us about it or anything.

One bug later, and your plane is reported as speeding towards the Sears tower and you're shot down by a fighter craft.

Re:Release early, release often

[RollingThunder]

(four months later)

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

We at the FAA are very sorry for the loss of your husband/wife/child aboard AA/United/whoever flight number 987. The software glitch that caused their death has been identified as a previously occuring error, and a patch has been available for four months, but due to sysadmin laziness, was not installed, despite being easily available from our locked supply cabinet (which we have lost the keys for) at the bottom of a missing stairwell in the third subbasement of FAA headquarters.

Bad joke

[BlowCat]

It's much more likely that something will be misreported to a regular (not hijacked) flight. You might dislike Sears Towers, but misreporting its location is not a solution.

Re:I'm tired of politicians playing with my life!!

[delcielo]

Although I wouldn't want to minimize the impact of problems at our radar control facilities, it should be noted that there are procedures for dealing with this sort of thing.

Traffic flow procedures, and FAR's allow for all kinds of flexibility here. Controllers can stack airplanes up in holding patterns while they sort out priorities. Traffic that the primary airports couldn't handle could be sent to reliever airports. Enroute traffic could be sent to alternate airports, etc. In an emergency, the FARs even allow a pilot to deviate from the regs to the extent necessary to safely complete the flight. In other words, if it was an emergency, the Captain could break his flight plan and head for the nearest suitable runway.

The dangerous time is the time between the failure, and the full blown utilization of alternate methods. Even this, however, is helped by separation standards, standard arrival and departure routes, TCAS, etc.

In other words, they won't just fall out of the sky. If I were an airline Captain, and I found myself in a situation where the destination airport's radar was out, and I felt nervous about the safety of that airport's traffic environment, I'd start by asking for an ammended clearance to some alternate destination. If that didn't work, I might just declare an emergency and divert myself.

Contrary to what you see in Die Hard movies, the system is pretty flexible, and the people who use it are intelligent and capable.

1.7 Billion dollars?

[joshv]

We need a new way of conducting business. If you used off the shelf components and standard programming environments I cannot possibly imagine how you could spend 1.7 billion and under deliver. I imagine that Raytheon decided that in order to enrich the corporate coffers they needs some proprietary hardware and weird development environments noone but Raytheon employees are familiar with.

It's a shame really. Yes, this a complex problem, but it's just not a billion dollar problem. The issue is that the government's been asking the wrong people to solve it.

What they should have done is approached some small to midsized software design shops and asked them for initial estimates and designs. Give the top 10 of those $1 million each to flesh out the design and prototype it.

Then take the pick of the litter and run with it. I betcha the end result would work better and cost less than the POS raytheon delivered.

-josh

hehe

[TweeKinDaBahx]

IT'S MICROSOFT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER!!

Wonder what incidents the security holes in this wonderful flying elephant are...

Re:hehe

[TweeKinDaBahx]

er...

will cause...

Should preview, but don't :)

Total ATC failure==no crashes

[rufusdufus]

I am a private pilot. Even if ATC completely shut down aircraft would not start falling out of the sky. Airplanes are flown by pilots who are trained to operate the aircraft completely independently from air traffic control.

Think of air-traffic control as stop-lights for automobiles; when the stop lights go down, do traffic accidents start happening? No, you just get a little less efficient traffic flow (in some cases it gets more efficent...). Drivers know how to take turns just like they do at stop signs.

Analagously, pilots know how to take turns and fly safe just like they do at 90% of the airports in the world that don't have 24x7 air traffic control.

If the street lights start malfunctioning and giving wacky signals, the hazard of accidents might go up, but would not neccessariy lead to catastrophe.
The ananology for aicraft is even stronger: if an ATC controller went mad and decided to purposefully cause an accident, he probably would not succeed since he would have to fool two pilots who are trained to be wary of ATCs command and to overrride them when they are in error.

Bottom line: airplanes are flown by pilots, not traffic controllers, so breathe easy.

Re:Total ATC failure==no crashes

[Cramer]

• when the stop lights go down, do traffic accidents start happening?

YES

This depends greatly on where you live and what kind of idiots are driving on your streets. It's not very common for traffic lights to lose power, however, every time it has happened in Raleigh NC there have been wrecks.

By law, without the light, that white stripe of paint (the "stop line") becomes your stop sign, but almost no one pays that any attention.

Re:Total ATC failure==no crashes

[phliar]

if it's an IFR day, when lotsa people are in the clouds, a confused or malevolant controller could have two planes shooting the same approach at the same time.

If I'm cleared for the "Podunk ILS 29R" and I hear the controller tell another airlpane "Cessna 1234, turn left heading 320, maintain 3000 till established, cleared for the ILS 29R approach" -- I'll be squawking!

Hmmm... I guess the controller could start out with "Cessna 1234, switch to my frequency 121.35" before clearing him for the approach.... But think like a controller. Is it worth having a "deal" on your hands just for a small chance you might get two piston singles to collide? Big sky little airplane.

(I'm an instrument rated pilot.)

Re:Total ATC failure==no crashes

[rufusdufus]

Wow, they let a hot-head like you do air traffic control? Settle down now. Pilots are trained for these sorts of eventualities, and in fact do land at fields which have no ATC at all. In the event of total failure in conditions you suggest, the pilots would negotiate the landing sequence, and some would land at alternate airports. They would not panic, they would not argue. They would get the job done. Thats why they are the ones with final say in the air.

Re:fortuitous news for Linux?

[MAXOMENOS]

Think about it: the software fails, two planes crash into each other. Who's respsonsible? There is no direct line of accountability.

Nonsense. The FAA can always hire a government contractor, such as IBM or Lockheed, to maintain the system, whether it is open source or not, GPL or not, etc. In the case where two planes crash into each other, the contractor bears responsibility. In the open source case, it doesn't even matter if the contractor doesn't own the code. You can always hire a third party to maintain the project and to be the fall guy.

Close....

[DesScorp]

Usually, the connection is not hardwired, but transmitted from one site to another. I'm an IT Manager at a regional airport, and that's the system we use. We have a large Air Force base only 10 minutes away, and they got expensive upgrades before we did, so they basically just transmit their ATC data on over to us via microwave. This is not unusual. This kind of resource sharing is pretty common between military and civilian installations. We have have an Air National Guard squadron here as well, and we also share resources with them (firefighting in particular). It just makes more sense that way.

As for the new ATC system, I think any kind of mission critical system should be Unix based. As much as I like Linux, I'd still feel better with a QNX type system that goes down perhaps once a year or so. You have to wonder what the procurement people are thinking sometimes.....

Re:I'll Be Brave and sound like a Luddite =P

[Kredal]

The strips are used as a backup for the computer ATC system. The only reason controllers get good at using them is because the old system went down so often. Some of the older centers still use vacuum tubes! Yeesh!

Re:Um, no

[jmorse]

This system simply provides location and identification information to airplanes operating under ATC. The system tells the controller where the aircraft is, the aircraft transponder tells the controller who the aircraft is, and the controller then issues instructions to the pilot, who is then responsible for executing those instructions. The hijackers of september 11 flew those planes into the towers and Pentagon by visual navigation (at least for the last few miles...they may have used the GPS system to navigate to NYC or DC).

In short, the ATC system had nothing to do with those airplanes flying into buildings. The only way your blacker side situation would work would be to have a malicious person operating as the controller, and IFR conditions so a non-hijacker pilot couldn't see where he's going.

Re:Um, no

[ldopa1]

Yeah, I realized that after the post... see my reply to my reply... Thanks though. Stupid of me, really, considering I have my VFR ticket, but not my IFR ticket...

Exit, stage left.. ;)

Airport EULA

[hij]

There will be no reason to send such a note. Everyone boarding the flight will have to click "I Agree" on the Airline EULA:

Taking a flight in an airplane is an inherently dangerous activity. Before opening the envelope that contains the enclosed tickets and this license agreement you , the end user, must agree to the following conditions:

1. You will not hold the airline nor the FAA responsible for any mishap.
2. Even if the mishap is due to gross negligence on the part of anybody associated with the aviation community nobody is responsible for their actions.
3. Any personal belongings that may be damaged or lost are your responsibility.
4. You are too tired to read this far.
5. We have the right to go through your stuff and sell it all to whoever is willing to pay us.
6. We have the right to try on all of your clothes.
7. In case of a horrible crash your only option is to reboot and start over with zero karma.
8. We reserve the right to restart your flight at any time.
9. In case we decide to cancel your flight, you are hosed.
10. If you don't agree to these terms you can't fly but we keep your money.

If you agree to these conditions then pass through the doors otherwise you go home. Thank you and have a good flight.

actually, I've heard it SUCKS rocks...

[mekkab]

And I've heard that STARS has bugs that Raytheon says they cannot fix, and yet they want more money to "fix bugs"?

Fat chance they'll win ERAM.

More about the STARS project

[elness]

Baseline magazine, a periodical dedicated to IT management, covered the new FAA STARS system from an IT project management point of view in a recent issue.

You can view the case study on-line, or download the PDF file.

I found it to be a very good in-depth article delving into many of the issues surrounding such a massive IT project.

Re:Um, no

[jmorse]

Well, a VFR ticket is more than I have at the moment. I can understand saying or doing things in the heat of the moment...as long as you don't do it in the cockpit, we'll all be fine ;-)

Ultimately, I think this system is going to make pilots more vigilant. I've heard so many anecdotes about controllers causing near-misses (my uncle almost got creamed by a commuter plane while flying his warrior) that I think this may be a good thing.

TARDIS

[BarefootClown]

One of these systems (there are several) is called TARDIS--Terminal Area Radar DISplay, IIRC. We have one at Westheimer Airport in Norman, OK. Good points: it helps (tremendously at times) with situational awareness. It tells the controllers where to look for the traffic they can't see. It tells the controllers where to find the traffic that just reported "over the river" (they never are, they're just reporting ahead for better positioning, or lost). Bad points are, the system doesn't update rapidly enough to be used for guidance in the terminal area. It drops traffic. It freezes, requiring a reset. It does both of these more than an approved radar display. It is based on ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center) radar, not terminal radar, so coverage is often lacking. A few other things I can't think of offhand. Short answer is that it works well as a situational awareness tool at airports not requiring radar, but if radar is necessary, you have to install a much more complex (and expensive) system.

To put things in perspective, Westheimer is the third busiest public-use airport in Oklahoma, losing only to OKC-Will Rogers and Tulsa World. There is high-density student training at Westheimer, and operations often exceed 1000/day. Traffic ranges from Cessna 150's to Beech Barons to Citation X's to T-38's, with a smattering of helicopters thrown in the keep things interesting. The airport is served by several instrument approaches, including a localizer, and is scheduled to get an ILS in a couple of years; an ILS allows traffic to descend to 200' above ground before breaking out of the clouds. In spite of this, Westheimer does not warrant radar.

Short answer here is that yes, Joe Blow's system may be cheaper, and may work well enough for a VFR tower like Bowman or Westheimer, but you need a lot more for any environment that actually needs radar.

--Dave Buckles, CP-ASMEL, Instrument Airplane, CFI (double-I checkride on Monday! Woo-hoo!)

Re:TARDIS

[singularity]

I would like to point out that the TARDIS system costs about $20,000. Raytheon's STARS system starts at about $245,000 and takes a while to be installed.

I agree that there are places that require radar. As you say, though, there are a lot of airfields out there without any radar at all. A $20,000 system to give these places radar? I think that is money well spent. The FAA does not seem to think so, though, deciding instead to wait for the STARS system to be put in place and then using that to send data.

Every pilot, read this!

[phliar]

Here's an article that discusses these issues from the controller's perspective.

Jesus Christ Almighty! I recommend every pilot here go read that article. He talks about non-radar and a couple of "deals" that had me sweating.

everything I have heard from the pilot's side (particularly GA pilots) is that the FAA is, well, not doing too well these days. And that the front-line controllers are probably more right on these issues than their bosses.

I'm a GA pilot, instrument rated so I get to deal with controllers a lot. I will take the controllers word over the FAAs any day. Controllers have saved my ass more times and more ways than I care to remember. The FAA has only thrown all kinds of bullshit paperwork around. (However, the FAA, just like any other giant government agency, has good parts and bad. The enforcement people just suck, whereas FSDO people are usually good.)

The AvWeb article cited above (which is written by Don Brown, Facility Safety Representative at ZTL) also talks about FAA wanting to do away with primary radar altogether. Fucking morons. There are still plenty of airplanes flying around with no electrical systems, which means no transponders.

Lousy Journalism (and Sun/Solaris Facet of STARS)

[hfk]

(Before I get started with my critique of the article and my take on the STARS issue, for those of you more interested in the fact that Sun/Solaris is at the heart of STARS, skip to the bottom of the page)

I've been an Air Traffic Control Radar Tech for the better part of 20 years and, after watching/reading years worth of inaccurate FAA Technology reporting (such as this CNN piece) I'm convinced that aviation journalists are, for the most part, clueless about the technology that they report on. Combine ignorance of that calibre with the natural alarmist tendencies of journalists and editors seeking incresed circulation/viewership and you end up with pieces like this one. Alternatively, and even more unpalatable, it might just be that all journalists are mere dilettantes, and actually have the barest grasp of the issues about which they write. Perhaps, as radar/air traffic control is my field of expertise, I'm only accutely aware of their shortcomings in that field, whereas they may be just as ignorant in many, or all, others. I hope that's not the case, but reporting that's as slipshod as this makes one wonder.... The fourth estate is just as prone to error and exaggeration as the other three.

Obviously, there are problems with STARS, just as the DOT IG report describes. There are problems with ALL new major FAA systems. I've been involved with the ASR-11 program, off and on, for several years now. The ASR-11 is a short range (airport) radar that, like STARS, is a Raytheon product and is currently undergoing a variety of tests to assess it's suitability for inclusion into the Air Traffic Control system. The STARS and ASR-11 sagas have similarites: both have been undergoing testing and some forms of development for years. A portion of the agony involved in equipment acceptance is rooted in the diverging interests of the vendor and the FAA. The vendor claims that the system will perform in such and such a manner, and it's up to the FAA to verify that their claim is accurate. If the claim cannot be verified, then a fix must be proposed, then agreed upon, then implemented, and then verified. Of course, the vendor and the FAA will interpret various aspects of the contract differently, and therefore problem resolution can, and apparently often does, involve disputes about funding: who pays for the resolution? does the FAA cough up more cash or does the vendor eat the cost? I don't use the word 'agony' as hyperbole: it most certaily is agonising for both the vendor and the FAA. However, don't be too quick to blame beuracrats. The FAA is attempting to walk a very fine line: save costs where possible, and therefore give the taxpayer better bang for the buck, while ensuring that the system in question is as safe, and reliable, as possible. Of course, altruism isn't the only motivating factor: I imagine that Congressional oversight certainly helps, particularly when it comes to bang-for-the-buck considerations. However, I genuinely believe that engineering/testing personel, system maintainers, and air traffic controllers are supremely interested in the safety of the flying public, and act accordingly.

Now on to a critique of the CNN piece:

"The only STARS system now in use, in El Paso, Texas, has been plagued with problems, according to.....the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the union that represents the FAA employees who certify and maintain air traffic control equipment."

My experience with the ASR-11 project has convinced me that the Technician's Union, Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS), doesn't give much of a shit about truly relevant equipment funtionality issues. I don't doubt that their assessment of STARS suffers from the same self-interested myopia. As I've heard it told, a Union's involvement in an early round of STARS testing turned into a fiasco, and a potentially significant opportunity was squandered. I've also heard that the union has learned a bit from the experience and that, perhaps, future Union involvement in STARS testing will be more productive. I have direct knowledge of some ridiculous Union demands vis-a-vis the ASR-11.

Unions are a more than a mild source of irritation to me, for a variety of reasons the reader could likely care less about. However, there is one aspect of unions that is crucial to this and other stories involving unions: a union, even one which whose membership comprises a fraction of the 'baragining unit' employees (those who could be in the union if they chose to be) is the sole representative of that group of employees and management looks to the union for all things to do with the employees, and seeks union write-off of all employee-related matters. Journalists follow the same pattern: they spout whatever line the union gives them as if the union actually, rather than technically, spoke for all the employees. If you follow aviation reporting you will see this proven true time and time again.

An aside: my opinion of the Union has nothing to do with my opinion of the average FAA technician. Anyone that's been exposed to unions understands that the official union position often bears no resemblance to the employee's position. FAA technicians are highly trained and, generally, highly motivated, and appreciate the serious nature of their profession.

"The old system remained in place as a backup, because "tower managers stated controllers were not comfortable relying solely on STARS,"....

Now this really turns my stomach....the fact that the 'old system' remains in place is somehow condemnation of the new system (STARS). Of course the old system remains in place as a backup: it would be grossly negligent to uneccesarily remove it while testing on the new system continues. What's so stomach-churning is that this hypocritical journalist, who obviously has a minimal grasp of the complexity of FAA equipment and the air traffic control system, would very likely be the among the first to accuse the FAA of negligence if the 'old system' was uneccesarily discarded and a failure of the new system resulted in crashed planes and mangled bodies. Look, the FAA KNOWS that, while the 'old system' is technically, well, OLD, it's tried and true and, therefore, safe. Obviously they're going to want to retain it as a backup, especially considering the birth pangs that STARS is experiencing. Keep in mind that STARS is not merely a new hardware backbone: it's a completely new interface as well, so it's new to both Air Traffic Controllers and Maintenance personel. Air Traffic Controllers take their responsibility to the flying public VERY seriously, and they're almost always, if not always, going to err on the side of caution. Any one that flies should appreciate this fact.

"Union vice president Tom Brantley said the radar doesn't always work, and it may require several minutes before controllers realize the problem. In addition, he said, the system has failed several diagnostic tests."

I don't know what the hell this means: STARS isn't a radar, of course, so I assume that he must be referring to the radar/s that feed the STARS. I have heard that there is an issue with lag under certain unique and rare circumstances. Those issues will most certainy be resolved prior to acceptance, or at least examined for validity. More to the point, this sentance is a perfect example of a cursory treatment of a very complex matter by someone that obviously has no idea what he's talking about (I mean the journalist, not the Union VP). It's confusing and meaningless, rather than informative and clarifying. Sloppy reporting, at best.

Now, back to a subject perhaps more interesting to the average geek: STARS systems are based on Sun/Solaris boxes, and LOTS of them. STARS, and other imminent and existing FAA systems, such as the ASR-11 (an airport/short-range radar), the WSP (Weather System Processor), all use Sun boxes. I believe that, between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the FAA there are going to be hundreds of STARS, and a couple of hundred ASR-11s, and over the next 5 to 15 years many hundreds, if not thousands, of technicians will receive various forms of Unix training. For several years the FAA has offered a three-week instructor-led Unix course and, I believe, requires this course as a prerequisite for those technicians who will be taking the STARS and ASR-11 Maintenance courses, among others. The course is based on Redhat and PCs, rather then Ultra or Sunblade and Solaris, which is a bit of a sore spot with me, as it would obviously be advantageous for the tech to know about OBP abd other Sparc/Solaris-unique issues. However, the FAA has systems that use other flavors of Unix (AIX and/or HP-UX) so it might not be ideal to use Sparc/Solaris alone, but I can't help but think that it would be better than using Redhat/PC. Anyway, perhaps I'll write a bit more about this and try to post it one day, to see what others here think...

Getting back on track, the perceptive reader will have already realized that the training of hundreds/thousands of military and FAA technicians in the ways of Unix will be good for the Unix community. I can use myself as an example: I've been working with the ASR-11 program for three years: my first contact with Unix was three years ago at the Raytheon ASR-11 school. Now I use a laptop running Redhat (previoulsy Solaris x86, but couldn't get the darn NIC to work), an Ultra 5 and a Sparc 5 on my desk/s at work, and at home I've two PCs with two drive-racks per PC, and swap between RedHat, Solaris x86, and XP. The FAA has also been generous enough to spring for a Sunkey memebership for me and I'm going to be doing as much training as possible this year. I'll have a go at the Sun SysAdmin tests later this year and then top it all of with the Sun Network Admin test. I'd then like to move into a part-time job with some local business that uses Sun boxes. I've discussed the possiblity with various classmates in the Sun courses I've taken, and apparently, and understandably, there's little demand for part-time network administrators. however, I'll settle for less: I'd really like the opportunity to hone my skills in the private sector, just to see how far my interest and talents might take me (perhaps out of civil sevice altogether and into the private sector full time? a fantasy perhaps, but one I occasionally indulge in).

To sum-up: the fallout from the implementation of these new systems will result in an even more widespread interest in Unix, and an enlarged geek contingent.

Inspector General's Memo, background

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

For more information, here's the memo as a pdf or text from the the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.

For some background into why this may be happening, consider the following: FAA Administrator Jane Garvey was a champion of the STARS program. She is about to leave the post, and may want to be able to claim some success before she goes. Also, th philadelphia TRACON is nearing its capacity and needs to be upgraded in the immediate future. There are two ways to go for the upgrade: One is to put in STARS, and the other is to install Common ARTS, a competing system. If they can't put STARS on in the immediate future, practical necessity will force them to install Common ARTS instead. If they put the money into installing Common ARTS now, they'll have a hell of a time justifying switching over to STARS later, because there'll be no need. Thus, Raytheon and Garvey and other STARS proponents are in a now-or-never situation to get STARS in, by hook or by crook, unless they want the work to go to a competitor and make them look bad.

NOTE: This is my own opinion, written on my own time, and I DO NOT speak for my employer (one of the companies involved).

Re: Buy Business Class, then!

[Abreu]

As an airline employee, I strongly encourage you to buy a Business Class ticket if you can't appreciate the comfort of sleeping in the shoulders of complete strangers.

If you get a discounted ticket for the Cattle car, er...Economy Class, you cant really complain about it, because you get what you pay for.

Disclaimer: I do work for an airline, however this post is supposed to be ironically funny, and not taken seriously... besides, if I learned to put up with the average gringo Coach passenger, so can you!

Reasonable Comparison

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

When you say the "old system" your're probably talking about ARTS IIIA, which is about 30 years old, using period displays like FDADs and the like. Of course Raytheon's $1.7Bn 2002 system is better than Sperry/Univac's 1970 system.

The proper question isn't how STARS compares with what their competitors did 30 years ago, it's how STARS compares with what their competitors are doing now. Specifically, STARS most direct competitor is Common ARTS, which is a the current system from Lockheed Martin. In my biased opinion (I work on it) Common ARTS has comparable functionality to STARS, and it actually passes safety tests! Oh yeah, and Common ARTS has been installed at 139 sites, on time, within budget. STARS is more than 4 years behind schedule, 800 million dollars over budget, and still has 258 critical system trouble reports outstanding.

Standard disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, on my own time, and not my employer.