Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Upgrade Crashes UK Air Traffic Control System

Posted by michael on from the quality-is-priority-1 dept.

pitpe writes "Earlier today the computer system controlling most of the UK's airspace failed, after tests in preparation for an upgrade failed. The original failure occurred at the West Drayton centre, which is an old (70's) system, as opposed to the new system at Swanage, which has had its own problems. A system wide reboot to fix the system resulted in the entire system being taken down temporarily."

7 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Software doesn't rust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "which is an old (70's) system". As long as it's not 30-year-old hardware then the software should still be fine. Why does everyone think that simply because software was written in the past it is bad?

    1. Re:Software doesn't rust... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Why does everyone think that simply because software was written in the past it is bad?

      What is implied is that its being pushed to its limits. e.g. it was designed for 100 flights a day, when today there are 1200 flights a day.

      Those small things which you could get away with before start to become factors in usability and stability.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  2. What WAS the System that crashed? by Spencerian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps a person experienced in ATC software or hardware could enlighten us on the specific system in use, its OS and other trivial bits.

    It would help to reduce the coming surge of Microsoft jokes, which is very likely not relevant here.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
  3. So what? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are redundant systems in place. Analog radar, humans with brains.

    At least there should be. Computers crash, break, have bugs, etc. They're a tool - a more efficient and convenient tool to be sure.

    But when they break, there are contingencies so that planes can still take off and land, and wont just fall out of the sky.

    This is also why Y2K was such a bunch of stupidity. We really aren't as reliant on computers as people think. We know they crash and are prepared to handle it when they do.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  4. Re:More problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A dutch friend of mine once remarked that she didn't understand the mentality of the British. "You" she said, "have an amazing tendency to run things into the ground and then get around to fixing them rather than spending money on continually maintaining them so they never fall apart."
    That's a pretty fair point. The trouble is, since 1977, politics has been obsessed with who can provide the biggest tax cuts, which has meant all the state funded / supported industries have gone to hell in a handcart.
    <rant>
    I blame Margaret fucking Thatcher, who let the hospitals fall apart and flogged off the viable bits of the infrastructure to her friends (at well below market value). [We're still feeling the effects of this on the railways, which the private sector has run into the ground] Corrupt old bitch.
  5. Golden rules.. by rf0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never just test software upgrades on Live systems

    Rus

    --
    Cheap UK and US VPS
  6. ATC software is scary (aka, Know Your Userbase) by Knowbuddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My dad is helping the FAA and the US military design and roll out the next gen ATC software here in the US. He comes home and tells stories that make my skin crawl.

    The first version of the software was built using standard current interface guidelines and widgets and the testing group that had no experience with older ATC systems were wowed at how simple and yet powerful it was. Pretty much any random person off the street could look at the screen and easily figure out what was going on and how to do various basic tasks. When that version was demoed to the ATC union the union freaked out at how different it was and thus began a cycle of making it more and more backwards.

    So, nowadays the next gen ATC software almost exactly replicates the UI of the old non-computerized and semi-computerized systems. On-screen toggle switches and dials, that sort of thing. The FAA and the ATC union have decided that retraining all of their ATCs to use modern computer interfaces would be a Bad Thing. When the computer screen doesn't exactly replicate the interface of the 50+-year-old systems, they freak out and scream bloody murder. On the flip side, kids coming into the field today that have been using computers most of their lives are finding the interface to be counterintuitive to the point of being almost unusable. Middle-aged workers who are both highly proficient ATCs and home computer users report that switching between the two types of interfaces each night when they go home requires conscious effort on their part, since they are so orthogonal.

    So who wins? Historical inertia, of course. Why fix the problem today when you can wait for your successors to fix it in 25 years?