U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights Out of LAX

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Reuters reports that last week's computer glitch at a California air traffic control center that led officials to halt takeoffs at Los Angeles International Airport was caused by a U-2 spy plane still in use by the US military, passing through air space monitored by the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center that appears to have overloaded ERAM, a computer system at the center. According to NBC News, computers at the center began operations to prevent the U-2 from colliding with other aircraft, even though the U-2 was flying at an altitude of 60,000 feet and other airplanes passing through the region's air space were miles below. FAA technical specialists resolved the specific issue that triggered the problem on Wednesday, and the FAA has put in place mitigation measures as engineers complete development of software changes," said the agency in a statement. "The FAA will fully analyze the event to resolve any underlying issues that contributed to the incident and prevent a reoccurrence." The U.S. Air Force is still flying U-2s, but plans to retire them within the next few years. The U-2 was slated for retirement in 2006 in favor of the unmanned Global Hawk Block 30 system, before the Air Force pulled an about-face two years ago and declared the Global Hawk too expensive and insufficient for the needs of combatant commanders."

Comments

This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U-2 has been flying for over 50 years. It is not like this sort of scenario (high flying spy plane entering airport airspace) is a new concept. How could something this simple have been overlooked, especially since the U-2 has been flying for so long?

Re:This is a problem now?

[rossdee]

I remember hearing an anecdote about the SR71 Blackbird
A Blackbird is entering commercial airspace over CA
Pilot requests Flight level 70 (thousand Feet)
Controller laughs. If you can reach it you're welcome to it.
Blackbird pilot replies "descending from flight level 100"

Of couirse it may be an urban legend. But the SR71 could go that high

Re: This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... Flight levels go in 100s of feet, so flight level 70 equals 7000 feet. 300+ flight levels are quite common these days for commercial aircraft.
The story could still be true, but it would have been flight levels 1000 and 700

Re:This is a problem now?

[ericloewe]

Yeah, you got it wrong.

7000ft is FL070

FL100, 10 000ft is stupidly low. So low it requires no pressurization.

The joke goes something like:

Small prop plane wants to boast, requests tower confirm its altitude, which is given as something like FL070.
Hearing this, a smartass fighter pilot (some versions add a more subdued jet pilot between these two) asks for his flight level, which is given as something like FL400.
Finally, a third (fourth) pilot asks for clearance to FL600. Controller laughs and says "You're cleared for Flight Level Six-Zero-Zero, if you can reach it. Pilot replies with "Roger, now descending from Flight Level Eight-Zero-Zero."

Re: This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long would the U-2 really have been in LAX airspace? "Widespread" should have only been maybe 4-6 planes.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also in th US, the lowest used flight level is 180, i.e. 18,000 feet. Flight levels and altitudes also differ in that flight levels are expressed in terms of pressure altitudes (i.e. the altimeter is set at 29.92") where as altitude assignments below FL 180 use local altimeter settings. These rules are different in other countries.

Re:This is a problem now?

[serviscope_minor]

I'd heard it was a ground speed check:

I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its ground speed. "90 knots" Center replied. Moments later a Twin Beech inquired the same. "120 knots," Center answered.

We weren't the only ones proud of our ground speed that day...almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, "Uh, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout."

There was a slight pause then the response, "525 knots on the ground, Dusty." Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my back-seater. It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a real crew for we were both thinking in unison.

"Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground speed readout for us?" There was a longer than normal pause... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots." No further inquiries were heard on that frequency.

Re:This is a problem now?

[nuonguy]

You might be talking about this copypasta:

Boy, I thought, the Beechcraft really must think he is dazzling his Cessna brethren. Then out of the blue, a navy F-18 pilot out of NAS Lemoore came up on frequency. You knew right away it was a Navy jock because he sounded very cool on the radios. “Center, Dusty 52 ground speed check.” Before Center could reply, I'm thinking to myself, hey, Dusty 52 has a ground speed indicator in that million-dollar cockpit, so why is he asking Center for a read-out? Then I got it, ol' Dusty here is making sure that every bug smasher from Mount Whitney to the Mojave knows what true speed is. He's the fastest dude in the valley today, and he just wants everyone to know how much fun he is having in his new Hornet. And the reply, always with that same, calm, voice, with more distinct alliteration than emotion: “Dusty 52, Center, we have you at 620 on the ground.”

And I thought to myself, is this a ripe situation, or what? As my hand instinctively reached for the mic button, I had to remind myself that Walt was in control of the radios. Still, I thought, it must be done - in mere seconds we'll be out of the sector and the opportunity will be lost. That Hornet must die, and die now. I thought about all of our Sim training and how important it was that we developed well as a crew and knew that to jump in on the radios now would destroy the integrity of all that we had worked toward becoming. I was torn. Somewhere, 13 miles above Arizona, there was a pilot screaming inside his space helmet. Then, I heard it - the click of the mic button from the back seat. That was the very moment that I knew Walter and I had become a crew. Very professionally, and with no emotion, Walter spoke: “Los Angeles Center, Aspen 20, can you give us a ground speed check?” There was no hesitation, and the replay came as if was an everyday request. “Aspen 20, I show you at one thousand eight hundred and forty-two knots, across the ground.”

I think it was the forty-two knots that I liked the best, so accurate and proud was Center to deliver that information without hesitation, and you just knew he was smiling. But the precise point at which I knew that Walt and I were going to be really good friends for a long time was when he keyed the mic once again to say, in his most fighter-pilot-like voice: “Ah, Center, much thanks, we're showing closer to nineteen hundred on the money.” For a moment Walter was a god. And we finally heard a little crack in the armor of the Houston Center voice, when L.A. came back with, “Roger that Aspen. Your equipment is probably more accurate than ours. You boys have a good one.”

It all had lasted for just moments, but in that short, memorable sprint across the southwest, the Navy had been flamed, all mortal airplanes on freq were forced to bow before the King of Speed, and more importantly, Walter and I had crossed the threshold of being a crew. A fine day's work. We never heard another transmission on that frequency all the way to the coast. For just one day, it truly was fun being the fastest guys out there.

From here and here.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is urban legend. Controlled airspace ends at 60,000. No control clearance is required from the commercial ATC system to fly above 60,000.

Second, flight levels are three digits, not two. 70,000, if ATC cared about it, would be FL700.

Re:This is a problem now?

[wiredlogic]

This could be a cover story for something they don't want to disclose. Just go back to watching the circus, Citizen.

Re:This is a problem now?

[flyneye]

Post by post, the fish gets bigger and changes species.
The only liars bigger than fishermen are Hot Rodders and Pilots ; )

Re:This is a problem now?

[Alan Shutko]

Writeup on this is at http://www.econrates.com/reali...

Re:This is a problem now?

[Ceiynt]

It was a NASA owned U-2. They do atmospheric testing. They basically fly a pattern in the sky over and over. The problem with the flight plan was that the U-2 was assigned VFR-on-Top. What that mean is the plane was flying using VFR(Visual) flight rules on top of clouds. This normally occurs below 18000 feet. As such, I think the VFR-on-Top system was only designed for below 18000 feet. As the U-2 was above 60000 feet, the system was processing it for conflicts at every altitude, causing a buffer overflow. They are working on a patch to fix that problem, and in the meantime have implemented a workaround for us. That's what our memo told us at work. Source: I'm an air traffic controller at Denver En-route ARTCC.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Whiternoise]

This was a quote from Brian Shul, author of Sled Driver. http://gizmodo.com/5511236/the...

Re:This is a problem now?

[Whiternoise]

The 'true' version can be found in Sled Driver which is phenomenally hard to get hold of in dead tree form:

Our training flights took us over much of the western half of the United States. A typical sortie out of Beale included a rendezvous with a tanker over Nevada, accelerating to Mach 3 across Wyoming and leveling above 75,000 feet over Montana. We'd turn right approaching South Dakota, roll out in Colorado, and zip south to New Mexico. There we'd begin another right turn that would carry us through Arizona and straight to southern California, then out over the ocean and finally up to the Seattle area where we'd prepare to descend back to Marysville, California. This was a nice tour in two and a half hours.

To more fully understand the concept of Mach 3, imagine the speed of a bullet coming from a high powered hunting rifle. It is travelling at 3100 feet per second as it leaves the muzzle. The Sled would cruise easily at 3200 feet per second, with power to spare. There was a lot we couldn't do in the airplane, but we were the fastest guys on the block and frequently mentioned this fact to fellow aviators. I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occurred one day as Walt and I were screaming across southern California 13 miles high. We were monitoring various radio transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles Center's airspace. Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our movement across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its groundspeed. "90 knots," Center replied. Moments later a Twin Beech required the same. "120 knots," Center answered. We weren't the only one proud of our speed that day as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, "Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests groundspeed readout." There was a slight pause. "525 knots on the ground, Dusty." Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was, I heard the familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my back-seater. It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in unison. "Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground speed readout for us?" There was a longer than normal pause. "Aspen, I show one thousand seven hundred and forty-two knots." No further inquiries were heard on that frequency.

Found at the beginning of the chapter "Deep Blue". Walt refers to Maj Walter Watson. There seems to be a variety of versions floating around, presumably Shul changes the speed each time he tells the story.

Re:This is a problem now?

[ericloewe]

I've seen both versions. They're good jokes, but I'm not sure they really happened.

Re:This is a problem now?

[ericloewe]

Come to think of it, I think I've heard the altitude version regarding both the SR-71 and Concorde...

Re:This is a problem now?

[greenfruitsalad]

thank you for the link, those stories are rather fascinating.

Re:This is a problem now?

[k6mfw]

Blackbird pilot replies "descending from flight level 100"

Of couirse it may be an urban legend. But the SR71 could go that high

From what I've read and heard, I think highest altitudes of SR71 is in the 90s. Some years ago a former SR71 pilot giving a presentation said the plane can go higher and faster but they were limited by temperature. Engines were powerful enough to go faster than Mach 3.3 but can airframe handle the higher temperature? Nobody wanted to try that out. I forgot his name, he was working for United Airlines at the time, but unlike many other pilots who gloss over technical stuff (there are many non-secret things us techie stuff like to hear these guys can share). He said flying SR71 was very tedious, constantly watching systems when screaming at Mach 3 because going real fast, problems can become overwhelming real fast. Windows become so hot he can really feel the heat if he raise sunvisor on helmet. Sometimes hard to read instrument panel because outside is equivalent to space sunlight is very direct so the shadows are very dark (no light bouncing off atmosphere in lower altitudes) He said after they top off fuel tanks from KC135 and go up to altitude full afterburner, they burn 50,000 lbs of fuel (or some huge amount) in one hour and then have to slow down, drop altitude to get refueled. But already across the country.

Getting back to this U2, I wonder if some glitch in ATC system (new software?) that didn't recognize this altitude. I haven't read the article (who does?) but then U2s including NASA ER2s have been flying above typical airliner traffic for years. This also shows how integrated airspace system has become. It seems if one airport has problems like having to shutdown arrivals and departures because suspicious package, it reverberates to other airports and cause flight delays. It is fascinating in ways of the entire logistics of the ATC system.

Re:This is a problem now?

[davester666]

Well, they used to mainly fly the U-2 over foreign countries, to spy on them.

Now they are flying the U-2 over the US more and more, to spy on the newly discovered terrorists.

Re: This is a problem now?

[Martin Blank]

It wasn't in LAX airspace (that caps out at 10,000 feet), but in LA Center's coverage area, which oversees airspace in Southern and Central California and parts of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona that isn't controlled by airports or by approach/departure controllers. The entire system is tied together to handle transitions from one controlling agency (or controller within an agency) to another.

As an aside, LAX's airspace extends various distances from the airport with the most distant point about 25 miles to the east, depending on the altitude. At any given time, there may be dozens of aircraft within its airspace on approach or departure, or transitioning through to other destinations.

Re:This is a problem now?

[sillybilly]

When I was a kid I used to dream of flying that fast, or be an astronaut and float in zero gravity, cuz it'd be cool. Now that I've grown up I no longer desire to do either, even if they paid me to, I mean I'd do it as a job, as a responsibility, but I would even pay not to have to do it if I didn't have to do it.

I think the original story about the computer crash is trying to poke at the antiquated computer systems that have horsepower/performance issues with such simple things as computing airplane tracks, compared to the horsepower available in off the shelf supercomputers involved in weather research.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they are flying the U-2 over the US more and more, to spy on the newly discovered terrorists.

It was a NASA mission to take atmospheric samples, but I'm sure you can come up with a paranoid fantasy about that too.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The important thing to realize here is that controlled airspace in the United States tops out at flight level 600, aka 60,000 feet. Above that, air traffic control has no authority over you, and you have no obligation to talk to them. The U2 mentioned above might not have even been talking to any of the civilian ATC. Also, the joke is that the U2 and SR71 guys have to call ATC when descending below the 60,000 foot line, in order to get clearance to enter controlled airspace.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Solandri]

Drat. I was hoping some naive programmer had used an unsigned int16 to store the plane's altitude in feet, and the U2 rolled it over. :D

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone else mentioned, perhaps you missed it, this is told by Brian Schul:
http://gizmodo.com/5511236/the-thrill-of-flying-the-sr-71-blackbird

The entire story is quite a good read, but for the specific quote you can read the last paragraph *before* "Permanent Awe".

Re:This is a problem now?

[tlhIngan]

The 'true' version can be found in Sled Driver which is phenomenally hard to get hold of in dead tree form:

Given it's only in deadtree form, it's actually not that hard to get. The special edition is out of print, but there's an unlimited one for sale. Online shopping, though not at Amazon, but it's not hard to get. Though I suppose for a year or two between the special editions selling out and the unlimited printing it might have been hard.

The big problem is the price tag - $250! Yes, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars. (The special edition was $450, Four Hundred!).

I don't know why it's so expensive, nor why there aren't cheaper editions out there. You'd think for that price they'd include a ride or something.

And no, for whatever reason no one's posted it for download.

I suppose it's "hard to get" purely because it's so expensive. There are more expensive books out there, but those tend to be speciality and collector type books, or overinflated textbooks. But something that appears to be a coffee table book?

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U-2 has been flying for over 50 years. It is not like this sort of scenario (high flying spy plane entering airport airspace) is a new concept. How could something this simple have been overlooked, especially since the U-2 has been flying for so long?

Unwritten wisdom about meticulously avoiding certain airspace has been lost over that long period of time.

Re:This is a problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they are flying the U-2 over the US more and more, to spy on the newly discovered terrorists.

It was a NASA mission to take atmospheric samples, but I'm sure you can come up with a paranoid fantasy about that too.

Of course, it was checking up on the chemtrails.

Re:This is a problem now?

[hardwarefreak]

I remember hearing an anecdote about the SR71 Blackbird
A Blackbird is entering commercial airspace over CA
Pilot requests Flight level 70 (thousand Feet)
Controller laughs. If you can reach it you're welcome to it.
Blackbird pilot replies "descending from flight level 100"

Of couirse it may be an urban legend. But the SR71 could go that high

The SR-71's maximum altitude achieved in sustained level flight was 85,069 ft. It could not fly at 100,000 ft for a couple of reasons. First, the atmosphere at 100K ft lacks sufficient oxygen to keep the engines lit, both the turbine section and the ram jet section. Second, the air density is too low for the control surfaces to function at mach 3, causing directional instability, and likely the loss of the aircracft.

"Still in use by the US military"

[drinkypoo]

Well, no shit. Who else is going to be flying a U-2? U2?

Still a badass plane, although I sure wouldn't want to have to be the pilot.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[iggymanz]

how about being one of the two guys that runs along side after landing and slowing, to grab a wing end and put the wheel under it like the ones that fell off during takeoff?

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[porkchop_d_clown]

NASA flies them as research planes: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Richard_at_work]

In the past the U-2 was flown by the CIA, the Taiwanese and the British Royal Air Force, and as another posted notes its still flown by NASA, so the comment is actually valid.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lockheed ER-2 was developed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to serve as a high altitude scientific research aircraft. The ER-2 designation was first applied to NASA's version of the U-2C model. NASA has since acquired and used the U2-R or TR-1 model, but has retained the ER-2 descriptor.

The newest ER2 (U2-R) was built and delivered in 1989 and represents one of NASA's youngest aircraft. The ER-2 differs from the U.S. Air Force's U-2 in the lack of defensive systems, absence of classified electronics, completely different electrical wiring to support NASA sensors, and, of course, a different paint scheme.

Both NASA ER2s were re-engined with new General Electric F-118-101 engines in the late 90's at the same time the U2 fleet was re-engined, providing much-improved range, endurance, altitude, and reliability.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/AirSci/ER-2/er2perf.html

Re: "Still in use by the US military"

[Anonymous Coward]

Been there, done that...former member of Det 2, 9th Wing .

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[laffer1]

Wow that gives a whole new meaning to the song Vertigo.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[I'm New Around Here]

Don't they have an app for that?

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a "Dude" for that.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Martin Blank]

No one does that. When it comes to a stop, it tips gently over to rest on the wingtip, which has a reinforced titanium strip on the bottom. Because of the wingspan, the tip is only a few degrees. Ground crews then go to the stationary aircraft to reinstall the pogos so it can taxi back.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not *that* fast, but flies very very high. The ugly with flying a U-2 is that there is a 32 mile per hour window between Vs and Vne (Vs is stall speed, Vne is Velocity never exceed: the point at which the wings are ripped off). So you have to go faster than the one, or the plane is falling out of the air, and go slower than the other, or the plane suffers irreparable damage (and still falling out of the air). If someone shoots a missile at you, there is no 'accelerate and get away', you can go a wee bit faster or slower and try some maneuvers, but that's it.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[iggymanz]

they used to do that

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Martin Blank]

When? The U-2 was designed by Kelly Johnson, a man who enforced simplicity wherever possible and valued the lives of everyone around his planes. Having anyone run up to it or chase it in a truck to install pogos while it was moving would risk a collision or injury, or both. Besides, the entire aircraft is only 16 feet tall, and the wings are maybe a third of that off the ground.

As far as I know, the plane has always landed like that, and Kelly Johnson knew it would. That kind of practice doesn't start showing up decades or even years later.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[LWATCDR]

NASA.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[dunkelfalke]

and valued the lives of everyone around his planes

ORLY?

The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, in the mid-1960s. In West Germany it came to be nicknamed Witwenmacher ("The Widowmaker").

108 German pilots died thanks to Kelly Johnson.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is unfair to blame all these deaths on Kelly Johnson since it was the Germans who decided to use a zero length takeoff mounting the F-104 on a truck and attaching a JATO rocket.

Re:"Still in use by the US military"

[Martin Blank]

Meanwhile, Spain managed not to lose any in accidents, primarily by using them in the interceptor role for which they were originally designed and not as the fighter-bombers that Lockheed tried to turn them into.

Besides, by the time the F-104G came around, Johnson was working on the U-2 and the SR-71.

u2

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they toured in buses? Anyway, what was Bono bitching about now?

Re:u2

[Anonymous Coward]

Bono and the US military: both puffed up has-beens who'll be mostly dead in 50 years.

Re: u2

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary even states that they were slated for retirement in 2006. WTF!

Re:u2

[Anonymous Coward]

The big blob on the radar screen was his ego.

Duh

[smittyoneeach]

Bono needs a LAXative.

Someone tell the programmers

[cellocgw]

First tell them that airspace is 3D :-), then make sure they stop putting a hard clamp of the type

Airplane_altitude

(Yes, I'm joking. I hope.)

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Apparently, Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center has an exclusive contract with Khan Software Solutions, Inc. to deliver their software.

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[cellocgw]

Well, that'll teach me not to preview, Let's try that again

Airplane_altitude := min(reported_alt , 35 kft)

(note to self: do not use R-language syntax at /. )

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone tell the project managers that they can do simulation testing of the software before deploying it.

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(note to self: do not use R-language syntax at /. )

R!? This is a PG-13 zone, pal!

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey bigmouth: You're being called out (why're you running "forrest"?) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[radarskiy]

How often is an altitude of 60,000 feet not an error in reporting equipment (either altimiter or transponder)?

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke ya bigmouth: Yer bein called out (why ya runnin "forrest"?) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Someone tell the programmers

[cwsumner]

How often is an altitude of 60,000 feet not an error in reporting equipment (either altimiter or transponder)?

Note: "How often" does not matter in computer software, only "can it happen".
If so, it must be handled. If only by popping an error.
The alternative is disaster for you and your company...

Typical Sensationalist Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how, exactly, did "A U-2 spy plane caused a computer glitch..."?

It's likely that the software isn't capable of properly handing the situation, so it's just another bug in the software. Probably the system wasn't adequately tested.

Re: Typical Sensationalist Bullshit

[rickb928]

Worst headline ever. Painfully so.

Height overflow error?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they used signed 16 bit integers for height rather than unsigned 16 bit?

U2

[Anonymous Coward]

I always knew Bono was an asshole.

I thought commercial civilian airspace was off lim

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless we were facing a direct war on US soil?

No

[Anonymous Coward]

7000ft is 7000 ft. Flight levels don't start until 18,000 ft - FL 180 on up until you are passed alpha airspce FL 600.

Must have been running on Windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing else makes any sense.

Re:Must have been running on Windows...

[sumdumass]

Its not like it hasn't happened.before.. A windows update took down several airports before.

Paranoia

[Froggels]

In and of itself this incident is not all that remarkable, but it is an interesting indicator of just how paranoid our government has become.

How is this a new bug?

[Coditor]

U2's have been flying for 50 years. I smell rotten fish. How does collision avoidance software not understand altitude?

Re:How is this a new bug?

[sumdumass]

Perhaps the software development for the current version was outsourced to another country and their developers didn't think anything would fly that high?

Re:How is this a new bug?

[mpe]

U2's have been flying for 50 years. I smell rotten fish. How does collision avoidance software not understand altitude?

If the U2 had an operating transponder the LAX SSR would know it's altitude. If it didn't it would only show up on primary radar, possibly not very well given it's altitude, speed and low RCS.
Maybe some sort of rounding error gave a bogus much lower altitude. I though LAX were ment to have sorted out all issue with possible conflicts between military and civil traffic after Hughes Airwest 706.

Re:How is this a new bug?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely because the software was written to either hide an aircraft with a specific transponder code routing other aircraft around it, or display it as some other kind of aircraft. In any case, the problem was a software bug due to the aircraft either being too high, which I don't believe, or something else.

You have to remember however that there are very high altitude Mach20+ flights that go through their airspace sometimes, so this shouldn't be unheard of. In the old days the USGS could be used to track those flights by following the ground shock of the sonic boom, which shows as a low level earthquake.

It's just really hard to hide things when the software doesn't work right however.

The U2 didn't cause anything.

[NemoinSpace]

This is just another example of STUPID that can easily be fixed by adding a few more lines of shit code and a couple million dollar layers of incompetent beureaucracy. I feel bad for the NSA on this one.

WTF Bono

[RiscIt]

Can't you go anywhere without causing a scene?

Re:Gary Powers her

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking Bono is more damn trouble than he is worth. The attention whore, is there nothing he wont do to keep the band newsworthy?

Stupid software

[Anonymous Coward]

Class A airspace ends at 60,000 feet. The U2 was flying just above 60,000 feet to avoid being in controlled airspace. The computers interpretation of the altitude simply ROLLS at 60,000, so an airplane beaconing 61,000 feet Mode S/C appears to the computers to be flying at 1,000 feet.

Fucking stupid.

Please Update Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from the responses in this thread, there is apparently a band with the same name as the airplane, and people are getting confused.

Could a Slashdot editor please update the summary to add that TFA is talking about the airplane and not the band?

kthxbai

Problem solved: upgrade to Quake engine

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Air traffic controllers at LA center were forced to turn off clipping on Wednesday (cheat code 'idclip') when a high-flying U2 spy plane crossed the control area, sending inclined vertices soaring to 60,000 feet. "This really screwed up the level map," one unnamed controller said, "here we had commercial pilots navigating the prescribed holding tunnels, galloping up and down stairs, jumping to activate the rising platform that takes them into th final approach ramp. So you're a pilot and you have your chainsaw at the ready and all of a sudden you're up against this 60,000 foot wall. We didn't even know what it was then. And it's moving! Even with a thousand cacodemons under your belt, you're not ready for this."

"The 'fake 3D Doom 2 engine' has served American aviation well over the years. It runs on the piston and vacuum tube difference engines still used by the FAA. There are limitations but the math is fast. It's why modern airports tend to sprawl over large areas, though we've had to install higher fences with opaque textures around the runways to hide ground objects on adjacent runways and nearby buildings. When you're ready to touch down the lag can be incredible."

The decision to turn off clipping was necessary but it came with a price. Few pilots had ever experienced no-clip mode, and while a few admitted to a sudden sense of exhilaration as they were liberated from the cruel physics of aviation -- most were anxious, even terrified. When asked why, one reacted with astonishment, almost anger. "Well shit, we're pilots. Avoiding things is just what we do. It's a trained response to avoid things. And it did not help at all when a few assholes broke formation and started to buzz through other airplanes. Every one of us was thinking, they're going to turn clipping on sooner or later, I hope it happens after this jerk gets off my ass."

Others who requested not to be identified had other stories. "We began in formation then matched vector, then merged completely. I mean really merged. The passengers were really startled those from other planes floated into view and entered the cabin. Then someone started laughing, probably in sheer terror, but soon everyone was laughing and it was great fun. Isn't it funny how when something scary doesn't kill you immediately, you want to laugh? Isn't it?" After a moment he laughed suddenly.

Collision alarms were not designed for no-clip and many were sounding constantly and could be heard clearly as pilots spoke over the radio channel. To make matters worse, the effect of no-clip was not confined to aircraft or the facilities. One pilot on approach noted "I almost swerved instinctively to avoid a fire truck sailing past, it must have floated off a ramp in the upper garage but there it was right in the approach path. Then this guy -- a businessman clutching a briefcase -- appeared and stopped in midair. He was flapping around like a butterfly, obviously pleased with himself for sailing through the glass of the upper lounge and out into the field. Then he turned slowly and there was this 200 ton aircraft bearing down on him. Like a stupid squirrel he fled directly down the flight path, glancing back. The look on his face as he passed through the cockpit was priceless."

Landing was extremely difficult during this period. "Impossible, actually. In no-clip you're not really landing on anything, just trying to stop descending when you THINK you're on the ground. Fortunately there was no stall physics in play so we took it slow and I had the co-pilot hanging out the window trying to gauge the moment the wheels reached the ground. The plane in front of me was obviously waiting for touchdown, he just sunk into the tarmac and disappeared. I hear he drifted around under the airport for awhile and finally rose into a parking lot. They had to knock down fences to get it towed back to the field."

Re:Problem solved: upgrade to Quake engine

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Priceless

Re:Problem solved: upgrade to Quake engine

[Badooleoo]

You sir made my day.

Re:Problem solved: upgrade to Quake engine

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a ridiculous limitation of ADS-B. (That you can send out thousands of fake images back.) Obviously, the civilians have just BEEN PLAYING NICE by not crashing the government's systems like this. However, it seems the military ACCIDENTALLY was testing their ADS-B jammer which screwed over the Atari 64 running the whole bloody thing!

Helo dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Flight level 600 and above is Class E and is still controlled airspace, despite no requirement to get FAA clearance to operate there.

Class G is uncontrolled airspace.

Oh, that crazy Bono. . .

[kimvette]

Oh, not that U2. :)

U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[nitehawk214]

More like "Shitty Flight Control Software Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights Out of LAX", and will be patched like any other bug. But that doesn't make for quite an alarmist headline for a linkspam blogwank article like this.

Fuck you, Hugh Pickens, fuck you.

Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[Virtucon]

If you were stuck at an airport trying to fly out or if you were flying into one of the airports affected then it was not just a minor software glitch, it was a major pain in the ass. For decades now the FAA has been trying to put into place a new ATC that will help eliminate these kinds of problems as well as higher more controllers but like with anything "gubment" it takes a long time.

Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[R3d M3rcury]

If you were stuck at an airport trying to fly out or if you were flying into one of the airports affected then it was not just a minor software glitch, it was a major pain in the ass.

Actually, incoming flights were fine.

Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[ShaunC]

The headline came from the Reuters article.

Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[nitehawk214]

Fuck you, Reuters, fuck you.

Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[Virtucon]

No they weren't. This was just LAX

ARRIVING FLIGHTS TO LAX: A total of 27 cancellations, 212 delays, and 27 diversions to other airports

During a ground stop, the FAA has to sort out what is going on because in this case the ATC computers went down. This means controllers shift their attention wholly to inbound flights and order the traffic the old fashioned way which is slow and tedious. That means a lot of circling planes or in case of circling too long or being at the back of the line, getting diverted and sitting it out someplace else, of course you're being held hostage during this time but just remember you have a choice in airlines but not in air traffic control systems.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum...

Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof of one of Murphy's Laws of Computing: "To screw up is human; To screw up royally requires a computer."

the band....nothing changes

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid U2

Maybe someone wrote...

[Anonymous Coward]

  unsigned short altitude;

   

50 year old technology

[tompaulco]

U2, B-52, SR-71, Saturn V, Concorde. All stuff either still in use due to no suitable replacement, or retired with no suitable replacement. It's amazing how brilliant our scientists and engineers used to be 50 years ago. It seems to me that the 50's and 60's was the pinnacle of human achievement.

Re:50 year old technology

[Anonymous Coward]

oh bullshit. The U-2 is in service because it has a fucking 60's era wet film camera that the asshole israelis still insist on for the olive branch mission, to make sure the egyptians aren't going to invade through the Siani. It was replaced a decade ago by global hawk, which is better in about every way except that it offends the air force generals because it doesn't have a "real pilot" and several Lockheed funded senators. Give me a fucking break. B-52? Same problem, except that the global hawk actually snuck out of development, while the bastards keep buying small fleets to keep contractor profits up. Seriously, F-117, B-1 and B-2 all could have replaced the B-52 if we had just fucking bought enough of them, but that, as they say, impacts the bottom line.

Re:50 year old technology

[bussdriver]

1) Industrial military complex == corruption.

2) Technology progress is not linear. New areas are ripe with low hanging fruit and people trying to get there first to get as much as they can. Later, there is less to get and it is harder to reach; doesn't matter if you have smarter people. Another mistake is judging intelligence by quantity discoveries or even the quality of those discoveries; it's largely situational.

3) We only require enough to defend against 1 major power; that is if you are pro-defense and if you are not, you don't even require that much. Nobody else is dumping anything near what we do into newer tech - we act like we are still at war (that is, a major war non-stop since WW2.) Some officials are honest when they keep the old and ignore the new (which is produced under heavy corruption. see F-22)

4) Our new tech is sold or leaked around the world or other nations simply use what they already have, which is plenty effective. Globally we help the whole industry on all sides by providing a high level of unnecessary competition... making things go out of fashion. Thing is, the other buyers won't pay any price and the US will. Result? Everybody else might be lower grade and smaller but they are extremely cost effective by comparison. Afghanistan has won again, we spent more than Russia or Vietnam and they had almost nothing and spend almost nothing while our implosion is accelerated.

Re:50 year old technology

[Hamsterdan]

I've got a soft spot for the Avro CF-105 Arrow (altough there have been replacements) , shame it was cancelled...

Re:50 year old technology

[Anonymous Coward]

All stuff designed with a slide rule and damn good engineering. On the other hand, there was a lot more acceptance of risks that go with boldly going where no one has gone before -- no apologies and no excuses. The SR-71 sounds like a scary plane to herd, but it did stuff that nothing has been able to touch. The term decadent sometime comes to mind. I don't think we could do the Manhatten project, or Hoover dam or Apollo any more -- we have sold our soul to be safe.

Re:50 year old technology

[LWATCDR]

The B-52 is actually 60+ year old tech. It was going out of production when the Saturn V and SR-71 where in development. The Concord is a little later.

Re:50 year old technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, F-117, B-1 and B-2 all could have replaced the B-52 if we had just fucking bought enough of them, but that, as they say, impacts the bottom line.

F-117? Hmm.

B-2 hell yes. The rational part of my mind rails against spending so many billions on aircraft for which we have no clear need. OTOH I was at EAA AirVenture and saw a B-2 flyover, and I thought I heard someone say "''mer'ca, fuck yeah!", and then realized it was me!

Re:50 year old technology

[Anonymous Coward]

The B-52 isn't anything special: a converted Boeing 777-300ER has about the same combat range, an extra 100 knots cruise speed, and could carry twice the bomb load. The lack of a replacement is political, not technological.

The U-2 has a perfectly adequate replacement in the RQ-4 UAV: similar service ceiling, similar cruising speed, twice the loiter time, and if it gets shot down, you don't lose a crew.

Software problem not U-2 problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The U-2 did not shutdown the flights, a software programing error did.

Inaccurate title: cause was faulty software

[schwit1]

The U2 was the trigger. Any aircraft at that altitude and location would have triggered the problem.

It has NOTHING to do with the U-2

[Anonymous Coward]

And EVERYTHING to do with antiquated systems for air trafic control. No investment in infrastructure because all the money is being spent on coddling a bunch of unionized "workers"....

60K feet or...

[Lawrence_Bird]

65536 feet? hmmmm

Re:60K feet or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Signed short was my first thought, but then it wouldn't try to redirect flights. I'm thinking they use bit fields, perhaps less than 16 bits for altitude?

Re:60K feet or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they're using integer feet.

If it was 16-bit signed, then you'd get the following for 33,000 feet:
"This is your robotic captain speaking. We have reached our crusing altitude of -32,536 feet. You are now free to move about the cabin."

(And 15-bit unsigned would say 232 feet.)

I can't believe the news today

[dmomo]

How long must we sing this song?

Could have been the folks up at Beale AFB

[rotorr00t]

Beale AFB, north of SAC fly's U2's.

Re:Could have been the folks up at Beale AFB

[gatkinso]

As does NASA out of the Palmdale DAOF which is much closer to LAX. That said IIRC it takes the ER-2 about 45 minutes and over 200 nm to get to 60,000 feet depending on initial fuel load and climb speed. Usually there wasn't a problem operating over national airspace... they go out over the ocean, climb, and go feet dry over Vandenburg (ish).

(I wrote software for an instrument that went on the ER-2 (the white one, the black one was off doing something classified), and later helped integrate that instrument on said plane.)

Overflow error sure, but not signed versus unsigne

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is probably not unsigned versus signed, since if that were the case, the software would have experienced problems for any plane flying at above 32768 ft, which maybe happens for typical commercial flights over that airport. The software could use unsigned 16 bit integers, but if the U-2 was actually flying at higher than 65536 ft, then that could cause an overflow error.

Controlled Airspace

[ks*nut]

Controlled airspace is just that - by definition you must obtain permission before entering. I remember more than a few years ago hearing the unmistakable sound of a sonic boom. When I called the local airport they new exactly what the aircraft was - an SR-71 on a speed run from LA to Washington D.C. Sure the computer, being just an assemblage of silicon chips, didn't recognize that the U2 was harmless at 60,000 feet (whatever a foot is, you customary unit morons). And oh yeah, bring on the UAVs - what could possibly go wrong?

C, obvs

[Anonymous Coward]

short altitude = 60000;

Exception handling is hard

[radarskiy]

When air traffic control seems an altitude of 60,000 feet. that is almost always an incorrect value. On rare occasions it is a very fancy plane.

If you treat the fancy-plane situation as an incorrect value you create an inconvenience. If you treat the incorrect-value situation an a fancy plane you create a fatality. Which way are you going to bias your exception handling?

We don't know what that TR-1 was carrying.

[Anonymous Coward]

And absent a need to know, we may not know for a very long time.

Oh, so not the Irish rock band?

[Anonymous Coward]

eom

Must be a lie

[mdo]

As per http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... ERAM is implemented in ADA, no chance for a malfunction.

Re:Gary Powers her

[drakaan]

Would have modded that one funny, myself...

Damn Old Dudes

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonno, knock it off!

Sorry, didn't read the article, or the summary . .

this would have been a neat story

[Anonymous Coward]

if the u-2 had been flying 8 miles high. cue the byrds

Dammit Bono!

[jennatalia]

Just when you thought it was safe to fly again!

doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

To the best of my knowledge, when the blackbirds fly, they don't contact civilian air traffic control because their mission are classified. I vote for urban legend.