Slashdot Mirror


Nearly 2,000 Chicago Flights Canceled After Worker Sets Fire At Radar Center

SpzToid sends this news out of Illinois: Nearly 2,000 flights in Chicago have been canceled so far today as federal aviation officials slowly resume operations at O'Hare and Midway airports following a fire that was deliberately set at an FAA radar center, apparently by a disgruntled worker. The center handles high-altitude traffic across parts of the Midwest. Controllers there direct planes through the airspace and either hand off the air traffic to other facilities handling high-altitude traffic or direct the planes to terminal radar facilities, including one in Elgin, which in turn direct planes to and from airport towers.

223 comments

  1. I've heard of burning your bridges, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    but this is way too literal.

  2. Obligatory by DougOtto · · Score: 1, Funny

    You mad bro?

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I... I... I said if they... if they move my desk one more time I'll set the building on fire!

    2. Re:Obligatory by Zynder · · Score: 2

      It must be the geezer in me bitching about his lawn, but since when did anything with bro become obligatory, bro?

    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh.. Yeahh. I'm gonna have to take this stapler and move you into the basement!

    4. Re:Obligatory by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      If it was on the Simpsons, it is.

  3. Disgruntled worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a high-visibility example, but employers should really learn it can be much cheaper to gently gruntle your workers than to deal with the consequences.

    1. Re: Disgruntled worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, what's the cost ratio of one Swingline stapler versus thousands of cancelled flights?

    2. Re: Disgruntled worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir win the internet.

    3. Re: Disgruntled worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, what's the cost ratio of one Swingline stapler versus thousands of cancelled flights?"

      Depends. Were the tickets bought in cash, or with air miles?

    4. Re:Disgruntled worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bosses gently gruntle me daily, but let me tell ya, without some Vaseline, it's not gentle at all.....

    5. Re: Disgruntled worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please.... Don't blame the victim.

  4. Taxing the Congested Skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    2000 flights cancelled because of this one incident clearly shows that there are way too many travellers pouring into the skies above us. Corporations should be taxed for unneccessary travel forced on employees. The rest of you should stay home more often and watch a movie with your mate.

    1. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your solution is "don't travel so much?" With all due respect, go fuck yourself. We already pay fees on airline tickets to pay for things like this. If the system cannot handle the current load, then the system needs to be upgraded.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is fast decimating fossil fuel supplies because of shortsighted people who don't give a shit like yourself, and you can take a hike. Airlines are in it for the short term profits not giving a shit either. What do you have that would help besides telling someone else to go fuck themselves with all due respect?

      Guess who won't get the fuel to run the generators to keep their freezers running and their power up when the grid goes down inevitably? Running water will become a faint memory without pumps. Travel on this scale won't be possible either. You will no doubt see restrictions on it soon. If war escalates, you will see this world clamp down on civilian travel. One day you'll remember you told an anonymous person to go fuck themself on slashdot and got 5mod points LOL, when that person was actually trying to fathom how 2000 flights from a single airport in half a day had to be cancelled because of a single incident where a fire in a bathroom was started, and that in itself is a wonder that their was that much incindiary material available in an airport control tower bathroom in the first place. People like you are plenty. Have some frequent flyer vouchers.. NOT

    3. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that the airlines switched from having a few flights a day between point a and point b using medium sized or large aircraft to having more flights per day using smaller aircraft.
      Reverse that and you wont have anywhere near as much of a problem (especially if the airlines have an incentive to use larger planes as demand grows rather than adding more flights)

    4. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      You do realize that 50 to 60 percent of an airline ticket are taxes and airport fees?

      Yeah....that's not true.

    5. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      These are not the trollsocks you want...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    6. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      depends on how transparent the breakdown is... I do recall some airfares that were pretty close to 50/50 fare/taxes+fees, and I certainly have long distance phone bills that clearly show pennies worth of calls and dollars worth of "fees" that are carefully described as "not taxes".

      So, while everything isn't "taxes", they are larger than you think, but the "profit" part is generally pretty small. For example, the current "profit margin" for American Airlines is negative That can't be good...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    7. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It most certainly is true for short flights to liberal cities. For my flight to SFO this afternoon, over half of the ticket price are those ridiculous Republican-created fees. They hate the poor and are doing every thing they can to keep us from traveling. They are shoving fees down our throats, and the more liberal areas are allowing them to do this because air travel is so bad for the environment. Of course that is the way of the Republicans so of course they, for example with my flight last week, cause my flight to Portland to cost almost twice as much because they want to keep minorities off of planes.

      Translation: blah blah blah blah blah blah republikkkans r bad blah blah blah....

      Response: gr8 b8 m8, I rate 8/8.
      Now go grab a razor & draw a bath.

    8. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      travel forced on employees

      I'm a frequent business traveller. I appreciate getting out of the office and getting in front of customers and other users.

    9. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    10. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      ... If the system cannot handle the current load, then the system needs to be upgraded.

      The system handles the current load just fine. They just haven't gone to the expense of making it doubly redundant so when a major facility goes down it causes problems. Once ADSB becomes mandatory in 2020 this will be less of an issue for a radar facility like this since each airplane will be broadcasting it's position and vector to every other ADSB equipped airplane and they won't need ground based radar to maintain separation.

    11. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I don't know about commericial airlines, but I know that when I was checking private jets, the airline fees and taxes was much more than 50% of the cost. It was closer to 80-90%.

    12. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that customer keep demanding the flights. We've tried. You all will pay more to leave 10 minutes earlier. I can give the money to the competition or give you a flight that leaves ten mintues earlier. I'm not dumb; if you want to buy the tickets and I'm making money, I'll sell you the tickets and generate the flight.

      That being said,t he asshat who tried to kill my employees and passengers should be tried and executed. While the ATC system is resilliant, deliberately attempting to kill thousands of people should be a capital crime.

    13. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by jbengt · · Score: 1

      You do realize that most of the taxes and fees on your airline ticket go to things like building, maintaining, and staffing airports, traffic control centers, etc? So these are legitimate expenses of running an airline that would be built into the cost of a ticket one way or another.

    14. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The complaint is probably more about fossil fuel consumption and associated pollution. That's a lot of crap being spewed into the air.

      He's still a jackass, though.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Taxing the Congested Skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right back at you. Suck it up dick. Its also about being crammed into an aluminum tube like cattle and fed peanuts and charged way too much.

    16. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      There's probably a good reason for that. AA simply refuses to take my money, and on the occasions that they do, they don't fly.

      In the last 18 months, I've booked 3 flights with AA to/from various parts of the world, however I have flown with them precisely zero times in that same time period. I have, however, booked and flown on numerous other routes with numerous other airlines without any issues, so I've pretty much given up on even trying AA.

      From what I hear, I'm not missing out though... so fuck 'em.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    17. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I just bought return tickets to England. $293 flight, $768 taxes and fees. So yeah...

    18. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Some of them are. Most? I'd like to see a breakdown of that. I recall reading that TSA fees alone recently went up double digits of $ and since I consider the TSA not to be legitimate in the first place, that's a good place to start.

    19. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That definition of profit comes after salaries and bonuses are paid out.
      If you want to increase the profitability, they can easily cut executive pay to something more modest for a middle-class lifestyle.

    20. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Sick brag.

    21. Re: Taxing the Congested Skies by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Wasn't meant as a "brag", but it's the only numbers I had access to. For example, a 4-seater jet from my local airport to one that I fly to most:
      Source Airport Fee $4,336.35 ($956 Fuel, $31.44 Landing, $157.60 "other", $22.31 parking, $3,169 reposition)
      Dest Airport Fee $4,662.04 ($269 Fuel, $6.26 GPU, $12.29 landing, $37.53 "other", $8.34 parking, $4328 reposition)
      Flight Rate $9,029.13
      Fed Excise Tax $1,461.69

      54% in airport fees and taxes.

  5. Smart move moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So first he gets fired and then in his brilliance he decides to do something stupid and will hopefully go to jail. Nice job prospects for him after that.

    1. Re:Smart move moron by jklovanc · · Score: 0

      Considered that the article refers to him as a "worker" and not an "ex-employee" he may not have even been fired yet. If he wasn't fired before he definitely will be now and no unemployment benefits as it is termination for cause.

    2. Re:Smart move moron by rcamans · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apparently you did nod read the lead. He fired them.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    3. Re:Smart move moron by Tailhook · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      He shouldn't have too much trouble finding work. Alton Nolen, the guy that beheaded a co-worker in Oklahoma this morning in another incident that is also Not Terrorism had only been released from prison a year ago:

      According to the state corrections department, Nolen was convicted in January 2011 of multiple felony drug offenses, assault and battery on a police officer and escape from detention. He was released from prison in March 2013. Neither woman had any relationship with Nolen.

      This guy will plead to criminal mischief or something, do 18 months and return to commit more non-terrorist crimes.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:Smart move moron by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Considered that the article refers to him as a "worker" and not an "ex-employee" he may not have even been fired yet. If he wasn't fired before he definitely will be now and no unemployment benefits as it is termination for cause.

      Well, he does have SOME benefits. He'd get free room and board and meals for a number of years now.

    5. Re:Smart move moron by plopez · · Score: 1

      It also comes with a free gym membership where he can meet new and interesting people.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re: Smart move moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      . . . and unlimited dates!

    7. Re: Smart move moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's likely facing terrorism charges too.

    8. Re:Smart move moron by kefkahax · · Score: 1

      He was transferred to Hawaii. I can think of few reasons to not want to leave the midwest for Hawaii (or, basically, anywhere).

    9. Re:Smart move moron by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Apparently he tried (unsuccessfully, so far) to commit suicide, so job prospects were probably not part of his agenda.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:Smart move moron by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Troll

      He shouldn't have too much trouble finding work. Alton Nolen, the guy that beheaded a co-worker in Oklahoma this morning in another incident that is also Not Terrorism had only been released from prison a year ago:

      And I am sure our wonderful District Attorney Prater is already on his way to file life in prison charges against the owner of the company who saved countless lives by shooting and killing this maniac. But that's modern liberal life in Oklahoma. Kill a gun wielding thief, go to jail for life. Kill a couple of unarmed innocents, go to jail for maybe 10 years, out in 5.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Smart move moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He got a chance to make his point. Not many people get to do that.

    12. Re: Smart move moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you get back home before curfew everyday.

    13. Re:Smart move moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, the workers fire the emper..employer.

    14. Re:Smart move moron by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the Troll mod, Prater.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Smart move moron by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I'm sure Prater comes on, gives himself a few modpoints, and personally mods you down.

      More likely you got downmodded for half-offtopic political ranting.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  6. FTFA by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Police said the man is a contractor, not an air traffic controller or FAA manager. ";We understand that this is a local issue with a contract employee and nothing else,"; Aurora Police Chief Gregory Thomas told reporters. ";There is no terrorist act."

    Thank Allah!

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:FTFA by ruir · · Score: 1

      Corporate doublespeak and half truths. So it means they were cheating out the poor sod of security on the job, and probably means, I suppose, they have got "permanent"/consultant contractors, which is say, quite smart for a job of this importance. We also have got this scam running him, and people hate it. Mostly used by the call centre, cleaning crew, IT people, and nurse industry to screw then over.

    2. Re:FTFA by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Why do I get the sudden impression that at least 50% of slashdot comments are created by bots?

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    3. Re:FTFA by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Ssshhh.

      Slashdot is really a huge covert communications channel, I'm sure. You've seen the nonsense AC posts? I'm pretty sure those are coded messages :P

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:FTFA by BringsApples · · Score: 0

      Whoa, weird! My best friend's name is X0563512!

      ...if you know what I mean 8^o

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  7. what a difference a day makes by bugs2squash · · Score: 0

    So, in the space of an hour this person goes from being trusted enough to control the safety of 1000s of air passengers to not being trustworthy with a box of matches. Do we not monitor people in these positions better ?

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:what a difference a day makes by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Police said the man is a contractor, not an air traffic controller or FAA manager.

      Reading is hard.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:what a difference a day makes by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      If he was hired to mow the lawn he would have access to the site. It's pretty hard to stop someone from taking a can of gasoline and tossing it over a fence (or some such).

    3. Re:what a difference a day makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in the space of an hour this person goes from being trusted enough to control the safety of 1000s of air passengers to not being trustworthy with a box of matches. Do we not monitor people in these positions better ?

      What level of monitoring could reveal what people are thinking?

      If you'd "snapped," wouldn't you try to hide it, until the apeshitting commenced? That's just common-sense tactics. You don't want anyone to know what's about to happen, until you pull the first weapon out of the the duffel bag. Until then, it's all smiles.

    4. Re:what a difference a day makes by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:what a difference a day makes by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is exactly why lots of people wonder about the intelligence of hiring on the lowest bidder to clean out and stock commercial aircraft. You know, those people who scrunch down everywhere in the cabin with no supervision. Who load baggage in the hold after the TSA 'screens' it. Who deliver boxes and boxes of stuff to all manner of aircraft.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:what a difference a day makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has actually been a fair bit of interesting research into work place violence.

      The general consensus though is that people rarely "just snap". There are signs long before someone comes to the office with a chainsaw.

      The way to mitigate this kinda thing is awareness, and having a well known infrastructure in place for people to report it without feeling like a narc.

      Way easier said than done obviously, and no one wants to call some manager and report that Bill has been cutting out of work early a lot, not talking to anyone, and seems really pissed off about everything lately, especially because you can't really tell the difference between someone who is having a shitty day/week/month and someone who is googling "what exactly is in a Molotov cocktail".

    7. Re:what a difference a day makes by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The people you're talking about go through a ton of screening before being allowed onto an aircraft. They couldn't just bring a bomb in from their car.

    8. Re:what a difference a day makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly why lots of people wonder about the intelligence of hiring on the lowest bidder to clean out and stock commercial aircraft.

      So I guess in your world the employees at McDonalds will all have TS clearances?

      Pay has nothing to do with integrity, or even going nuts some days.

      Look, every time something like this happens, people like you cry out for "This Must Never Happen Again!", and we must enact something to make sure This Will Never Happen Again!"

      Problem is, your bond the whole world approach simply won't work, and might make things worse. There are certain regions of the world where lopping off people's heads and digging holes, popping a person in and throwing rocks at them until they die is standard procedure for minescule infractions. They just happen to be the most lawless places on earth.

      There is a connection.

    9. Re:what a difference a day makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and no one wants to call some manager and report that Bill has been cutting out of work early a lot, not talking to anyone, and seems really pissed off about everything lately,

      So we'e supposed to report all our managers for what they do every day?

    10. Re:what a difference a day makes by spitzak · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, everybody should carry matches! They would surely have stopped this maniac that way! It's the damn gubiment saying we can't carry matches...

    11. Re:what a difference a day makes by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      "...The people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. [pause] Do not fuck with us."

      --Tyler Durden

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    12. Re:what a difference a day makes by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The people you're talking about go through a ton of screening before being allowed onto an aircraft.

      As someone who works at an airport, no, they don't.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    13. Re:what a difference a day makes by jbengt · · Score: 1

      The people you're talking about go through a ton of screening before being allowed onto an aircraft.

      If by "a ton of screening" you mean a fingerprint check and signing a statement saying you haven't been convicted of felonies like murder, arson, & hijacking in the last ten years, then yeah, a ton of screening.

    14. Re:what a difference a day makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you a short anecdote.

      One day, I attended my local ham radio club. We used some spare hangar space provided by the local experimental aviation group. We literally drove off the road and onto the airport - one of the access gates (eg not the passenger terminal area) was opened with a helpful sign saying "#### Meeting."

      We had completely unsupervised access to the tarmac from a public road.

      Let that sink in for a bit. Completely unchecked and unverified people could drive their cars right onto the tarmac for a period of several hours. No guards, no surveillance.

    15. Re:what a difference a day makes by mpe · · Score: 1

      That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.

      Cleaners and janitors are a known known issue with physical security. So this is unlikely to work with the likes of the NSA :)

  8. Who knew Milton Waddams worked at the airport? by JoeyRox · · Score: 2
  9. dehumanization in action: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Work your ass off, indentured slave, no one gives a shit about you, you're fucking replaceable, and if you ever even dare to think for yourself, you're going straight to prison where you belong, you worthless little terrorist.

    Is it any wonder why there are disgruntled workers?

    1. Re:dehumanization in action: by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Alternate view;
      You come in late, leave early and do as little as possible while you are here. When someone calls you on it you try to burn the place down. Keep up the good work.
      Is there any wonder there are disgruntled employers?

    2. Re:dehumanization in action: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a optimistic motto
      If you ever late for today you could say you early for tomorrow
      Most 9 to 5's are hard
      Cause the description in the job ain't no picnic in the park
      People get hired
      Drink coffee to stay wired
      So they don't get tired, sleep late, and get fired

      You came in late, you already ate,
      Nowww, you wanna take a lunch break!? ? !

      Ay, yo bust it, ain't no need to discuss it
      Just take this job and shove it, right between your buttocks

      Take this job and shove it
      I ain't workin here no more

    3. Re: dehumanization in action: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of those two things, which do you think is more common in our capitalist utopia?

    4. Re:dehumanization in action: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      And then you've got folks like David Burk, who for those who don't remember got fired for stealing (not his first time either), and then frustrated by the fairness of it all took down a flight with the guy who fired him on board (which he shot first anyway). It wasn't even a case of the plane crashing as a side effect... he purposefully shot the pilots then pushed the control stick so it would nose dive. All to get revenge on the man who fired him for stealing...

      Yes, companies shit on people, but sometimes people deserve to get fired.

    5. Re:dehumanization in action: by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But which do you think is more common?

      Mind you, doing it in a way so easily traceable is a sign of being so upset that you count as crazy, but there's often a reason (or more than one) that people go crazy.

      FWIW, "going crazy" in ways analogous to this is a part of our evolutionary toolkit for dealing with abusive management. It doesn't work as well in modern society, as those in control have learned to isolate themselves from the possibility of retribution, but in earlier times reactions analogous to this would lead to the abused person being killed, and the abuser being injured, often permanently. Which would make it much easier for his successor to take him down. The math justifying this is too complex for me to follow, but those who have worked it out say "it's probably right". It does assume that most of our evolution happened in small groups of reasonably closely related individuals, but that seems a quite reasonable assumption.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re: dehumanization in action: by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Overall I don't know and neither do you because there are no real numbers. There are plenty of example of workers slacking off. Just go to any road construction site.

    7. Re:dehumanization in action: by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Is there any wonder there are disgruntled employers?

      Disgruntled employers?? Shit like this pisses off everyone. It causes panic among the people that get to enact new laws that fuck over the rest of us, for our protection!

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  10. Ih the worker's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2,000 cancellations is only 50 more than usual for O'Hare. What a fucking shithole of an airport.

  11. In light of recent IS/ISIS/ISIL events... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be related to those Islamic groups? Just like Alton Nolen situation?

  12. Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The FAA had no backup. SHOCKER

    1. Re:Big Goverment no backup by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      They have a backup for the hardware but when the building had to be cleared the controllers had to leave their stations. Sorry but it is not feasible to have a complete crew sitting around in another complete office just in case something goes wrong.

    2. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      Is it though feasible to set up the the system so those controllers can go home, login to a VPN and have a nation wide system that they can load their area into and continue work?

      Reroute the data to a cloud service have the PCs remote into virtual workstations and have the radio fed through the same system. Small amount of latency, but should not be an issue. Hell. Build out the whole system on the same frame work and distribute the hell out of the workloads.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Wookact · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want them to land planes from home? LOL That has to be the silliest thing I have heard all week.

    4. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it though feasible to set up the the system so those controllers can go home, login to a VPN

      How will the manager walk around the workplace with a mug of coffee while everyone else is working, if there isn't a workplace to walk around in?

    5. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the good guys can connect to the nationwide Air Traffic Control system across the internet, then - so can the bad guys.
      Except there are a lot more bad guys, with more time on their hands, and no real risk if their experiments in directing planes into buildings or one another don't work the first few hundred times.

      As one who prefers planes directed by ATC rather than Russian hackers, Chinese military, or wing-nut muslim terrorists, I vote we leave the ATC network exactly where it is.

      -VK

    6. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Sure they did... they've got backup airspace all over the US.

    7. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reroute the data to a cloud service

      *Kshshshsh* This is Captain Speaking speaking, I've illuminated the fasten seatbelts icon because we're out of fuel and Amazon is busy rebooting ATC's EC2 instance to fix a Xen bug. Please remain calm, our flight attendants will be distributing those little bottles of liquor so you can get blitzed while you try to comprehend the absolute stupidity that led ORD to place mission critical systems involving the lives of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis on commodity Internet bullshit.

    8. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Are you under the impression the controllers land airplanes?

    9. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I want to wreak havoc, all I have to do is to buy a cheap wrench to force the employee to give me his password?

    10. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want them to land planes from home? LOL That has to be the silliest thing I have heard all week.

      Why?

      While the tower may need to see what's going on the runways and tarmac, TRACON and ARTCCs guide people via radar staring at a screen. Theoretically you could hook people up with enough screens at a home office.

    11. Re:Big Goverment no backup by sabri · · Score: 1

      Reroute the data to a cloud service have the PCs remote into virtual workstations and have the radio fed through the same system.

      Imagine making the call to your HOA: "do you mind if I install a primary and secondary radar system on the rooftop of the apartment building? Yeah, I need that for work. Ok, thanks, bye"

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    12. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you under the impression that every home internet connection has an SLA? I really wouldn't want to be in the air with an emergency while my controller was staring at "Connection reset by peer".

    13. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      And even if the system is secured (hah), all it takes is some malware on a controllers home computer (or if there is a work issued one, for one of them to let their kid install limewire (or whatever the current virus bag is) on it.

    14. Re:Big Goverment no backup by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Is it though feasible to set up the the system so those controllers can go home, login to a VPN and have a nation wide system that they can load their area into and continue work?

      And then when some Chinese hacker breaks in and redirects every plane in the country to Newark, you'll be bitching about the stupidity of connecting the air traffic control system to the Internet.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    15. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's going to happen when the contractor next door cuts the cable to Joe Traffic Controller's home, and he drops an entire sector full of planes, with no notice or warning?

    16. Re:Big Goverment no backup by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You fail-over to another controller, obviously.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They have a backup for the hardware but when the building had to be cleared the controllers had to leave their stations. Sorry but it is not feasible to have a complete crew sitting around in another complete office just in case something goes wrong.

      No, but it is feasible to have fire breaks that make it unnecessary to evacuate all of the controllers in the event of a fire. Check out the way they do it in the UK counterpart: http://www.bristolairfield.co.uk/london_control.php

      Has 1000 smoke detectors and 500 manual fire alarm call points
      Is divided into compartments separated by walls giving two hours fire resistance.

      Of course that UK centre's building is probably several decades newer than the building(s) were in the US.

    18. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's going to happen when the contractor next door cuts the cable to Joe Traffic Controller's home, and he drops an entire sector full of planes, with no notice or warning?

      Pretty much the same thing that happened 7 years ago when the Memphis center lost use of all of their radio frequencies http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3627623/?threadid=3627623&searchid=3628627&s=wukka

    19. Re:Big Goverment no backup by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Reroute the data to a cloud service

      Oh what fun the hackers would have!

      Oh I get it, cloud service ...planes ...the sky ...funny.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    20. Re:Big Goverment no backup by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      No, but they do sometimes make confirmations visually. Now by web-cam? Sorry but I don't want the ATC turned into the University of Phoenix.

    21. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      That would be tower controllers. This fire was in a windowless building.

    22. Re:Big Goverment no backup by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You'd think they could just distribute the load a little bit, instead of cramming everyone and every function into one place.

      Building A goes down, you can operate at reduced capacity by carrying on with Building B.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    23. Re:Big Goverment no backup by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The way air traffic control works is responsibility for each aircraft is handed off from center to center as the move between area. The issue is the controllers have to work together to ensure safety and separation. If you "distribute the load" to different buildings you decrease communication and therefore decrease safety. When you are dealing with aircraft going hundreds of miles an hour you can not wait a couple of minutes for a question to be answered.

    24. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      Not all cloud services are run by outside companies.

      You can (and should in this case) run your own private cloud for something like this.

      I know it is all the rage to be an ass. You fail at it though and still look like an ass.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    25. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Talderas · · Score: 1

      All cloud services are run by outside companies. That's what makes them cloud services. The cloud is everything you don't have direct control over.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    26. Re:Big Goverment no backup by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Yes I want the people tasked with keeping planes from hitting each other sitting in their recliner fighting sleep cause they are overworked. I want them to be susceptible to loosing Internet in their apartment because the cable man is an idiot and cant hook up the new neighbor properly. I want them to be susceptible to usage caps and the prime time netflix slow down that happens every night. I want them to be distracted by kids making noise in the parking lot and the lawn care guys mowing outside their window.

      I just think working from hoe for them is a super keen idea!!

      Protip: Think things through some huh?

  13. Scorpion ot the rescue! by macraig · · Score: 2, Informative

    So did they send in the new Scorpion team to save the day?

    1. Re:Scorpion ot the rescue! by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      So did they send in the new Scorpion team to save the day?

      They tried, but were having trouble finding a 458 that could transform into a 360 and back in the blink of an eye.

      (The dash they flash to while accelerating was a Ferrari 360, not the 458 he was driving)

    2. Re:Scorpion ot the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ferrari copyrighted the 458 dash look and feel, and would not license it to CBS. Damn copyright laws. (Since the outside of the 458 is visible from the street, and in public view, it is considered in the public domain.)

  14. No redundancy? by billrp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So there's no provision for having the work done at this center be taken up at other centers? The news reports say radar center, but can't the data be routed elsewhere? What it there were a much larger fire that took down the facility for months? Does that mean Chicago becomes a no-fly zone?

    1. Re:No redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But redundancy costs money!

      Seriously. For military flights? Hell yes, they have redundancies. For civilian flights? The government won't force people to pay for it (aka. RAISE TAXES) so you can be goddamn sure the private sector won't either.

    2. Re:No redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The work can be moved, but not instantaneously (there is no spare team standing by for a complete tracon outage. Such facilities are nominally well provisioned for redundency/recovery of common failures, but an insider attack is a difficult one to protect against. 24 should have shown us that even Jack Bauer can be caught off guard by the insider attack.

    3. Re:No redundancy? by jfmiller · · Score: 2

      Press reports are still very sketchy, but it seems like the suspect was in charge of maintaining the very systems that allow such transfers of control and that he intentionally destroyed key connections between radar and radio installations and the Air Traffic Control system. Why this building contained single points of failure is something I'm sure the NTSB report will focus heavily on, but at some point a connection has to exist between the physical hardware that track aircraft and transmits radio instructions and the network routes that information. The report that he had "ripped up carpet and cut cables" reads to me like someone who knew where to find one of these critical single points of failure.

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    4. Re:No redundancy? by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

      Unless somebody has changed the rules since I last looked, center handles all enroute IFR (instrument flight) traffic in a larger area, not just that above 10,000 feet. There are significant numbers of remoted radio transmitters and receivers so center can talk to all the aircraft over a wide area. Relocating the whole thing to another area doesn't just mean re-routing the radar replies, and coming up with another fully manned center, it means rerouting the audio and control to all those transmitters and receivers. It's not a trivial job at all.
      To give an example of just how far away center can be, I live in far west Texas, about 70 miles from the Mexican border. When I call up center, I'm talking to people in a room in Albuquerque, NM. I believe their remote transmitter for this area may be in Ft. Stockton, TX, about 70 miles from here.
      A nasty problem it is, and quite possibly one with no affordable solution.

  15. RTFA by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    No

  16. Really, a single oint of failure? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would think that the major hubs in the US didn't operate with this poor of a practice. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted. This is not something you can hide when it's exposed. What I find more surprising is that with this big of a deficiency, they didn't go with the "terrorist" card in order to deflect some of the backlash this should cause.

    I wonder how many other airports are using a system with similar vulnerability.

    I don't see this as just a problem with some guy who obviously did something wrong. Seems like lighting or other natural events could have the same impact.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by plover · · Score: 2

      This is an AIR traffic control problem, and is not localized to O'Hare airport. They manage all the flights over the entire region. I'm sure they will extend the operations to the surrounding regional centers to make up for the loss, but due to the sheer volume of traffic the Aurora center used to handle, the other centers will need to add a lot of extra staff to deal with it.

      I suspect they are temporarily operating with local staff called in for the emergency, but that's not sustainable. They'll likely need to redistribute the Aurora staff to the other centers. It will take several hours for them to all travel to their new assignments. It takes about six hours to drive from the Aurora center to the Farmington center near Minneapolis, and that's not counting going home and packing for an extended stay.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Xipher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Redundancy costs money, and people don't like spending more money. To save cost you cut redundancy.

      --
      I don't know everything.
    3. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      . It takes about six hours to drive from the Aurora center to the Farmington center near Minneapolis, and that's not counting going home and packing for an extended stay.

      Drive? Why would they drive that far? It's much quicker to fly.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I would think that the major hubs in the US didn't operate with this poor of a practice. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted.

      Huh? What "poor of a practice"? Evacuating a building that is on fire? My God! How stupid can that be? Leave them in the building and let them burn, just as long as no flights are delayed.

      I wonder how many other airports are using a system with similar vulnerability.

      You mean a "system" where people work in buildings where there could be a fire? I think I can answer this one: ALL of them.

      Seems like lighting or other natural events could have the same impact.

      Buildings are rarely evacuated because of lighting. The centers are usually operated at reduced lighting levels anyway. They are also not usually evacuated because of lightning, and while a lightning strike can take out commercial power, the backups will come online quickly.

      Can "natural events" take out a radio transmitter? Of course. That's why there are backups for those, too.

      Now, what happens when a nutter cuts the cable going out of the building, or sets it afire? Yeah, it has a serious impact.

      This isn't a glaring example of government mismanagement. Dial it back a few notches, ok?

    5. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on. They lost a bunch of their controller capacity and decided – rightfully – to suspend flights rather than risk more serious failures. Planes didn't run in to each other, and nobody died. You might as well be the person in the back yelling "WHY AREN'T WE TAKING OFF" after a blown tire and abort near V1.

    6. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      . It takes about six hours to drive from the Aurora center to the Farmington center near Minneapolis, and that's not counting going home and packing for an extended stay.

      Drive? Why would they drive that far? It's much quicker to fly.

      Well, duuh. All the planes are grounded. How are they supposed to fly? ..... ...or was that a big wooosh?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    7. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, duuh. All the planes are grounded. How are they supposed to fly? ..... ...or was that a big wooosh?

      Barring inclement weather, if all the commercial planes are grounded so that traffic is not an issue, it should be well possible to land planes visually for a purpose like bringing in the experts to fix the situation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Barring inclement weather,

      Not even barring inclement weather. The navigation aids were not impacted by this, only center. Departure and approach were still functional, too. Get an IFR clearance and fly it. You don't have to talk to a center to do that.

    9. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by plover · · Score: 1

      The Mythbusters demonstrated it's plausible that driving distances less than 400 miles is faster than flying.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It's almost exactly a 400 mile journey that takes 6 hours.

      https://www.google.com/maps/di...

      And if you're hauling a month's worth of stuff, or a family, you might not want to stuff it in a single checked bag.

      --
      John
    10. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      ...or was that a big wooosh?

      No, just a joke. :^)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    11. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Depends on the cost.

      If an extra building would add $1 to each ticket-- might be worth it.

      But if it adds $20 to every ticket and it happens once per 20 years.. probably not worth it.

      No good information in this case to make a decision on.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Not even barring inclement weather. The navigation aids were not impacted by this, only center. Departure and approach were still functional, too. Get an IFR clearance and fly it. You don't have to talk to a center to do that.

      It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan. If the flight is effectivly a charter by the FAA then that isn't likely to happen.

    13. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Now, what happens when a nutter cuts the cable going out of the building, or sets it afire? Yeah, it has a serious impact.

      Where there is malicious action that can easily circumvent "redundancy". Especially where this involves "insiders" who can know which parts of systems are the least redundant. Since redundant systems are generally intended to be so against random damage.

    14. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by mpe · · Score: 1

      You might as well be the person in the back yelling "WHY AREN'T WE TAKING OFF" after a blown tire and abort near V1.

      Or even the one in the back of the plane behind the one now stuck half way down the runway until all the wheels on the MLG are changed.

    15. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      They could always land at Meig's. Oh wait... F'ing Daley.

    16. Re:Really, a single oint of failure? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan.

      The FAA cannot reject your flight plan. The clearance they give you may not match what you ask for, but they'll give you something. And, as you continued, you'll definitely get something if you are an FAA-operated aircraft transporting FAA personnel to repair an out-of-service FAA facility.

  17. Could be worse by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In one workplace in Ohio a coworker chopped off someone's head after being fired.

    Fire is the least of your worries

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good edged weapon never gets dull.

    2. Re:Could be worse by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      that was Oklahoma, not Ohio you Insensitive Clod!

    3. Re:Could be worse by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Lest we forget Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, which saw a plane load of people killed because some guy didn't like that they got fired for stealing money (which he did, he was caught on camera).

    4. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did someone say Obama? This is all his fault, right?

  18. what a difference a day makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    its obvious that we need to regulate matches. When one person can just walk into a store buy a pack of matches and threaten 1000 innocent airplanes we have an epidemic in the USA, Other countries have sensical match control laws. It is about time the USA got on board too.

    If we could have outlawed matches this tragedy could have been avoided. Yes the problem with the USA is there aren't enough common sense laws.

  19. Re:Really, a single oink of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Redundancy is really expensive, bro. How will management pay for their golf outings if you spend the budget on actual work?

  20. Obligitory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I could set the building on fire... could I have back my stapler?

  21. Striking air traffic controllers fired by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember when Ronald Reagan fired all of the air traffic controllers because they had the nerve to form a union and strike for better pay? Now the air traffic controllers work on obsolete equipment, get paid very little, have a stressful job with long hours, oh and are the only people stopping planes from running into eachother. I am almost amazed no one has gone crazy before now.

    1. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when Bill Clinton got himself fired, but he kept coming in to work anyway, because he still had important work to do? Now there was a President with balls of steel.

    2. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remember when Ronald Reagan fired all of the air traffic controllers because they had the nerve to form a union and strike for better pay?

      You mean, when they conspired to cripple the nation's air-transportation — holding the rest of us hostage? Imagine, Verizon turning off all telephones to demand lower taxes — a public employee has an even stronger monopoly power...

      Now the air traffic controllers work on obsolete equipment, get paid very little, have a stressful job with long hours

      That must all be Reagan's fault, right, 30 years later...

      I am almost amazed no one has gone crazy before now.

      Maybe, it just is not quite as bad as you are describing?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I've mentioned a few times here on /. that people blame the poor quality of air travel on Reagan firing the ATCs 30 years ago. Some don't believe me. Some think it's only the Deregulation that people blame.

      Thank you for showing us that there are people who, after three decades, still blame him for firing people who refused to work.

      And with that low enough of a UID, it isn't like you're a newbie here.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'll substantiate that.

    5. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      oh and are the only people stopping planes from running into eachother.

      Believe it or not, there are other people who stop planes from running into "each other". They're called "pilots". Actual human beings who control the airplanes and where they go.

      Of course they aren't perfect at keeping airplanes from running into each other. They're humans. (And computers aren't perfect at it either.) Just like the ATC humans aren't perfect at keeping minimum separation.

    6. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am almost amazed no one has gone crazy before now.

      Well, there's always alcoholism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See and avoid doesn't work so well when you're in the clouds. Also, you might not see an aircraft coming at you until it's too late. The combined speed of two aircraft approaching dead-on can be well over 1000 mph, and big planes can't turn too quickly. So, yeah, the OP was right. In many (most?) situations, controllers are the only people stopping planes from running into each other.

    8. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Like all other federal employees, the FAA ATC staff are legally barred from going on strike.

    9. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      See and avoid doesn't work so well when you're in the clouds.

      No, but commercial aircraft in high traffic areas tend to have TCAS and similar to alert them to traffic, and if on a proper clearance won't run into anyone anyway.

      Also, you might not see an aircraft coming at you until it's too late.

      Like I said, they are humans in the cockpit, and their failure to be perfect at see-and-avoid doesn't mean ATC is the only person keeping them apart.

      So, yeah, the OP was right.

      No, he was wrong. The pilots are also there to keep planes from running into each other. If you are going to discount their presence because they are imperfect at it and think only ATC has that job, then you better discount ATC as well because they are not perfect, either.

      In many (most?) situations, controllers are the only people stopping planes from running into each other.

      Bullshit.

    10. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when Ronald Reagan fired all of the air traffic controllers because they had the nerve to form a union and strike for better pay?

      You mean the air traffic controllers who had a no strike clause in their contracts?

      Yeah, that was Reagan's fault.

    11. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      In many (most?) situations, controllers are the only people stopping planes from running into each other.

      Bullshit.

      Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    12. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mpe · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, there are other people who stop planes from running into "each other". They're called "pilots". Actual human beings who control the airplanes and where they go.

      They also tend to have a direct personal interest in planes not colliding too. They are also not obliged to follow ATC either. There are rules specifically indicating that if ATC and TCAS are in conflict to follow TCAS. Though a pilot might have to answer to all sorts of people afterwards if they said "unable" without a good reason.

    13. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mpe · · Score: 1

      No, but commercial aircraft in high traffic areas tend to have TCAS and similar to alert them to traffic, and if on a proper clearance won't run into anyone anyway.

      IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.

    14. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mpe · · Score: 1

      Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".

      This fiction. Mythbusters managed to inadvertantly "bust" the ending too.

    15. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must all be Reagan's fault, right, 30 years later...

      Especially since the entire system has been upgraded at least twice since then.

    16. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, the big, bad UNION . I don't defend them all (police unions are the biggest sacks of unionized assholes in the world) but let's take your Verizon example and switch it up a bit.

      Boeing and Microsoft have or are threatening Washington state. Both are doing it for profit for the companies and directly against the interest of their own employees. What about the collusion among tech companies to not hire each other's employees? Why devalue and demonize workers so much? Demand higher standards, absolutely, but understand that sometimes we need to to fight back rather than fighting each other for the scraps.

    17. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      You mean, when they conspired to cripple the nation's air-transportation — holding the rest of us hostage? Imagine, Verizon turning off all telephones to demand lower taxes — a public employee has an even stronger monopoly power...

      That's how strikes work - they cripple their industry as an extreme resort for bargaining purposes. You can make it sound very scary for other situations too, like the time the fast-food workers conspired to cripple the nation's fast-food industry - holding the rest of us hostage!

      A comparable situation with phones would be when manual patching was needed if the switchboard operators went on strike to demand better working conditions/pay. Strikes are done by employees against the company, not by companies against the government.

      Now the air traffic controllers work on obsolete equipment, get paid very little, have a stressful job with long hours

      That must all be Reagan's fault, right, 30 years later.

      You are correct. A union would have been able to negotiate better pay and working conditions.

    18. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mi · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, the big, bad UNION .

      Yes, them. Labor unions are nothing but monopolies (or wanna-be monopolies), whose sole official purpose is maintaining and increasing the prices, their members can charge. As such, they ought to be treated to the anti-monopoly laws as well as, when the members break the law (for the union's sake) with the federal RICO law — as racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations — rather than have each beating, shooting, or property destruction treated as isolated crimes committed by individual members on their own.

      On top of it, any union, whose connection to the bona-fide crime is proven (even if it is just a single union official), must be disbanded automatically and immediately — the innocent members, who wish to unionize again, can do so under a new name later.

      Both are doing it for profit for the companies and directly against the interest of their own employees.

      They do. But they've grown to become that way naturally — not by using the law to force others to join them, as the unions are legally empowered to do.

      What about the collusion among tech companies to not hire each other's employees?

      Such collusions — if they are legal to begin with — are not supported by the existing law. Very much unlike the unionization — whereby a group of employees may vote to "unionize" a particular workplace and then they get to force other employees to join their union as well as prevent the employer from hiring outside of the union.

      Sure, people ought to be free to associate with each other. But labor unions have much more law on their side, than a church club or a bowling league. And that just should not be the case...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    19. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mi · · Score: 1

      That's how strikes work - they cripple their industry as an extreme resort for bargaining purposes.

      Sure. All monopolies work that way — this is why we have anti-monopoly laws. We just aren't applying them to unions for some mysterious reasons, even though — letter by letter — that's exactly, what they are. Monopolies seeking to maintain and ever increase the prices of what their members are selling (labor).

      If the US saw fit to block a merger of Staples and Office Depot — for fear of the resulting entity dominating the market of the freaking office supplies, how come we not merely tolerate, but encourage monopolies in the market of law-enforcement, teaching, healthcare, and construction labor?

      A union would have been able to negotiate better pay and working conditions.

      Hanging a couple of grievance-mongers would've improved the morale just as well — and cost much less, don't you think?

      Seriously, nobody is forcing people to become — and remain — air-traffic controllers. We don't have slavery — not even indentured labor — and have a reasonably free market. If one remains on the job, then it must be good enough for him to not seek an alternative...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    20. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      By that logic, the FAA has a monopoly on hiring air traffic controllers, but no one would say that because it's ridiculous. Unions exist because a single employee does not have bargaining power against a corporation. Without them, we'd be working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week with no benefits. People aren't the same as products. They have basic needs and human rights that we prefer them to have.

    21. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by mi · · Score: 1

      FAA has a monopoly on hiring air traffic controllers

      Yes, and Pentagon has a monopoly power to hire soldiers. It is a governmental organization and any government is a monopoly by definition (which is a good reason to keep its responsibilities to a minimum, but that's another story).

      Unions exist because a single employee does not have bargaining power against a corporation.

      Which corporation were the air-traffic controllers bargaining with, when Reagan crushed them? Hint: public employees (be they air controllers or policemen) aren't struggling against any corporations — their employers are the taxpayers. They should not be allowed to unionize — and certainly, not strike:

      strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable

      Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      Without them, we'd be working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week with no benefits.

      Really? So, if we get the current abysmal union-membership to, say, above 80%, we'll only have to work one day a week? For 2 hours? Wouldn't that be great!!

      People aren't the same as products.

      People — workers — choose to sell their labor on the free market to the willing buyers. Any attempts to make that market not free should be met with the same energetic response Standard Oil and AT&T have encountered, when they tried to become a monopoly.

      They have basic needs and human rights that we prefer them to have.

      Any smart employer addresses basic needs of the workers — in order to keep them happy and thus more productive. No employer is allowed to violate human rights — unions or not...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    22. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Which corporation were the air-traffic controllers bargaining with, when Reagan crushed them? Hint: public employees (be they air controllers or policemen) aren't struggling against any corporations — their employers are the taxpayers. They should not be allowed to unionize — and certainly, not strike:

      The FAA is the "corporation" in this case. Just because it gets its money from tax payers doesn't mean it can't abuse its employees and doesn't mean the employees don't get human rights.

      Really? So, if we get the current abysmal union-membership to, say, above 80%, we'll only have to work one day a week? For 2 hours? Wouldn't that be great!!

      Probably so - American workers are much more efficient than in the past which is part of why unemployment is so high. If businesses hired two employees for 30 hours a week rather than one for 60, it'd be much more beneficial to society. Of course there are issues with employee overhead such as health care, but that's just more reason the US needs to meet the level of the rest of the first world countries and provide it.

      People — workers — choose to sell their labor on the free market to the willing buyers. Any attempts to make that market not free should be met with the same energetic response Standard Oil and AT&T have encountered, when they tried to become a monopoly.

      There are still difference between humans, unions, and corporations. If you think a union is a monopoly on the supply side of labor, then the corporation is a monopoly on the demand side. You also have to remember that monopolies aren't illegal. We have laws against abusive monopolies to protect consumers (people) from abusive corporations. Unions do the same.

      Any smart employer addresses basic needs of the workers — in order to keep them happy and thus more productive. No employer is allowed to violate human rights — unions or not...

      Unfortunately, short term gains often come first, so many don't even pay employees a livable wage.

    23. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".

      And in "Scorpion", where we learned that nobody can land anything if the tower software is out of operation, that transcontinental aircraft carry a copy of the ATC routing software, that those aircraft have a cat5 cable hanging around in the equipment bay that can be dropped out a wheel well so a hacker can download the software, that an ATC software failure can disable the red/green light guns that are installed in towers explicitly to deal with communications failures, that the data archive disk for the ATC software has a label "FAA" on it, that right handed data server managers put their important servers on the right side of the room, that a 500,000 kW glitch in the power grid will cause data center doors to open, ... OMG.

      The only reason to watch that show is for the mom. I recorded it and I'm keeping it, if for no other reason that to have something to point at as an example of really really really bad technical content in a prime time program. I can't wait to see what they slaughter tonight.

    24. Re:Striking air traffic controllers fired by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.

      You may be thinking of transponders with Mode C. I don't know of any airspace where TCAS is required for all aircraft, but class B requires Mode C. At least in the US.

  22. HR still says by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    cheap contract workers are better than investing in employees!

    1. Re:HR still says by mi · · Score: 1

      Nobody owes you a living. Not even if you are a well invested-into employee.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:HR still says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep paying your taxes to dispose of the dead homeless after they starve to death in the streets because you didn't owe them a living.

    3. Re:HR still says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fewer people per capita starve to death in the USA than in Luxembourg, Denmark, or France.

    4. Re:HR still says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody owes you a living. Not even if you are a well invested-into employee.

      Unless you write books, or make movies or music, or are a banker, or a stockholder; then people owe you a living.

    5. Re:HR still says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody owes you a living. Not even if you are a well invested-into employee.

      You have learned your lessons well, little grasshopper. The one-percenters are indeed proud of you!

    6. Re:HR still says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      loyalty side effects may occur (aka you get what you pay for)

    7. Re:HR still says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody dies. We'll have to pay for the disposal of their corpse one day or another anyway.

      Last week, I gave a 10$ bill (Canadian) to a homeless guy. I saw him sharing his food with his dog. Of course this was not a selfless deed, the dog was his protection, but that guy was humane nonetheless and so deserved to be treated humanely. You can be sure that if one day I see a homeless guy giving part of his food to a cat or some pigeons, I would give him even more and I'll try my best to check on him from time to time.

      But you know what? I don't owe anyone a living and not everybody deserve to be treated humanely. I'm a radical socialist (for example I'm self-employed because it goes against my principle to be an employee), but I'm certainly not an delusional idiot who thinks everyone has a positive value.

    8. Re:HR still says by Zynder · · Score: 1

      So people in America are starving then. Thanks.

    9. Re:HR still says by mpe · · Score: 1

      loyalty side effects may occur (aka you get what you pay for)

      There are also highly paid (possibly overpaid) people who show utter contempt for their employers though.

    10. Re:HR still says by theCoder · · Score: 2

      Your comment got me interested in actual numbers, so I did some Google searches. I expected to find a small but nonzero number of yearly deaths. The results I found indicated that death by starvation in America is so infrequent that it's not even tracked. Occasional cases do occur, but they are often the result of something other than lack of access to food, such as child neglect or mental illness. Even Feeding America only talks about the effects of hunger and food insecurity, not actual starvations. There are lots of programs, both government and private charities that provide food and assistance to those who need it.

      That's not to trivialize the very real problems of malnutrition or hunger, which can have serious consequences. But outright death to lack of access to food does seem to be practically non-existent in the U.S.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  23. The kinder, gentler terrorism by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nearly 2,000 flights in Chicago have been canceled so far today as federal aviation officials slowly resume operations at O'Hare and Midway airports following a fire that was deliberately set at an FAA radar center, apparently by a disgruntled worker.

    If a single person can cause so much havoc without killing anyone — and without the condemnation and sympathy for the victim concomitant with any would-be murder — the terrorists don't need to kill.

    Heck, they don't even need to set fire — just phone-in an anonymous warning.

    A moderately motivated group could also disable a city's subway system for hours — by boarding the trains on carefully picked stations and pretending to have a seizure of some sort. Our kind society's rules (as evidenced in that paragon of humanity New York City) say, you can not be taken out of the train — except by "qualified personnel". So all other passengers will be removed from the car and the train will wait for the EMS to arrive and figure out, what to do with you. If your friends do the same to every other subway lines at the same time — during rush hour — your organization is bound to get donations, all without you killing or maiming a single person...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by Livius · · Score: 1

      the terrorists don't need to kill.

      The terrorists just need to say a few things on their cell phones, and let the NSA and paranoia do the rest.

      Bin Laden's goal was to turn the US into what it's become. He succeeded.

    2. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was Bin Laden's goal? Pathetic! I bet he doesn't have even one virgin in paradise.

    3. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then look at Slashdot... we have thousands, and we're not even dead yet!

    4. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by mi · · Score: 1

      ... and let the NSA and paranoia do the rest

      I strongly suspect, the NSA are a lot smarter, than your average pig or a school principal. Their reaction will be more appropriate than that of a local police department or school...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      No one said terrorists are smart people... Probably cause smart people have better things to do with their time.

    6. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by Livius · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are confused about which side the NSA is on. They are not interested in reducing anyone's fear, not even their own.

    7. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by mi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are confused about which side the NSA is on.

      Seems like one of us is confused indeed. They are on America's side and they are sincere. They will not act on a threat — such as a prankster talking about a terrorist act on his phone — if they consider it bogus. Now, it may be possible for such a prankster to fool them — and they may choose to err on the side of caution. But they are quite smart, so fooling them is not easy...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... If your friends do the same ...

      But you're around for the police to catch, when EMTs complain that a number of people with no history of seizure had one at an inopportune time: Wasting medical resources and obstructing government employees.

      I've imagined releasing paint-ball grenades in airports and train stations would shut down the country for a few hours. One can run out during the ensuing panic. The problem is getting in with an effective disguise.

    9. Re:The kinder, gentler terrorism by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      If your friends do the same to every other subway lines at the same time

      you could potentially get the bonus effect of a pandemic frenzy. Not only would all of the "seizures" shut down subway traffic (assuming your situation is plausible, which it sounds), but it would have a lingering effect as news stations trip over each other to get the first word about a dozen "mysterious" seizures happening in the same system at the same time and saying they're hypothetical biochemical weapons or some disease. As each one feeds upon the speculation from the other 24-hour news channels, the local population could be whipped into a small frenzy and leave the subways much emptier the day afterward. Other cities with subways might have minor hiccups as well as people become worried about something similar happening there, or any poor soul who has a real seizure on the subway causes panic as people shove over each other to get the hell away from him.

      While the truth would come out in time, there would still be permanent damage as the news reported it was a terrorist plot, compounding the fear that existed already by that point. Even if no one was killed, there would then be added concern of orchestrated terrorist activities within the US.

  24. single point of failure? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    I don't know much of anything about how air traffic control works, but a fire at a single radar station practically shutting down o'hare seems to point towards a single point of failure, that probably ought to be looked at.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:single point of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much of anything about how air traffic control works, but a fire at a single radar station practically shutting down o'hare seems to point towards a single point of failure, that probably ought to be looked at.

      Not just O'Hare, much of the rest of the midwest is affected by this too. I'm sure that al-Qaeda and ISIS are paying attention and learning a lot from this.

    2. Re:single point of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much of anything about how air traffic control works, but a fire at a single radar station practically shutting down o'hare seems to point towards a single point of failure, that probably ought to be looked at.

      Not just O'Hare, much of the rest of the midwest is affected by this too. I'm sure that al-Qaeda and ISIS are paying attention and learning a lot from this.

      How exactly would al-Qaeda use this to their advantage? "If Allah is willing, we will wreak great inconvenience on the infidels in America! Their flights will be delayed for 4 or maybe 8 hours, and they will have to endure long connections in Houston or Phoenix instead of Chicago, praise Allah!"

    3. Re:single point of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly would al-Qaeda use this to their advantage? "If Allah is willing, we will wreak great inconvenience on the infidels in America! Their flights will be delayed for 4 or maybe 8 hours, and they will have to endure long connections in Houston or Phoenix instead of Chicago, praise Allah!"

      In this instance, there was mere inconvenience. Of course, that was because of the particular circumstances of this incident. The fire broke out around 6 AM local time, well before the morning rush started. If this had happened in the middle of the morning rush, it is conceivable that this could have produced very real danger for many passengers crossing through midwestern airspace. Another possible scenario where this could have turned into a very dangerous situation: suppose terrorists had managed to take over control of this radar station. I could easily see how that could be used to create many potentially dangerous scenarios. The possibilities are endless. I sure hope that the FAA is looking carefully at this because, as I said before, I'm sure al-Qaeda and ISIS will be taking careful note of this incident.

    4. Re:single point of failure? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      I don't know much of anything about how air traffic control works either. But with airports being thought of as the main point of terrorist activity, their immediate reaction was probably "Lock down due to possible terrorist activity". Then once they discovered what happened, they properly diverted to whatever backup plan they have for fire situations.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    5. Re:single point of failure? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If only it worked like that. As long as planes don't actually crash they only need one radar, and all the disruption can always be blamed on someone else. Why spend money on preventing things you won't take the blame for?

      In other words, they want maximum profits and minimum costs, not reliability.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  25. Backups? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aren't these kinds of critical systems supposed to have backups? I see DHS/TSA is too busy strip searching children/grandmas, securing chicken farms & writing up justifications for their abuse of authority to bother with the "unimportant" things like securing/fortifying the transportation infrastructure.

    1. Re:Backups? by ruir · · Score: 1

      I would be far worried about this kind of industry cheating out people/workers of job security with fake consulting/(sub)contracting roles for years to circumvent labor laws than with backup systems. When you fuck with people and they have got nothing to lose, shit like this is bound to happen.

    2. Re:Backups? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      Giving people a reasonable sense of job security is definitely a step in the right direction, but you still have to be ready for the rare nut-job (employee or otherwise). While that includes onsite backup equipment (which they apparently had) it must also include off site backup facilities. I work with my local PD a bit and from what I understand even they have contingency plans for if the 911 dispatch center is evacuated/destroyed. If something happens the entire call load for the county can be redirected to one of several other sites in a few minutes. If a mid sized county (less than 100,000) can manage that kind of capability you would think a multimillion dollar air traffic control facility would be able to.

    3. Re:Backups? by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      "Load balancing" the work like that works nicely.. until you run at 90% load all the time, and you suddenly lose 15% of your capacity.

    4. Re:Backups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read an article about this story that claimed that before they really knew what was going on, the ATC tower switched over to backup equipment and continued operations. Operations stopped when they evacuated the tower.

    5. Re:Backups? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      Real world situations are rarely so cut and dry as "we can't handle the entire load, so we can't handle any of it". Being able to at least transfer the communications/information to another center(s) would allow for directing of a portion of the flights. A very similar thing happens every day with inclement weather, with flights being slowed, redirected or delayed.

  26. Are You Safe and Happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truth is that when all your neighbors are safe and happy you can be safe and happy. Here we have an angry man who apparently feels that he has been wronged. Or we could say disgruntled as it is the word of the decade apparently. I'll bet the guy was never gruntled in the first place. Funny how we never hear the word gruntled. But one way or another the man obviously feels like he was getting screwed and he took action. I'm not approving what he did but it is human nature. We do need to make certain that all people are doing OK and that the system does not stack up laws, rules, trends and barriers that cause some people to suffer.
                                  It is obvious that his future is now bleak but it may have been bleak whether he did this crime or not. The fastest way to stop all crime is to make certain that others are doing well without regard for their position, abilities or efforts. Picture this : an ugly ghetto exists. People in the ghetto drink too much out of frustration and boredom. But our system allows liquor stores to operate in ghetto areas and poor schools to exist as well. And then we act all shocked when the ghetto youth is acting out, all cranked up, with a gun in his hand.
                                  Is society any better or smarter than the ghetto kid blasting away with that gun?

    1. Re: Are You Safe and Happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Simple geopolitical equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    criminal act = criminal act , it gets you state time.
    criminal act + political objective = terrorism, it gets you federal time in Florence or martyrdom in Terre Haute

  28. Site Design by asasdlfgnjl · · Score: 1

    Looks like TFA was designed for 640x480. Also what happened to the borders for slash posts/comments? My brain craves structure. Floating in whitespace unsettles me.

  29. Let's see whether they actually prosecute, first. by pupsocket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy was a telecommunications specialist working in the basement. Are you familiar with the type?

    He is a contractor whose direct employer is specified as Company A in the affadavit.

    Apparently he looked in the mirror and did not like what he saw in himself or in his employer.

    He was being transferred from Chicago to Hawaii. Disgruntlement?

    He claims it's a crisis of conscience.

  30. And HomeLand Security Theater TSA Was ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    sitting off in a corner of OHare masturbating like there was no tomorrow.

    I'm sure the Führer of HomeLand Security will goose-step march into Big-O's Orifice and demand TSA guards assigned 1-to-1 for every FAA employee, in order to kill the FAA employee when signs of Impurity and Treason occur.

    Sig Heil

  31. Re:Really, a single oink of failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    redundancy introduces interesting failure modes. When you don't care about edge cases, redundancy is great. When you have to account for edge cases, redundancy is expensive, complex, and reduces the viability of the project. And, I'm pretty sure, given that we have flight operations back up, that the FAA's much more robust (but not automagically fail-over) approach to redundancy worked adequately. While they generally fuck up everything else, they've gotten ATC done as well as is plausible.

    Yes, the system has redundancy, but it's much more designed to fallback v.s. failover. If there weren't humans in the loop, maybe it would make sense for another facility to pick up the load, but when you've got humans doing the ATC job, well, it's probably a "very good thing" for them to be familiar with the traffic and area they're working, and have a few minutes to prepare and a few minutes of hand off, instead of just dumping hundreds of returns on their screen with the "go ahead, fix it" attitude. Since nobody died in this incident, the system appears to be adequately robust for this event.

  32. Re:Let's see whether they actually prosecute, firs by pupsocket · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will the person who modded my comment down please read it?

    He did not set the whole facility on fire. He tore up the floorboards and set fire to whatever was underneath his basement workplace.

    He was cutting his own throat with a knife when emergency crew got there.

    He wrote that for the first time in a long time he gave a shit.

    This is not the profile of a disgruntled worker. It sounds more like a story about a repentant member of some secret police -- domestic surveillance squad.

    The reassignment to Hawaii sounds like a promotion, as it was for Snowden.

    We'll know more if the government actually brings this guy to trial. That's why I think they won't.

  33. Single Point of Failure by jfmiller · · Score: 1

    Several comments have questioned the single point of failure. I am sure that it will be a key question for the NTSB to examine when it looks into this incident. However, I would point out that the system is designed to fail to backups, but it appears that Mr. Howard who was "worked for an FAA contractor at the Aurora facility for about eight years, handling communications there" knew what to destroy so as to prevent such back-up systems from functioning. The report mentions "The (radio) frequency failed" which would lead me to speculate that he severed the connections to the physical transmitters before torching the communications system. The comment about "a floor panel had been pulled up, exposing telecommunications cables and other wires" seems to say that Mr. Howard who should have know the system he maintained well, was able to damage a particularly sensitive set of equipment and or connections.

    My biggest question is, what is so bad about a transfer to Hawaii? I'm sure there were personal reasons to stay, but I still cannot help thinking that if I gout the chance to leave Chicago for Hawaii I'd jump at it.

    --
    Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
  34. He tried to make it worse by tomhath · · Score: 1

    The paramedic then saw Howard’s feet sticking out from under a table, and saw Howard under the table, shirtless and in the act of cutting his own throat, according to the complaint.

    Turns out it's very difficult to behead yourself.

  35. Movie quote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Today is the day I burn this mother fucker to the ground"

  36. Resiliency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This incident happened in my back yard, and based on the comments there is a lot people don’t know about the topic.
    First this happened at an Enroute center that regulates the macro-level traffic, typically high altitude, for the Chicago region. I think there are a total of 15 in the country. These centers work in concert with Tracon facilities that handle lower altitude traffic and marshal the planes in an out of the airports.
    In regards to resiliency, the “system” was able to recover in reasonably short order. Right now the Aurora facility is off-line and is declared a crime scene. It’s under the control of another federal agency for a few days. During this time, the “system” is offloading the Chicago workload to adjacent facilities in the region (ex. Indy, Minneapolis, etc...). There are obviously some continuity plans in place. Not ideal, but reasonable.
    If you wanted to step-up to the next level of resiliency for the air traffic system, you’d want to put duplicate capabilities in Enroute and Tracon centers. By design, each big airport usually has Enroute and Tracon centers about 40-50 miles apart from the main airport. From what I understand from friends in the industry each facility have similar systems, but different duties. If you wanted to have a hot-standby type solution, you’d want to build out duplicate capabilities at both sites, so an Enroute center could fail over to a Tracon, or the other way around. It seems logical to me, particularly as this resiliency pattern is common in the marketplace today. I’m sure many of the readers here could whiteboard out solid solution pretty quickly.