Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the pushing-tin dept.

On Friday, September 26, 2014, a telecommunications contractor named Brian Howard woke early and headed to Chicago Center, an air traffic control hub in Aurora, Illinois, where he had worked for eight years. He had decided to get stoned and kill himself, and as his final gesture he planned to take a chunk of the US air traffic control system with him.

Court records say Howard entered Chicago Center at 5:06 am and went to the basement, where he set a fire in the electronics bay, sliced cables beneath the floor, and cut his own throat. Paramedics saved Howard's life, but Chicago Center, which controls air traffic above 10,000 feet for 91,000 square miles of the Midwest, went dark. Airlines canceled 6,600 flights; air traffic was interrupted for 17 days. Howard had wanted to cause trouble, but he hadn't anticipated a disruption of this magnitude. He had posted a message to Facebook saying that the sabotage “should not take a large toll on the air space as all comms should be switched to the alt location.” It's not clear what alt location Howard was talking about, because there wasn't one. Howard had worked at the center for nearly a decade, and even he didn't know that.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by sudo rm -rf on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:03PM

    by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:03PM (#149917) Journal

    Here's why:

    Air traffic control can't do anything as sophisticated as Howard thought, and unless something changes about the way the FAA is managing NextGen [the upgraded system], it probably never will.[...]Modernization, a struggle for any federal agency, is practically antithetical to the FAA's operational culture, which is risk-averse, methodical, and bureaucratic. Paired with this is the lack of anything approximating market pressure. The FAA is the sole consumer of the product; it's a closed loop.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:52PM (#149928)

      This article suggests a commercial angle. Somebody is calling ATC antiquated because they are trying to bounce public opinion to sell a contract. And in all probability the contract is for an inferior system. Which has happened before, which is why the FAA is so conservative.

      Yep, they still use AM radio. Yep it all seems kind of clumsy and not very whiz bang. Yep. It still works. Yep, being mostly analog, it is highly resistant to all of that "cyber warfare", that a million posers rattle on about in order to scare funding into more inside the beltway frat boy graft clubs.

      What the article failed to focus on, is that the nightmare scenario happened. A controller went totally off his hinges and NOBODY died. That last bit is the important part. The rest of it is irrelevant.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by pnkwarhall on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:28PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:28PM (#150032)

        Spot on. What is the pressing need to replace "tried and true" technology?
        --
        Speaking of a 'commercial angle' and swaying public opinion: I listened to part of an NPR report on the problems w/ transporting crude oil by rail. While **they never mentioned** (in the portion I listened to) the Keystone XL, while listening I couldn't help but think that report's (non-stated) purpose was to show the pipeline in a positive light, as a solution to the mentioned problems. But the thing is, none of the problems that they stated did not seemed to be major obstacles.

        In fact, the main obstacle to improving the rail transport of oil seemed to be motivating oil companies to spend money on updating their transportation infrastructure! Apparently the rail cars used for transport were not designed for moving crude, and despite pressure from the rail companies to use safer cars, the oil(-related) companies balk at spending the large sum to fix the problem by retiring the legacy fleet and using special-purpose cars.

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:38PM (#150390)

          Welcome to capitalism 101. You run your equipment until i disintegrates into component atoms.

          Only then will the beancounters consider its purchase cost amortized.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:22PM (#150690)

          The only conceivable pressing need: The sheer number of flights keep increasing year after year. Sooner or later the procedures of yesterday will not keep pace with the traffic of today.

          I'm no fan of replacing that which works because somebody has figured out a way to round the icon's corners or provide an utterly meaningless but cool looking fade transition. For 90% of my work I wish I was still calling programs in DOS. Seriously. But whatever system is in place must keep up with what is going to be done tomorrow, as well. And sometime the forty-year-old systems concept will no longer be adequate. The only question is... when?

          • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Friday February 27 2015, @09:37PM

            by pnkwarhall (4558) on Friday February 27 2015, @09:37PM (#150743)

            ^This.

            ...is why I refuse to work in software **development**. From my admittedly limited vantage point, there is very little reason to create new tools, when the ones we have work just fine, and in fact better than the vast majority of replacement softwares (even if only because they've been being debugged for years already compared to new software).

            I've probably related this on Soylent before, but one of my formational experiences at university was taking part in a prototype dev class, where out of a class of 20+ people, only 1-2 actually useful software/hardware projects were proposed, much less developed. In general, everyone's ideas revolved around removing human beings from the equation.... Now **that's** Capitalism.

            --
            Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @02:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @02:38AM (#150264)

        Yep, that's what you want in an Air Traffic Control System, the lowest bidder! I have heard Army chopper pilots who flew in Afghanistan complaining about the Blackwater mercenaries who flew their own aircraft (both fixed wing and non) but did not think the military air traffic control applied to them, since they were a private company after all, and so much more competent than those "government" "bureaucrat" pilots in the actual military.

        Hey, maybe this is what the company formerly known as Blackwater is trying to get into! The merc business has slowed down, and some court cases went against them lately, so how about contracting the civilian air traffic control system out to mercenaries? Reagan's wet dream! What could go wrong?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:40PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:40PM (#149955)

      antithetical to the FAA's operational culture, which is risk-averse, methodical, and bureaucratic

      Good! Their job is to reduce the risks inherent in the use of airplanes, and that means being risk-averse, methodical, and bureaucratic. I don't want them to go with something newer and shiny without a *lot* of discussion and testing and redundancy plans and quality control, because this is one of those applications where any software failure may well involve a body count.

      The FAA is the sole consumer of the product

      The FAA is hardly the only organization on the planet that does what it does, and I'm sure they compare notes with their counterparts in Canada and Europe. It's not like how to make air travel safer is one of those things that has to be a closely guarded secret.

      The reactions from the incident last September should have been:
      1. We need to have a better disaster recovery plan for all facilities so it doesn't take us over 2 weeks to get back in business.
      2. We need to have better redundancy plans in place so that if one facility is damaged the others can take up the slack more easily, or even revert to pencil and paper if need be.
      3. In the end, nobody died, so while it sucks that people were delayed and flights were cancelled it could have been a lot worse than it actually was.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by redneckmother on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:38PM

        by redneckmother (3597) on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:38PM (#150010)

        Excellent post, Thexalon.

        At the risk of being labeled a Luddite, I believe that "high tech" isn't always the answer to a problem. Building tightly coupled complex systems ensures serious problems within those systems. Nobody can test or anticipate the outcomes of all possible combinations of exceptions in all components: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents [wikipedia.org].

        A systems designer told me of a business that asked him to recommend / develop a catalog system. After evaluating the business needs, he gave them a recipe box filled with blank cards and alphabetic index tabs. "Sometimes, a computer isn't the best solution," he said.

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
        • (Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:33PM

          by AnonTechie (2275) on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:33PM (#150057) Journal

          It is something like: If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as if it were a nail.

          --
          Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:38PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:38PM (#150059)

          At the risk of being labeled a Luddite, I believe that "high tech" isn't always the answer to a problem.

          But...but...people can't use their smartphones for it if it isn't "high tech".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:40PM (#150391)

          Systemd anyone?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:18PM (#150104)

      cos modern technology consists usually of cheap shit

      ever hear that ol saying "they don't make things like they used to"? its a generalization for sure, but its well founded

      the air traffic control system is about reliability and safety... and thats it

      it doesn't matter how many gigabytes of ram it has or whether it uses the latest ultra-super-plasma-crystal jiggamathing displays

      would you fly if you knew that the air traffic control system that was being used to help keep you safe was running the latest version of windows?

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:20PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:20PM (#149919) Homepage Journal

    it handles all the traffic that's not close to an airport, for example out over the pacific.

    This was in 1989. My girlfriend at the time was taking a class meant to overcome her fear of flying, that was sponsored by the airlines. Each student was permitted to bring one other person, so I was their to calm her down if she had an anxiety attack.

    It looked quite low-tech. For example when one controller passed off a plane to another, he handed that other controller a small slip of paper. However they pointed out that those slips of paper were quite reliable. Consider how often your email screws up.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Wootery on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:52PM

      by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:52PM (#149929)

      A good example of 'but hey, it works'.

      Too often we see but look how old it is! as an argument to replace a system with something new and shiny. The ATC software may be an antique, but it seems to work flawlessly, and that's worth a huge amount.

      The apparently lack of support for hardware failover, though, is a real problem.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:25PM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:25PM (#149949) Journal
        Clearly this system could be improved (from a technological point of view) but I doubt it could be improved (from a political and practical standpoint.)

        The problem is that if you let out a contract to make a new one today, you'll get the sort of system made today - full of high tech marvels and whiz-bang features, short on sense, core functionality, and reliability.

        Better to keep nursing that 40 year old system along for now.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:16PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:16PM (#149974) Homepage
          Oh noes - if it's 40 years old, then it has <emph-ass-is>the Y2K bug</emph-ass-is>! <fx style="runs around in panic like a headless chicken">It needs to be replaced yesterday, at great expense!</fx>
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday February 26 2015, @04:41PM

            by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 26 2015, @04:41PM (#149994)

            Fortunately the knee-jerk thinking here seems to be along the much more reasonable lines of for heaven's sake don't touch it, it's too critical!

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:32PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:32PM (#150007)

          I think that's a trap. I see nothing wrong with using 1980's tech in new projects. Even in the 80's they knew that failovers were required. So whoever built the whizbang system at the time failed in that regard. 1980's computers were slow but certainly not primitive. I agree that it should be nursed along instead of outright killed. If it is has survived this long then it has certainly proved its worth. However, parts age and fail. So it could probably use some minor repairs and upgrades.

          I'm pretty sure the ISS is running on a 386. Probably not as old as whatever is in ATC but close.

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:13PM

            by Arik (4543) on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:13PM (#150023) Journal
            You're probably right about the ISS - the space shuttles used 386s. That was for reliability. A less complicated chip from a larger manufacture process is much less subject to bit errors from cosmic rays.

            Modern computers are far more powerful, but also far less reliable. More complicated chips executed at a much smaller scale and often there's not even any sanity checking on the RAM.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:21PM

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:21PM (#150196) Journal

              The thing is, the FAA has upgraded the computers periodically. They just run the existing software.

              Mostly because that software was had written in an era where coders took pride in their work, and not how many packages they could lash together to make something that looks cool, but is as fragile as a house of cards.

              If they were to totally re-do the ATC system it would look nothing like it does today, it would rely on more integration with and require smarter on-aircraft computers which didn't exist back in the 70s and 80s. It would probably rely FAR less on voice communications, which are a time consuming error prone bottle neck.

              But you still need to get back to one controller handling one plane anytime there is anything approaching an in-air emergency.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday February 27 2015, @12:15AM

              by mendax (2840) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:15AM (#150218)

              the space shuttles used 386s

              Wrong. Shuttles used modified versions of avionics computers developed in the early 1970's, computers that were designed to be instruction-compatible, more or less, with IBM 360 mainframes and their successors. They weren't particular fast but flight avionics don't require fast computers, only very reliable ones.

              But the Hubble Space Telescope originally launched with a radiation-hardened 386 and was later upgraded to a 486. Perhaps you're confusing the two.

              --
              It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 27 2015, @01:29AM

                by Arik (4543) on Friday February 27 2015, @01:29AM (#150243) Journal
                A quick search produced dozens of references for the 386 being used in the space shuttle (and the ISS as well as it turns out.)

                It was not the ONLY CPU used on the space shuttle, and in fact it was an upgrade (earlier space shuttles had used 8086) but what I wrote does not appear to be 'WRONG' at all.

                Per http://www.cpushack.com/space-craft-cpu.html

                "Space Shuttle    Intel 8086 and RCA 1802 (display controller) - Later Intel 80386 - The Space shuttle uses the APA-101S computer (5 of them for redundancy). They run at about 1.2MIPS and still use a couple megs of ferrite core memory (which is impervious to radiation). The entire control software for the shuttle is less then one meg. The new glass cockpit in the shuttle runs on Intel 80386s"

                also from the same source:

                "International Space Station    Intel 80386SX-20 w/ Intel 80387     There are several computers on the ISS. The most important are the command computers which use the i386."

                So, no, not wrong at al.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by NCommander on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:34PM

        by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:34PM (#149980) Homepage Journal

        Slashcode could be a shiny example of "old but works" :)

        --
        Still always moving
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:22PM (#150109)

          as long as you keep taking anxiety pills and cross your fingers right?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:22PM (#150029)

        Yes it 'works'. The problem is not about the tech really. But capacity.

        Many of the major hubs are maxed out. They *could* do better (more landings/takeoffs faster). The problem is the tech they use does not allow for more. Combined with a shortage of staff is a recipe for exactly what happened. One dude fucking up and the whole house of cards implodes in on itself. Taking out Chicago like this guy did probably easily affected 6k flights. As planes dont always flight back and forth between 2 points. They become other flights 2 days from now. For example you may have a plane that originates in chicago goes to lasvegas turns into a flight to NY with another flight to DC. Well if it is grounded at chicago the other 2 flights can not happen as there is no plane. Plus the number of people who still want to fly combined with those that were going to fly and need new flights... This is the major jigsaw puzzle these guys have created. For small blips they have some spare capacity. For large blips... not so much.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by bucc5062 on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:49PM

          by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:49PM (#150039)

          Many of the major hubs are maxed out. They *could* do better (more landings/takeoffs faster). The problem is the tech they use does not allow for more.

          Oh?
          My memory is a bit foggy, been a while since I flew as a pilot, but I kind of remember that the problem was one of capacity or, you can only put so many planes in and out at one time. There is a rather long section [faa.gov] on just this issue. Boil it down, only one airplane can be on a runway at any time so if you have a long line of planes, tech is not going to make that go any faster on take off then it takes for a plane to enter the active runway, position, roll, and lift off so the next plane can then do the same. Some may be faster than others, some slower. If they are landing on the same runway than time is stretch out even more as the tower juggles alternating take off landing aircraft, all with different landing and takeoff speeds.

          Then you have the problem of separation for landing. VFR allowing for closer separation so sequencing can be within a mile(?), but it has to be enough so that the landing plane can touchdown and clear before the next plane can touch the ground. With IFR it is much stricter, 3 mile separation though I kind of remember something about 90 sec separation.

          Tech has nothing to do with airport capacity when the rule, and a good one I say, only allows one plane to own that stretch of tarmac or concrete. Tech wont solve that problem though it can solve the problem of guiding planes and helping them avoid collision. Throw 1000 planes into the air towards one airport and it will still only be able to land then one at a time (unless you have multiple runways).

          --
          The more things change, the more they look the same
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by gmrath on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:43PM

            by gmrath (4181) on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:43PM (#150084)

            Smaller air frames take a beating when following a heavy too closely. Any aircraft, for that matter, creates wing tip- and other vortex phenomena, jet/prop wash and the like, that can take time to dissipate depending on weather conditions. All kinds of stuff must be taken into consideration in determining safe separation. The ATC folks at airports really have it together when it comes to that delicate ballet of making take-offs and landings happen as quickly and safely as possible given conditions at the time. Land-and-hold-short comes to mind (LASSO, I believe the acronym is, can be requested by ATC and done at the discretion of the pilot of the landing aircraft) allowing intersecting runways to be used pretty much concurrently.

            Remember back a while when the controllers were pissed off about something or other and strictly adhered to FAA minimums for planes entering and leave terminal air space? Incoming flights were not backed up just for miles but for STATES. Outgoing flights were backed up nose-to-tail on all taxiways and all concourse gates were full.

            There are websites that re-broadcast ATC-pilot radio coms; really a fun listen if you like that sort of thing, especially for large airports (e.g.: O'Hare, Kennedy, et cetera). Any particular site escapes me at the moment and I'm too lazy to look them up.

            In a nutshell: regardless of the age of the technology and equipment, other that the (now) obvious need for much greater redundancy, ATC world wide is doing a pretty damn good job, all things considered.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by skater on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:23PM

      by skater (4342) on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:23PM (#149977) Journal

      I was in the tower at DCA (Washington Reagan National) a couple years ago and it's still a similar system. What struck me was how good the controllers clearly were at their jobs, and how they weren't at all disturbed by the several of us standing around taking pictures.

      • (Score: 1) by glyph on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:51PM

        by glyph (245) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:51PM (#150209)

        I've been around the block a few times. Everyone looks busy and competent when visitors are taking pictures.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:57PM (#149930)

    The technical issue of this topic is interesting, but not the political slant the author gives to the Wired article. The document is laced with weasel words on supposed government incompetence.

    Tidbits like

    Modernization, a struggle for any federal agency, is practically antithetical to the FAA's operational culture, which is risk-averse, methodical, and bureaucratic. Paired with this is the lack of anything approximating market pressure.

    and

    In the private sector, new technologies can be developed freely regardless of whether the law is ready for them. Think of Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. [..] when the government upgrades its technologies, regulations intercede before a single line of code is written. The government procurement process is knotted with rules and standards, and new technology has to conform to those rules whether or not they're efficient or even relevant.

    Thank goodness there is regulation for something like air traffic control.....

    Can Wired please refrain from this senseless ranting about governments being incompetent. The same thing happens in the private industry, so let us please go back to Microsoft? The private company that spent 100 million dollars to design a new controller for their Xbox that looked pretty much the same as the one they had from before? That released and pulled the Sidekick etc.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:22PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:22PM (#149937) Journal

      The same thing happens in the private industry, so let us please go back to Microsoft? The private company that spent 100 million dollars to design a new controller for their Xbox that looked pretty much the same as the one they had from before?

      You mean the company that provides the blue screen of nuclear death [theregister.co.uk] for Lizzie's chaps over the pond?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:28PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:28PM (#150006) Journal

      Wired is a horrible, corporate tool. Really a cheerleader for predatory investment capital. Read the old crap they wasted ink on, in 1999 before the Worldcom fiasco and Enron fraud.

      When these bastards blow bubbles, Wired is one of the outlets for their hot gas.

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
  • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:05PM

    by jimshatt (978) on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:05PM (#149933) Journal
    What truly amazes me is that he was able to cut his own throat, albeit unsuccessfully. Any other means of suicide seem easier, to me. Well, most.
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by zraith on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:28PM

      by zraith (112) on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:28PM (#149951)

      He may well have succeeded if he had not dulled his knife by cutting a bunch of copper cables as the article states.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:02PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:02PM (#149968)

      I believe that someone in their right mind (sane) wouldn't be able to.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mechanicjay on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:35PM

    by mechanicjay (7) <reversethis-{gro ... a} {yajcinahcem}> on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:35PM (#150036) Homepage Journal

    My first reaction whenever I see something in the news like, "OMG it's old, and we depend on it, how are we not all dead?" is, "Because it works". Less glib, "Because continuing to rely on a system that works and has been in the field for DECADES is far less risky than replacing it with something new. At this point there are 0 unknowns in the current system, which is a pretty safe place to be." It's the same reason you'll find 30+ year old PDP-11's and VAXes in the field, especially in process and automation control. They represent an integral part of the system in which they were installed.

    In a system upgrade like this, really only the inputs and outputs remain the same, the underlying technology between the old and new has zero similarity. In the case of ATC the inputs are Airplane positions, the outputs are telling them where to go next. In a factory, the input could be a raw sheet of steel, the output a washing machine shell.

    A factory looking at a complete retooling, which would include new computers as a part of the system, may choose to build a new facility and bring it on line in parallel to test it rather than suffer downtime and lost revenue to retooling or the risk of a knife-edge cut over. Given the ATC's requirement for 0 downtime, why isn't this being done there? It seems like they're trying to do some sort of rolling upgrade, which just seems doomed to fail. Better to build a new system and run in it parallel to test it before decommissioning the old. I understand this is expensive, but it's the way to do it right, else shouldn't even bother.

    --
    My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday February 27 2015, @12:23AM

    by mendax (2840) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:23AM (#150223)

    I've said this got knows how many times here and at that other site which will do not mention here whenever this topic of why we tolerate old technology for so long and I'm going to say it again. The answer is simple: If it ain't broken, don't fix it! Yes, it's creaky. Yes, it's been patched, modified, munged, and kludged only God knows how many times. Yes, there are sections of spaghetti code that no one understands except its long dead or retired author, whose last modification in the changelog is the addition of the comment "Don't change this. There be dragons here". This is a fact of life of any software system. The older they get, the uglier they get.

    When you think about it, if we redeveloped each software system because it was incredibly ugly, we'd be spending all our time writing new code and not fixing the code that actually makes the world work.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 2) by mendax on Friday February 27 2015, @12:30AM

      by mendax (2840) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:30AM (#150226)

      Oh, I forgot the obligatory mention of California's Department of Motor Vehicles and their forty-year-old IBM green screen system that keeps everyone's cars and trucks properly registered and drivers' licenses properly updated. I've heard from some quarters that it is a nightmare but the system works. And I dare say the clerks at DMV offices can whiz through those green screen applications far more quickly than they could with a web-based app.

      California's Medi-Cal system (it's version of the federal Medic-aid program) is equally decrepit, but it somehow manages to work.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by goodie on Friday February 27 2015, @03:22AM

    by goodie (1877) on Friday February 27 2015, @03:22AM (#150272) Journal

    To me, if it works well and does what it is supposed to do, upgrading for the sake of upgrading is a stupid idea. When you buy an ERP and the vendor locks you in before forcing you to upgrade just to keep getting support, it's extortion. But when you get to build the system from the ground up and it has proven time and time again that it is reliable, why the hell would you change it? Just look at the British ATC issues over the past few years...

    I'll take a console, ugly-looking old app running from a mainframe anytime over a shiny webapp and its stupid undeclared dependencies ("well why yes you do need Internet access to operate this simple command that does not require you to send anything over the Internet). It's stupid I know but I figure a bunch of bearded engineers working behind a computer together when I see those old apps. The new stuff, I see a hipster in a hoodie coding while posting on facebook and commenting on a food blog (I'm one of those btw). Stereotypes I know but nowadays, we seem to be trying to reinvent solutions to problems we have solved years ago just because there is a new technology around.

    If the system is able to perform in the way it was meant to, then it is testament to its ability to work as intended. And it should be applauded for it. Maybe I'm an idiot but I just can't think of many systems built nowadays that are conceived to last for the next 30 or 40 years. It's like TV and appliances nowadays: we build for cheap and replace when it breaks. We don't build with the idea that we can fix it later... Low hanging fruit, short-term vision, ladida, I'm just tired and cranky I guess ;).

  • (Score: 1) by dentonj on Friday February 27 2015, @12:08PM

    by dentonj (1309) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:08PM (#150381)

    General aviation still uses a lot of old technology. Magnetos are still used in general aviation engines. It's what, a hundred year old design? So why doesn't everyone switch over to new electronic ignition systems? Because FAA supplemental type certificates, or being able to modify an airplane, are not cheap. You normally only see electronic ignition systems in new airplanes where the ignition system, engine, and aircraft received a type certificate at the same time. I can only imagine the process to make changes to equipment / computers used by ATC is just as equally hard and expensive.