FAA Issues Year 2000 Progress Report

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

FAA Issues Year 2000 Progress Report

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APA 44-99
April 5, 1999
Contact: Paul Takemoto
Phone: 202-267-8521

FAA Issues Year 2000 Progress Report

Washington - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has 
released its latest numbers regarding the progress of work being 
done on its computers to ensure they properly recognize the year 
2000, or Y2K.

To date, all FAA systems requiring Y2K repairs have been 
successfully renovated and tested. To date, 88 percent of all FAA 
systems have completed the Y2K process. FAA systems are 
scheduled to complete this process by June 30.

The FAA April 10 will conduct a major test of every air traffic 
system at Denver International Airport used to control aircraft 
through each phase of flight, e.g., takeoffs, landings, etc. This 
"end-to-end" test, which is above and beyond individual system 
testing the FAA completed March 31, will involve the tracking of 
aircraft with computer clocks set forward to Dec. 31, 1999, and 
rolled over to Jan. 1, 2000.


-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999

Answers

Hoffmeister, are you a PR man for the FAA? I thought the FAA was finished last year.

" To date 88% of the Y2K systems have completed the Y2K process."

What is the Y2K process?

Is this a NEW .gov TERM?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


Nope, Ray, just thought this release was pretty timely, considering our "discussion".

And once again, the FAA did not say they were done last year.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.


Hoffmeister, how about this NEW TERM 'Y2K Process'. What exactly is this?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


That caught my eye too. I assume that all systems went through remediation and test at the system level. The process includes this "end-to-end" test outside the system level. It includes how well the remediated systems interact with other systems. My guess is that the process will also include some documentation and some contingency plans. The Dec 98 deadline intended to give a full year for testing and this is it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 05, 1999.

Don't know for sure, Ray.

My guess would be that 88% of the systems have been completed, through implementation. That would probably include systems that were assessed, but did not require modifications. The 88% is also pretty close to the estimates Joel Willemssen of the GAO gave on March 15th, that 356 of 423 (84%) systems would be implemented (complete) by the end of March.

Link

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.



Maria commented:

"The process includes this "end-to-end" test outside the system level. It includes how well the remediated systems interact with other systems."

Maria, is this first hand information or your conclusion?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


You're correct Hoffmeister, they did not say they were done last year. They said they were 99% complete. At this rate, maybe they'll be at 50% by the end of the year. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 05, 1999.

Look, Sysman, don't know if you followed the other thread or not.

But check out the FAA site:

FAA

Specifically, the area "What is the FAA's Y2K repair process schedule?". It has the quotation, and it specifically said it applied "renovation", not completion.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.


By thw way Hoffmeister, since I can't get any comment from our resident aviation expert, Y2K Pro, what do you have to say about the following points from Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, posted here last week? I understand that this is a highly respected trade publication. <:)= Twelve of twenty ATCs interface with foreign countries.

Cuba handles flights from southern US to Latin America.

21 of 65 (32%) ATC software systems fixed. The remaining 44 are the most complex.

Fixing the 65 ATC systems requires installation procedures at 3,000 field sites (remote radars, ILS, etc).

In house FAA systems as of 2/28/99 fixed 41/151 (27%).

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 05, 1999.


Sysman commented:

"21 of 65 (32%) ATC software systems fixed. The remaining 44 are the most complex."

Sysman, you don't mean to say that there is a possibility that just maybe the most difficult systems to remediate are being left till last. Of course this means that since this kind of information is not being released by .gov we sheeple are being left in the DARK.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.



Beats me Ray. I do find it funny that the SELF REPORTED numbers from the FAA are so different than those from, say the OMB, and the above noted trade pub. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 05, 1999.

Sysman:

FYI, the source of the story you're quoting is Kenneth Mead's testimony:

Link

The term "fixed" is being used to mean renovated, tested, validated, and implemented. No one said there wasn't more work to do. I guess I'm wondering what you are asking?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.


Hoffmeister, wouldn't it be much clearer if the FAA came out and said here is what we have left to do. Maybe they could just show us their project charts every week. What'ya think about that thought?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


Just my opinion Ray. Also the most complex 44 which are remaining does not imply they are being left till last. These systems can be rememdiated concurrently. Most complex implies more time needed to fix, not necessarily started after all others are finished first. (IMHO)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 05, 1999.

Well, Ray, personally I'd rather have them working on getting the job done, as opposed to creating weekly "updates" for everyone.

Still don't understand where the differences are, Sysman. Care to elaborate?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.



Maria, here is another portion of the statement:

"FAA systems are scheduled to complete this process by June 30."

They are talking about the 'Y2K Process' here I assume. That is the "Process" that we do not have a definition of as yet. Do you think it would be possible for these folks to get just a little more specific? They know the American public for the most part reads these PR blurbs and assumes all is well and hopefully it is. Then again who really knows.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


"Do you think it would be possible for these folks to get just a little more specific?" I assume that the general public really doesn't examine each word of the article. For the most part, the general public is not as concerned as some of the folks on this forum. So I assume the FAA believes that this information is enough for the public to know the status of converted systems. If they thought they needed to give more info (to help avoid panic), I believe that they would.

I also interprete the June 30 date as the finish date for the process. It sounds reasonable to me(as a Y2K project manager) for they will need to conduct the "end-to-end" test, fix the discrepancies (there always are), retest the fixes to make sure they didn't affect other parts of the code, and finalize their documentation. But that's just my opinion.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 05, 1999.


Thanks for that link Hoffmeister. It does clear things up quite a bit. It looks like they still have some concerns though: <:)=

"Implementing repairs into the real operational environment has risk due to potential complications resulting from local adaptations to ATC systems (changes made by local technicians). In the past, FAA has encountered problems installing test-center solutions at locations throughout the ATC system due to local changes.

FAA has 21 of the 65 ATC systems that have been fixed, tested, and installed at field sites. The remaining 44 systems are the most complex, and have to be installed at about 3,000 field sites in the next 3 months. This very aggressive schedule has to be carried out in conjunction with the development of other major ATC modernization projects, such as the Host replacement system."

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 05, 1999.


Maria commented:

"I assume that the general public really doesn't examine each word of the article. For the most part, the general public is not as concerned as some of the folks on this forum.">

That's what the FAA is counting on!

"So I assume the FAA believes that this information is enough for the public to know the status of converted systems. If they thought they needed to give more info (to help avoid panic), I believe that they would."

Maybe if they gave more information the public would panic!!

"I also interprete the June 30 date as the finish date for the process. It sounds reasonable to me(as a Y2K project manager) for they will need to conduct the "end-to-end" test, fix the discrepancies (there always are), retest the fixes to make sure they didn't affect other parts of the code, and finalize their documentation. But that's just my opinion."

Hopefully your interpretation is correct. We will know soon. Bottom line .... when a person or entity is caught LYING they have to go the extra mile to regain the trust that was lost.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


No no, Ray, just because your failure to read the details caused you to misunderstand, doesn't mean that whoever wrote those details was lying.

Granted, the FAA's approach of announcing completion percentages by phases is a bit confusing for the media to follow (and *way* over the heads of Ray and Gary North). This approach, while providing a bit more detail for those who read, makes for poor headlines and creates difficulties comparing phase status with overall status. How big is each phase, anyway?

But if you see an apparent contradiction and automatically assume someone's lying, you can never see the truth, even when you get pounded over the head with it. Otherwise, you'd have to *admit error*.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 1999.


Hi Flint, you commented:

"No no, Ray, just because your failure to read the details caused you to misunderstand, doesn't mean that whoever wrote those details was lying."

What details? Even this last blurb from the FAA is confusing. They even managed to introduce a NEW TERM 'Y2K Process'. Do we have a definition of this?

"Granted, the FAA's approach of announcing completion percentages by phases is a bit confusing for the media to follow (and *way* over the heads of Ray and Gary North). This approach, while providing a bit more detail for those who read, makes for poor headlines and creates difficulties comparing phase status with overall status. How big is each phase, anyway? "

Also over theheads of MOST Americans, which is exactly what these folks at FAA wanted to do.

"But if you see an apparent contradiction and automatically assume someone's lying, you can never see the truth, even when you get pounded over the head with it. Otherwise, you'd have to *admit error*."

I guess in this day and age contradiction is a nice way of saying LIE. We must be Politically Correct you know!!

Now Flint, it won't be long before we really know the TRUTH, until then we will just keep .gov on their toes.

Ray -- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 1999.

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


Here is a csy2k Thread that talks about some thoughts on what the FAA might do. Look about half way down.

csy2k Thread

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 05, 1999.


Lets not forget that itsy-bitsy task of Host replacement. All of this remediation is taking place in a 3083 environment under a custom OS. Changing Hosts to a G3 is like yanking the engine out of a Honda and replacing it with a Corvette LT1 AND keeping the tranny linkages the same.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 05, 1999.

From http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Washington/Misc/lcore9914.ht...

September 30, 1998: FAA Ninety-Nine Percent Complete. . . .

December 14, 1998: FAA Ninety-Five Percent Complete. . . .

March 31, 1999: FAA Sixty-Five Percent Complete. . . .

All these terms -- "renovation," "implementation," "compliance" -- are tossed around with abandon. So are the numbers -- 99%, 95%, 65% -- they're tossed around like candy for the children lining a parade route.

Garvey threw the 99% figure at a congressional committee on September 29, 1998. Do you think she might have done that just because the Office of Management and Budget had established September 30 as a "target date...for agencies to have all their mission-critical systems renovated"? (See the Federal Computer Week article Coming up short on Y2K, October 5, 1998.) Well, maybe she threw the 99% figure at the congressional committee just because the "target date" had been reached. Maybe not. It sounds good, though, doesn't it? "Ninety-nine percent of its computer systems renovated": yes, it does sound good.

Why The Figures Aren't Always As Good As They Sound

It doesn't sound as good, however, if you know that "renovation" is only part of the Y2K solution. The rest is testing and implementation. The CA 2000 White Paper, from California's Department of Information Technology, indicates in general terms that testing and implementation should take at least as long as renovation (including design, planning, development and modification).

As Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., remarks in his software-project management classic, The Mythical Man-Month:

In examining conventionally scheduled projects, I have found that few allowed one-half of the projected schedule for testing, but that most did indeed spend half of the actual schedule for that purpose. Many of these were on schedule until and except in system testing. That is, most projects don't allocate enough time for testing, most of them end up having spent at least half of the time in testing -- and many projects don't get behind schedule until they're in testing. . . .

Why might that be? Sometimes, because the requirements of sufficient testing might be more complicated, and therefore more time-consuming, than originally thought. Sadly, though, sufficient testing might uncover problems that hadn't been fixed, and it might even discover problems that were introduced during the software modifications. As Brooks says: The fundamental problem with program maintenance is that fixing a defect has a substantial (20-50 percent) chance of introducing another. So the whole process is two steps forward and one step back. (Some recent articles demonstrate the accuracy of Brooks' observation: Chicago Tribune, New Zealand InfoTech Weekly, and ComputerWorld.). . . .

Another Reason The Figures Are Even Less Good. . . .

Rounding the numbers, about 1 in 12 U.S. federal government systems (6,400 out of 72,000) are now deemed to be mission-critical, you see, but that number used to be much higher (9,000). Additionally, from Yourdon's observations and from Willemssen's testimony, you can see that the assertions in the three articles quoted at the top must actually refer only to FAA's mission-critical systems, not to all of FAA's systems. That's an important fact that cannot be gleaned from the news stories, and which may very well have been blown right past the reporters and, maybe, blown right past congressmen and everybody else, too.

Remember: when the government and the press tell us that the federal government has achieved 90% compliance by March 31, 1999, what they are really telling us is that only eight percent of the federal government's 72,000 systems have been fixed. (That doesn't mean, by the way, that 66,000 systems will still need to be fixed: by no means do all systems require Y2K fixing, and some can be replaced or "retired".) Moreover -- and not to be forgotten -- the state of the project and the rate of progress is self-reported, as Willemssen notes in passing in his FAA testimony. . . .



-- a (a@a.a), April 05, 1999.


Link

-- a (a@a.a), April 05, 1999.

Yes, a, read Mr Core's article.

He's also very wrong concerning percentages being only mission critical systems.

But hey, got him another link on Gary North!

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.


Maria's analysis seems closest - "allowing for testing and re-testing" - but the (latest) 30 June deadline seems headed for the scrap heap like the others - sorry, I'm just a little pessimistic here until they are actually running all-up in a post-2000 environment.

The April test in CO - if validated - and with the administrator looking over their shoulders I can "assure" you it won't run properly (grin) like Gates found out for Win 98, the closer the administrator gets to the computer, the more likely it is to fail - could be a good first step.

However - it (the April test) is being run on stand-by computers using only a single aircraft in a off-line mode - so Heisenburg's law says that the test results will be skewed by the pretense of the limited environment of the test. It is better than nothing though.

Let's hope they keep making progress - and do not pull a Challenger and kill innocents while trying to maintain their political corruptness.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 05, 1999.


RD:

Yes, the Host story was pretty interesting, but kind of lost track of it.

The latest info I know of:

Link

One of the systems that received a lot of attention at the last hearing, and has since been repaired, is the existing Host computer. FAA initiated procurement of new Host computers, but it also took action to repair the existing computers. FAA contractors did not identify any Year-2000 problems with the Host microcode (machine language) that would preclude transition into the next millenium. FAA plans to complete replacement of the existing Host computers by October 1999. The replacement is on schedule. So far, replacement systems have been installed for use at 10 of the 26 centers.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.


Maria:

Some of us are concerned because, if commercial aviation goes to 20%, it means our livelihood. 85% of my job is trips with Hopkins Intl at one end or the other. I REALLY don't want to have my job go away when the folks find that the ATC's can only handle 20% or less of the current load.

Chuck, a Night Driver, who has done enough systems and project management to be REALLY concerned.

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 06, 1999.


Hey, Ray.

To answer your question on "Y2k Process", see:

Story

"We are on track for the FAA to be certified Y2K compliant by June 30 of this year," Long said.

Of 641 separate FAA computer systems, 564 or 88 percent were now Y2K compliant, meaning they had been repaired if necessary, tested and returned to service.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 06, 1999.


Here's a link for you:

http://207.158.205.162/PP/RC/dm9913.htm

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.


Hey gang, have lurked for some time and never felt like I had anything to contribute. But here goes, I was sent this letter this morning from a friend that I thought you might find interesting. Or perhaps you have already seen it? I haven't seen it in the recent posts.

Subject: Fwd:MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR Author: Admin AMCAVNHUB Date: 4/6/99 7:01 AM

April 2, 1999 Dear Fellow Employees: As many of you know, March 31 was the date by which all FAA systems requiring Y2K repairs had to complete their individual system testing, also called validation. I am pleased to report that 100 percent of those systems have finished this phase. To bring everyone up to date, we have now completed renovating and validating our systems, and are in the process of implementing those repairs in the field. We will be holding a major end-to-end test in Denver on April 10. This test is above and beyond the individual system testing and follows three end-to-end tests that were successfully conducted at the Technical Center in Atlantic City. The Denver test will involve tracking aircraft with the clocks on the test systems set forward to December 31, 1999, and rolled over to January 1, 2000. The test should prove that those systems are ready for the new millennium.

Sincerely, Jane F. Garvey Administrator me again, I thought that March 31 was the date that all fed. agencies and departments were to be _compliant_ but in this letter, Ms Garvey says that March 31 was the date on which all systems had to be validated. (BTW, I know that all systems are not tested and validated. My friend wants to keep his job so I cannot give more details.) And I was just starting to think that maybe I could relax, that maybe things were starting to look up. Back to the preps. A GI grateful for your input and support.

-- A grateful GI (stillpreparinglikem@d.com), April 06, 1999.


Hoffmeister, I read these articles and only get more confused. Here is a clip from the article:

"Of the mission critical systems, 151 had required Y2K repairs and 108 or 72 percent had been repaired, tested and returned to service, Long said."<'I>

Now we are talking about 72% of mission critical systems being repaired.

Hoffmiester, here is a simple solution to this fiasco. Have the FAA allow an independent 3rd party in to review their status and let them make a report soon. Of course this will NEVER happen!!!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.


Italics Off

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.


Sorry guys,

My original submission looked beautiful, formatting was lovely but something went wacko when I hit submit. And alas, I'm too illiterate to know how to correct it. I hope it is still readable and that you are not put off by my incompetence.

-grateful GI

PS Old Git, I _knew_ you must have happened on some old magazines; newer magazines are more concerned with convenience recipes than those requiring a little effort to locate ingredients (okay, maybe a lot more effort!) Just don't make me eat poke greens. My late mother loved them with a hot vinegar dressing and bacon. ugh, grateful GI

-- a grateful GI (stillpreparinglikem@d.com), April 06, 1999.


Yes, a, read Mr Core's article.

He's also very wrong concerning percentages being only mission critical systems....

Bald assertions are worthless. And they're worse than worthless when they are untrue.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), April 06, 1999.


Ray:

You do seem easily confused. The 88% related to all systems, including non-mission critical systems. This percentage also includes systems that were already compliant.

The 72% refers to actual work, on mission-critical systems. I know you can read; the article states:

Of 641 separate FAA computer systems, 564 or 88 percent were now Y2K compliant, meaning they had been repaired if necessary, tested and returned to service.

Of those 641 systems, 423 are judged to be "mission critical." Of the mission critical systems, 151 had required Y2K repairs and 108 or 72 percent had been repaired, tested and returned to service, Long said.

You can try all you like to confuse the issue, but it is there, in black and white. You seem to have trouble reading even the press releases, yet you want the FAA to give you actual project plans and status?

Lane:

Well, Lane, my guess is you should have dug deeper. You claim the FAA statements and milestones are only addressing "mission-critical" systems.

Agreed, Joel Willemssen was addressing only mission-critical systems. But the statements by Garvey, and the milestones such as the September 30th date for renovation, and the March 31st, are in regard to all systems.

Clue #1:

At the FAA site, see the timeline at:

Link

Notice how they use the wording "mission-critical" for the Jan 31, 1998 deadline, then use "All" systems later. This is even more apparent if you download the PDF of their Project Plan at:

Project Plan PDF

On Page 23, they have the same timeline, but with the addition of a April 15, 1998 deadline for non-mission critical assessment. Once again, following this they use the term "all" systems.

Now, personally, if they say "all", I have no reason to question them. But I knew the Doomers wouldn't accept that, so I dug further.

Clue #2:

Actually, not a clue, but an explicit statement. Garvey, giving testimony at the same hearings from which you quoted Willemssen, stated unequivocably:

We fully expect to complete validation for 100% of all of our systems by March 31, 1999, mission-critical and non-mission-critical.

Link to Testimony

Finally, backing this up was the article yesterday at:

Story

I realize that yesterday's postings were after you wrote the article. But the other links were available.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 06, 1999.


Hoffmeister commented:

"You do seem easily confused. "

I guess the FAA has been successful in some respects !!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ