The GI drumbeat of "they're lying, all lying" is really picking up. One of the most obvious places has been in regard to the FAA. It has been ingrained in the GI set; the FAA has lied about compliance.

But seriously, have they? The claims of "lying" revolve around various statements made by Jane Garvey and the FAA, combined with statements made by the GAO and OMB. They apparently contradict themselves, and have lead to these charges of "lying".

As misguided as I may be, I thought it would be worth the effort to address these statements. Multiple threads here have brought this subject up; I wanted to consolidate into one thread. This post is meant to address the public statements made by and about the FAA Y2k effort, and the alleged "lying"

FAA Project Plan

First, let's look at the FAA Project Plan. The FAA has quite a lot of information regarding its Y2k effort published on the web.

The definition of the FAA plan can be found at: FAA FAQ

Among other things, it lists the phases of the project as:

1. Awareness - to alert organizations, inside and outside of the FAA, of the Y2K challenge and that Y2K compliance must be a top priority. This phase is expected to be ongoing throughout the Y2K repair process.
2. Assessment - to inventory and prioritize system Y2K fixes. Assessment of FAA's mission critical systems was completed on January 31, 1998; assessment of FAA's non-mission critical systems was completed April 15, 1998.
3. Renovation - to achieve compliance of Y2K-impacted systems. This phase includes conversion, replacement, or elimination of selected hardware platforms, applications, operating systems, databases, COTS packages, utilities, and internal and external interfaces. On September 30, 1998, the FAA completed the renovation of 99% of all its systems. As of December 31, 1998, 100% of the systems were renovated.
4. Validation - to test all applications and interactions between scores of converted or replaced computer platforms, operating systems, utilities, applications, databases, and interfaces. Validation is underway and is scheduled to be complete on March 31, 1999.
5. Implementation - to test integration and acceptance to ensure that all converted or replaced system components perform adequately in their real-time operating environment. Implementation is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1999.

These definitions are important. The FAA statements are made in relation to the phases of the project, and most of the apparent lies can be traced to the misunderstanding of the phase definitions.

The Project Deadlines The FAA deadlines can be found in the above project definitions. To reiterate:

September 30th, 1998 - Completion of Renovation Phase

March 31st, 1999 - Completion of Validation Phase

June 30th, 1999 - Completion of Implementation

These are the FAA project deadlines. The OMB imposed its own set of deadlines; the now famous March 31st deadline, for all government agencies to be complete with mission-critical systems.

The FAA did not modify their project to accomodate the OMB deadlines. From the same reference as above, the FAA states:

Although FAA's dates differ from those of the OMB, the agency is committed to move its schedule forward as aggressively as it can without risking adverse impacts on safety or efficiency. The agency's dates are based on a careful assessment of what the FAA will have to do to prepare its air traffic and other key business systems for the year 2000 date change.

Now personally, I'd rather have the FAA following a project plan based on the actual work involved, instead of an artificial deadline imposed by the OMB. But again, remember that the OMB deadline coincides with the FAA deadline for Validation; another source of apparent "confusion".

The System Count

One final piece of up front information. The OMB deadline addresses only "mission-critical" systems, whereas the FAA is addressing all systems. Some of the statements made refer to mission-critical; some don't. However, this article breaks down all the FAA systems:

Article

Total Systems: 641

Mission Critical Systems: 423

Mission Critical Systems Requiring Repair: 151

Statement: Jane Garvey, September 30, 1998

The source of the "lying" assumptions. Quoted in this story, Jane Garvey states:

Federal Aviation Administration expects to have about 99 percent of its computer systems renovated to deal with the Year 2000 computer problem by Wednesday.

Testing to make sure all systems are working properly already has begun, administrator Jane Garvey told a joint meeting of two House committees Tuesday.

Note the quote well; "99 precent of its computer systems renovated". Not compliant, not tested, not implemented, but renovated. The article goes on to say testing has begun; obviously not completed. The Doom crowd insist on misreading this statement, when it is completely obvious, based on the information provided by the FAA, that she was not saying the FAA was done.

Statement: Jane Garvey, January 22, 1999

Found at: Link

On the Year 2000 front, we are bearing down on the January 31 deadline by which the Office of Management and Budget and the General Accounting Office want Federal agencies to have their systems validated, or tested, for the Y2K bug. The FAA deadline for validation is March 31, but our goal is to have 85% of our systems validated by January 31. Early kudos go to Air Traffic for exceeding that goal, but other lines of business are not doing as well. It is absolutely crucial that we stay on top of our deadlines, and not let up until the job is done.

Again, referencing the OMB deadline versus the FAA deadline. The 85% quote is compared by the doomers with the September 30 quote; again, she explicitly states validated, again following the FAA project definition. Once again, no conflict is found.

Statement: FAA Spokesman Paul Takemoto, March 5, 1999

Quoted in this story, the FAA spokesman says:

On March 31 the FAA will have just 65 percent of the agency's computers tested and implemented, with the other 35 percent to be Y2K ready by June 31, Takemoto added.

The 65% refers to "tested and implemented". Once again, the doomers compare this number to the previous quotes, to show backsliding. The FAA is merely reporting percentages based on their project plan, which again is fairly evident. Nothing inconsistent here, in regard to the other statements.

Also, doomers seemed to enjoy the June 31 quote.

Statement: Alexis Stefani, FAA IG Office, March 08, 1999

From this story

Alexis Stefani was much less optimistic. Only 31 percent of the agency's computers were completely fixed, she told the committee. She was commenting on the current status, of being implemented. The 65% quote was a projection of the end of March, which is confirmed by the next statement.

Statement: Kenneth Mead, DOT IG, March 15, 1999

In testimony given before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, Kenneth Mead gave the following chart:

	Systems	Implemented 2/28/99 (Actual)	Implemented 3/31/99 (Projected)	Implemented 6/30/99 (Projected)
FAA	151	41 (27%)	97 (64%)	151 (100%)
ATC	65	21 (32%)	34 (52%)	65 (100%)

Again, the 65% project matches the previous quotes, along with the current status. Once again, no contradiction. Kenneth Mead is reporting on systems implemented.

Statement: Joel Willemssen, GAO, March 15, 1999

In testimony given before the same committe:

While the government-wide deadline for completing systems implementation is at the end of this month, FAAs self-reported data demonstrate that much work remains to be done in a limited amount of time. Specifically, FAA must still finish implementing 141 mission-critical systems. Figure 1 details the overall reported status of FAAs mission-critical systems as of March 8, 1999.

As of March 8, 1999, FAAs internal systems database showed that 50 of its 423 mission-critical systems had not yet been validated. These include 25 systems that have been repaired, 5 replacement systems, and 20 systems that were determined not to need repair or replacement. FAA intends to complete validation of all mission-critical systems by March 31, 1999.

Much more remains to be done to complete the implementation of mission-critical system repairs and replacements. While FAA determined that 224 of its 423 mission-critical systems do not require changes to be made, the remaining 199 systems (47 percent) must be modified, replaced, or newly installed. As of March 8, 1999, FAA reported that it had implemented 58 of these 199 systems. The agency plans to implement an additional 74 systems by March 31, and the remaining 67 systems by June 30, 1999. Figure 2 details FAAs schedule for completing the validation and implementation of its mission-critical systems.

Once again, he is talking of implementation, and the numbers correspond to the other statements made. Once again, no lies.

Current Status: April 05, 1999

As reported in this story, the current FAA status:

Total Systems: of 641 total systems, 564 or 88% are Y2k compliant, meaning repaired, tested, and returned to service, if required.

Mission Critical Systems: of 423 mission-critical systems, 151 required Y2k repairs, and 108 of those, or 72%, had been repaired, tested, and returned to service.

So Where are the Lies???

After reviewing these statements, I find absolutely no instance of lying by the FAA, or contradiction in completion percentages. All of the lying claims depend on doomers deliberately misreading the statements made in context. The FAA has followed its project plan.

Finally: "Mission-Critical Only"

Recently, Lane Core posted an article, claiming the FAA was only addressing "mission-critical" systems.

Admittedly, the testimony by Kenneth Mead and Joel Willemsen only addressed mission-critical systems, but it is very apparent the FAA is addressing all systems.

The story posted above breaks down the status of all vs mission-critical systems, and shows the FAA is addressing all systems. In addition, Jane Garvey explicitly states in her testimony:

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

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

Answers

That took a lot of work on your part Hoff. Thanks

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

Yeah, Hoff, thanks for the facts.

-- doomslayer (1@2.3), April 06, 1999.

Good research piece...thanks for the work. I'm impressed (for whatever that is worth ;) ).

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. it takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 06, 1999.

Excellent work Hoff. I'm sure the doomers won't like it however...

"On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Yourdon

"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary North

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 06, 1999.

Here's some more on the FAA:

Ok, fibbing, then"

-- Norm (norm@nwo.com), April 06, 1999.

Gee Hoffmeister must have hit a rather sensitive nerve here. Maybe we could pick out some Politically Correct terminology for LYING. How about MISUNDERSTANDING. Anyone else care to help Hoff out.

Ray

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

Nice formatting.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 06, 1999.

My it sure is interesting how all of the polly folks were instantly right there to jump on the Band Wagon for Hoff. I still visualize a coordinated effort here on the part of these folks. Watch Out, Incoming.

Hoff, they say if you throw enough s**t ot the fan something is bound to stick. sorry, not in this case.

Ray

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

It seems to me that the challenge remains: Who is lying, and who is telling truth/stating facts? Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)

Thomas Szasz wrote, "Man is the animal that speaks. Understanding language is the key to understanding man; and the control of language, to the control of man." Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics indicated that, "Those who control symbols control humanity."

It is easy to manipulate language to suit any purpose. Be a seeker, and recover facts for yourself.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 06, 1999.

Does this mean that Hoffmeister, Maria, Doomslayer, Jonathan Latimer and Y2K Pro would all be willing to fly between cities on January 1, 2000?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999.

Well, as usual, we have a Clinton appointee mucking with the [American] English language to (in my opinion) obfuscate the issue without "legally" perjuring herself.

If Hoffmeister's definitions above are correct, then we still have deception at work.

First of all, the definition of "renovate" from my Random House Unabridged Dictionary is:

adj. -v.t. 1. to restore to good condition; make new or as if new again; repair. 2. to reinvigorate; refresh; revive.

Naturally, the past tense of renovate implies that IT IS ALREADY DONE! Therefore, it is ALREADY:

restored to good condition; made new; repaired.

So what we have here is standard deception by a bureaucrat. The words were chosen carefully, I'm sure. The assumption by the interviewer, and certainly by the listeners was that Ms. Garvey [et al] were in fact speaking American English.

Definitions are extremely important. The Clinton's and their cronies know this *very* well. That's why the immortal "depends on what your definition of 'alone' is" (sic).

Ms Garvey may have been thinking of renovation in these new terms stated by Hoffmeister, but she also knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that her audience would misunderstand her. And she therefore should have clarified her terminology in advance.

BTW folks, we get this kinda of semantic crap all over the place, and it's been discussed frequently on this board. It's no wonder that a great deal of us cannot take the "good" news when it comes, when we've been deceived so frequently before.

After all, I certainly thought I knew what the definition of "alone" was before it was *modified* to keep the President (sic) out of trouble.

Jolly dislikes prevarication.

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), April 06, 1999.

The mathematical definitions of "universe" and "set" take on a whole new meaning when the semantics of political propaganda come into play, eh?

Assumption. Premise. Argument. Conclusion. These leave little wiggle room.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 06, 1999.

From Time Digital, Feb 2, 99:

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,19236,00.html

**The key to the mystery lies in the FAA's definition of the word "renovation." You'd think that a system that had been "renovated" had been fixed. Or at least looked at. Not so in this case. What the FAA means by "renovation" is nothing more than simulated repairs on a simulated version of the FAA computer system, which are being conducted at an FAA technical center in New Jersey. Most of the testing is still being done on the simulator, and the FAA won't specify how much testing is actually being done on the real machines.

**Using a simulator to fix a network as complicated as the air traffic control system is a valid first step, but its literally worlds away from working on a real machine. The gap between simulation and reality is made even wider by the fact that the actual FAA machines have been independently maintained, upgraded and altered by separate groups of technicians at nearly 200 separate locations across the country since the 1970s. These systems have been evolving away from each other for decades, and a Y2K fix developed on a simulated machine in New Jersey may have a hard time making friends with an actual 25-year-old FAA computer in Tulsa. Hopefully the FAA will move on to the implementation phase of the project soon. Thats when well all find out if the theoretical repairs actually work in the big, bad world.

From Declan McCullagh at y2kculture.com on Mar 8, 99:

http://www.y2kculture.com/reality/19990308.travel.html

**What did an official in the FAA's inspector general's office -- aka an internal auditor -- think?

**Alexis Stefani was much less optimistic. Only 31 percent of the agency's computers were completely fixed, she told the committee.

**"FAA now faces an additional kind of problem. They're shooting for the end of June to have all of their systems done, but it becomes an implementation [problem]," Stefani said, noting that some systems are scattered around dozens or even hundreds of locations. Technicans have to travel to each of them.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), April 06, 1999.

"Ms Garvey may have been thinking of renovation in these new terms stated by Hoffmeister, but she also knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that her audience would misunderstand her. And she therefore should have clarified her terminology in advance." Unfortunately Jollyprez, Ms Garvey didn't know that her words would be plastered all over the internet (her new audience). People directly involved with Y2K projects know the Y2K meaning of these words which are more clearly defined than your dictionary. Project and requirements management makes you go beyond the dictionary so it's clear to all on the project. Unfortunately the English language is NOT so precise.

Ray a little nervous about pollys supporting each other? When the d&g crowd does it, it's ok, though. I understand you need that support otherwise you can't think on your own.

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

Hello,

Kevin; You bet I'll fly; and I am planning on it already. Immediately after New Year's in California with my Mom, I'll be flying back to Maui. I'm not only doing it because I'd like to see my Mom for the holidays, but I expect that if people get riled up enough about the Millenium that round trip tickets will cost about $120. I'm not passing that up. ;)

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 06, 1999.

Maria commented:

" Unfortunately Jollyprez, Ms Garvey didn't know that her words would be plastered all over the internet (her new audience). People directly involved with Y2K projects know the Y2K meaning of these words which are more clearly defined than your dictionary."

Now we have something to talk about Maria. Is their a set of STANDARDS for y2k utilized by ALL agencies of .gov that include this terminology. If so, where would one locate this.

Many thanks in advance, Ray ........sweating bullets over polly togetherness !!

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

Drew beat me to the punch. The FAA has very cleverly misled the public by using terms like "renovation" to mean "we've changed some code and it looks like it works on a simulator but we haven't installed it". The fact is they HAVE NOT installed renovated code system wide. They won't even hint at where they are in that process. For the past 18 months we have seen public pronouncements like this quote from the Washington Post:

This is from the WASHINGTON POST (Aug. 3). * * * * * * * * * * * Today, however, the FAA appears to be on track for an on-time arrival. The agency said Friday that it had fixed the code on 67 percent of its "mission critical" systems. By the end of September FAA officials promise they will have completed the necessary fixes on all their computer systems, including the noncritical ones.

Clearly, the message is misleading in the context of actual installed production code. They LIED by using misleading PR that implied they had "fixed" actual ATC installation code when they haven't. Next, why don't you post an extended definition of why oral sex isn't sex.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria, please replace 'their with there' in previous post. Getting awfully nervous about polly togetherness.

Ray

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

RD cmmented:

"Clearly, the message is misleading in the context of actual installed production code. They LIED by using misleading PR that implied they had "fixed" actual ATC installation code when they haven't. Next, why don't you post an extended definition of why oral sex isn't sex."

RD please, is there a Politically Correct term we can use in place of LIED. It appears that this term has upset some of the folks here today. How about misunderstanding.

Ray

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

in case anybody cares... joel willemssen (gao) said last september that he thought the faa was "all over" y2k, and really making progress. willemssen i trust.

at the same time, one source in the system has a healthy distrust of the faa's method of counting (he explained to me part of the game they were playing, but i can't repeat it- sorry). another source from the federal government was at best mildly optimistic. and bruce webster has reported that mainframe programmers have told him there's no way the faa will be ready.

and for anyone who doubts that federal employees lie about y2k readiness... get a grip. now. they've been caught lying various times, and that's only the examples we know of. the pressure is on, big time, to be ready, to meet the numbers, even the reduced numbers.

and, of course, all of that doesn't even get into the quality of repair work that's actually being done. i hear varying stories on that. the most reliable source i talked to quoted a pretty high potential failure rate for the federal fixes- much higher than would remotely be tolerable in the private sector.

will we see problems? yes- they're already happening, quietly. end of the world due to federal breakdowns? quite unlikely, imho. the bigger problem to me is still in the private sector, especially internationally.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), April 06, 1999.

sounds about right, Drew. The bad news is, the government mostly won't be ready. The good news is, we mostly don't need what they do anyway.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 06, 1999.

Flint commented:

"sounds about right, Drew. The bad news is, the government mostly won't be ready. The good news is, we mostly don't need what they do anyway."

Flint, I agree wholeheartedly (honest!). The primary thing .gov is here for is the defense of our country. I hope and pray they have this phase of y2k under control but am VERY concerned.

Ray

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

Ray,

RD please, is there a Politically Correct term we can use in place of LIED. It appears that this term has upset some of the folks here today. How about misunderstanding.

No. I won't play that game. Couldn't care less about being PeeCee on this or any other forum. A big reason we are in this fix stems from accepting statements from officials that were blatantly false and misleading. Garvey et.al. have intentionally misled the public as to their actual status. If even one airplane goes down because of their malfeasance, they deserve to be hung.

Flint commented: "sounds about right, Drew. The bad news is, the government mostly won't be ready. The good news is, we mostly don't need what they do anyway."

Sorry, we unfortunately DO need them to provide ATC services or we don't have modern air transport. We DO need them to provide the "entitlement" checks or we don't have a viable economy. We DO need them to provide a Defense environment thats reliable and safe. We DO need them to honestly evaluate/regulate the nuclear power industry. etc. etc.... You might not like the Feds, but if they disappear overnight then its Infomagic time.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 06, 1999.

rd,

flint said we *mostly* don't need what they do. your points are valid- welfare, faa, etc- and those are among the systems most at risk. some of the other systems that concern are the "hidden" ones- like fda, etc- regulatory agencies, who can slow down business a pretty fair amount by not granting go-aheads on new products, etc.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), April 06, 1999.

Come on, your writing about Y2K and you don't know how people are using the word "renovate?" Any Y2K manager can tell you that Renovation is only the coding on a development machine.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/y2kguide.pdf

The five steps in a Y2K project as defined by the GAO:

7 Awareness 7 Assessment 7 Renovation 7 Validation 7 Implementation

GAO Y2K Guide

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 06, 1999.

Drew,

Yeah, we probably don't need the Office for Silly Walks. I'm thinking of renaming the FAA ---> Fawlty Towers.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 06, 1999.

Duh, Hoffmeister made a point of specifying what "renovation" meant, and so did the FAA.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 06, 1999.

Doomslayer,

The FAA defines implementation as follows:

5.Implementation - to test integration and acceptance to ensure that all converted or replaced system components perform adequately in their real-time operating environment. Implementation is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1999.

Curious way to word this phase. The way this is worded it accurately describes running the code only on the test machine. "real-time operating environment" does not mean its actually installed in the field. I have it on fairly good background sources that each of the 20 ATC centers have customized I/O features. Therefore, installing one set of "renovated/validated" code may well be less than straight forward. Further, have you forgotten the Host change from the 3083 to the G3? The last platform change took the FAA 3 years to complete. Have you any clue how difficult this is? C'mon Doomslayer - talk OS/390 sys gen to me.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 06, 1999.

doomslayer,

i refer you to the second paragraph from the time digital story: the question is whether or not that renovation is sufficient, given the way faa machines in various locations have evolved away from each other.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), April 06, 1999.

rd,

your background sources would line up with what time digital reported- the faa's various machines in various locations have been altered indepedently over time, and thus probably have some notable differences by this point.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), April 06, 1999.

Hoff,

all you've proven is that the government can lie consistently... sorry, used to work for the government myself and so I already know that. They count on folks like you being gullible enough to believe them.

oh well, in the end that's your problem, not mine.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 06, 1999.

The illiterate RD said: "If even one airplane goes down because of their malfeasance, they deserve to be hung."

Things are "hung" - people are "hanged"

-- Philistine Hater (grammar@nothere.gov), April 06, 1999.

Look, they aren't my definitions, they are the ones used by both the FAA and GAO. And the FAA has been consistent in their usage.

For people like Arlin, obviously, the point is moot. Just like Ray (I think) on another thread said, the government always lies, never tells the truth. No real point in continuing, folks.

Your beliefs are ingrained, and won't be changed. So be it. It wasn't my intention to change anyones opinion. Even when presented with the statements, end to end, you won't admit there was no lies. The post here was meant to try and be a reference point, when the FAA lies myth raises itself again.

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

Hoffmeister:

Gives a whole new meaning to the "denial phase", doesn't it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 06, 1999.

RD:

On the Host upgrade. First, they seem to be progressing:

Link

WASHINGTON - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is making rapid progress bringing its new air traffic control computer systems on line, FAA Administrator Jane F. Garvey said today.

The agency now has new Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) equipment operational at 11 of its 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers. HOCSR is scheduled to be operational in all 20 centers by the end of September 1999.

The HOCSR system is a key component of the National Airspace System infrastructure modernization program and FAA's Year 2000 (Y2K) computer compliance effort. The new system is four times faster, more reliable, uses much less power and takes up less space.

The FAA also dedicated the first Display System Replacement (DSR) at its Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center in Auburn, Wash., on Jan. 20. DSR replaces 20-to 30-year -old equipment at the center with upgraded displays, computer hardware and software. All 20 enroute centers in the continental U.S. will receive new HOCSR and DSR equipment.

The state-of-the-art equipment at FAA's enroute centers is part of the agency's modernization efforts. "We're getting refinements, added capabilities and a platform for future enhancements," Garvey said. "Our aviation system is getting younger and more reliable all the time." Garvey added that FAA's modernization effort includes more than just the big computer replacements. Since 1997, more than 700 major systems have been installed and integrated into the National Airspace System. Also since then, the agency has made more than 5,800 hardware and software upgrades.

New York center's Host computer was the first to go on line on Feb. 24. New computers are now fully operational at Fort Worth, Texas, Albuquerque, N.M., Atlanta, Denver, Boston, Oakland, Calif., Minneapolis, Chicago, Miami, and Washington, D.C. centers.

Second, from the FAA site:

Link

The HOST system is used to control air traffic at 20 enroute centers. This is accomplished through the processing of radar data and flight plan data for presentation on controller displays.

The system is being replaced while it the current system is being renovated. This approach is being taken to ensure that the Host system is functioning properly through the Year 2000.

Host Renovation: The Host computer system was completed with renovation activities on July 31, 1998, including changes to its operational code. In addition, a specialized development team, which included former IBM senior microcode employees, analyzed over one million lines of microcode at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ. The team tested applicable hardware, software, and firmware using customized and specially developed microcode system-unique diagnostic tools that would identify all sources of possible Y2K date function anomalies. After exhaustive testing, the team identified only minor leap year problems which were immediately corrected. The microcode team concluded that the Host system microcode, if required to be operational in the Year 2000 at any Enroute Air Traffic Control Center, would transition the millennium in a routine manner. No action would be required to intervene with normal Host microcode processing.

Host Replacement:

The Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) program will be replacing the existing Host and Oceanic processors at the 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) and the Honolulu Combined En Route Radar Approach Control Facility (CERAP) prior to the year 2000. (Note: Two of the 20 ARTCCs [New York and Oakland] include both Host and Oceanic processors that will be replaced.) The replacement effort started at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in April 1998 and at the first site (New York - Host) in July 1998. The existing Host and Oceanic processors are being replaced with IBM G3 processors. (Note: The installation at the second Honolulu site is for a new facility that will not be available until the year 2000. The Anchorage installation also occurs later and uses the equipment installed at the first Honolulu site after that facility is decommissioned.)

The first site (New York - Host) Initial Operational Capability (IOC) will occur in December 1998, with a planned Operational Readiness Date (ORD) of January 1999. The last site (Cleveland) IOC is scheduled for August 1999, with a planned ORD of September 1999.

The FAA is confident that the schedule can be successfully achieved. To date, the waterfall schedule dates have been met or accomplished early with no major problems. The FAA (both headquarters and the sites) is committed to the successful completion of the HOCSR program prior to the year 2000.

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

Off

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

Sorry, 'a', my money goes under the mattress. Yes, I recognize this imperils the system, and that if everyone did it it's self- fulfilling. But nonetheless...

Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 1999.

Hoffmeister:

Gives a whole new meaning to the "denial phase", doesn't it.

Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 06, 1999.

There it is again - the wave/particle duality of Flint...more evidence of MPD for his head shrinker...

-- a (a@a.a), April 07, 1999.

And if you check www.seattletimes.com archives you will find 2 articles on FAA Seattle Center (sorry can't get the link to work). One on January 20, 1999 explaining why "during test" the backup generators didn't come on and the system was black for 35 minutes and a January 21, 1999 article lauding the new, up to date Y2k system that was installed at FAA Seattle Center in Auburn. And I know people that live within blocks of SC and there was no power outage anywhere except at SC Auburn. Believe that was the 3rd blackout of SC Auburn in about the last 6 months , none weather related to my knowledge.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), April 07, 1999.

-- Philistine Hater commented:

"The illiterate RD said: "If even one airplane goes down because of their malfeasance, they deserve to be hung."

Things are "hung" - people are "hanged"

The imprtant thing here Philistine Hate,r is that the parties involved know that there are consequences for their actions. I prefer 'Strung Up' myself.

It's always interesting to see how the 'Politically Correct' react to a SUBSTANTIAL post. Guess you learned well from the Commander and Chief.

Ray Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

'a':

There was an interesting thread recently on the distinction between risk (unknown, possibly low) and stakes (obviously very high). You may find this thread educational.

I will say that if you're aware of the odds against your house burning down, and you carry fire insurance anyway, you need to see a shrink as well. If you consider insurance hypocritical or the sign of an unbalanced mind, you'll find little agreement.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.