Oh man, you GOTTA read this story from Y2K Newsiwre.

Some quotes:

"While the FAA claimed 99% compliance last September, it now claims only 92% progress. It calls this being "ahead of schedule."

While the FAA was one month ahead of schedule by deploying systems in August of this year, it now claims it will be six months ahead of schedule by deploying systems in July of this year.

The May 1 deadline was missed "on purpose," according to FAA officials, in order to give them the time to make sure the systems were ready. But isn't that the point of the deadline?

Through all this, the FAA has never admitted safety was at stake."

and

"Also on March 5, 1999: CNET News reports FAA officials admit more than 1/3 of their systems won't be ready by March 31. This, said by agency spokesperson Paul Takemoto. Amazingly, the agency still claims it is "sticking to its own deadlines." It now claims it will reach full compliance by June 30.

March, 1999: Steven Zaidman, an associate R&D administrator at the FAA, lands this now-famous contradictory quote, "We got a late start in FAA, a little bit. I'm very optimistic."

March, 1999: The duh-2000 web site, best known for posting the dumbest things said about Y2K, quotes Paul Takemoto, spokesperson for the FAA. He says, "We are absolutely confident we will have everything ready. ... And that's not just false boasting."

April 4, 1999: The FAA claims it is now 88% compliant. Ray Long, FAA Year 2000 program director, claims the other 12% will be done by June 30. About the upcoming FAA test, he adds, ""We've been saying [we'll be compliant] for a year. This is our chance to prove it." In fact, the FAA had not been saying they would be compliant for a year -- rather, they had been claiming full compliance since the previous November.

April 11, 1999: The FAA holds a Y2K test in Denver. Y2KNEWSWIRE reports, "On April 11th, the clocks on reserve computers in Colorado will be rolled forward. At the same time, a plane, also with clocks set ahead, will fly across the state. If the test goes as planned, the FAA hopes it will calm public fears and prove that repairs have been successful. The agency was slow in starting repairs, which resulted in it missing the March 31st deadline, even though it had announced it was 99% compliant last September."

April 13, 1999: Just two days after the supposed "successful" test over Denver, the Associated Press and USA Today reveal a whopper: A new $1 billion computer system, intended by the FAA to replace non-Y2K-compliant systems before 2000, turns out to be too slow to use in some airports. In fact, as this AP story reports, "[the new system] was two to three times slower than existing equipment in displaying aircraft radar positions and responding to air traffic controllers' commands." USA Today reports that until the system is fixed, even FAA officials are saying the system on unsuitable for use in the nation's busiest airports. Furthermore, the first part of the system was supposed to be installed on March 31, 1999, but the deadline was missed.

April 19, 1999: USA Today runs an editorial criticizing the FAA. It says, among other things, "This week, the Federal Aviation Administration will announce a new schedule for upgrading its air traffic control system. Regardless of which calendar it uses, though, one thing is clear: Badly needed modernization, already years behind schedule, will be pushed even further off into the future. For passengers, this means more time spent waiting, waiting, waiting when the outdated air traffic control system's equipment failures keep planes grounded. In late March, for example, computer outages delayed flights out of Washington, D.C.'s Dulles Airport for up to 45 minutes. ...The agency continues to bungle upgrade projects. Two weeks ago, it acknowledged that a key software component of its new air traffic control system was so hopelessly inefficient, it could not be installed as is. The FAA was supposed to start installing the new equipment - called STARS - in airport control towers last December, but that schedule likely will slip by years as the agency struggles to fix software bugs and reorganize the program."

May 7, 1999: The New York Times reports the failure of FAA computers on Long Island, "An air traffic control computer on Long Island that is the first of a new generation being installed nationwide failed early yesterday, creating havoc at La Guardia, Newark and Philadelphia Airports. The failure is another sign that the air traffic control system, long plagued by breakdowns of frail, obsolete equipment, faces more breakdowns with the installation of new hardware and software to replace components that are either not compliant with year 2000 computer standards or are obsolete. The computer system that failed had begun operation Feb. 24, and its timely installation was hailed by the F.A.A. as a sign of the agency's increasing ability to modernize its equipment. The new computers are replacing a model that is about 10 years old, that is not year 2000 compliant and for which vital replacement parts are not available." Henry Brown, an official with the union that represents F.A.A. electronics technicians, says in the story, "They rushed this system into service, against our wishes, because they want to say we've got another 40 percent of our equipment Y2K compliant." Further revealed, "When the new computer system failed yesterday at 6:25 A.M., the old one automatically took over, but it, too, promptly malfunctioned."

May 7, 1999: The Chicago Tribune reports that the FAA once again has yanked new systems from airports, replacing them with the older, non-compliant systems. It says, "The system has failed repeatedly since last summer -- and has been removed entirely twice... An older radar system that was re-activated Thursday as a temporary backup is not Y2K certified, meaning hardware and software using date-dependent information could shut down computers or generate inaccurate data on Jan. 1." In the article, Jane Garvey claims the FAA is now 90% done with repairs. The story adds, "However, the FAA, which has a reputation of missing deadlines to introduce new technology aimed at making air travel safer and more efficient, has not isolated the vexing computer software problems causing the ARTS 6.05 system to freeze up and temporarily lose the airplanes it is supposed to be tracking."

In the same story, FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro confirmed to the Chicago Tribune that the FAA has no fallback strategy if these systems fail. The Tribune reports: Asked what the FAA would do if such a scenario came to pass, Molinaro said: "I wouldn't even want to speculate on it."

May 24, 1999: An FAA spokesperson claims the agency will now be "a month ahead of schedule" by getting everything ready in August.

June 1, 1999: Cox News Service reports some amazing news: first, it claims "The millennium bug hasn't shut down a single computer at the Federal Aviation Administration." Also in the story: FAA still promises all systems will be ready by June. They are now 92% finished, they say. But this blockbuster claim takes the prize: "We'll be Y2K-compliant six months ahead of schedule,'' says Dennis Koehler, division manager for air traffic services in the FAA's Southern region. Koehler claims all the bad press is just a "difference in perception" and adds the agency missed the May 1 deadline "on purpose" because it needed more time.

June, 1999: The National Air Traffic Controllers Association continues to publicly wonder about the FAA. Their "public safety" document for the month contains these statements, "...the Federal Aviation Administration still hasnt figured out exactly what preventative and proactive measures to take to ensure air traffic control equipment will function properly, or what actions should constitute the contingency plan if the system fails. Testing at the FAAs technical center in Atlantic City, N.J., March 22-24, indicated a lot of uncertainty still lingers. It is unknown whether the Y2K problems previously identified had been resolved because of lack of coordination and proper briefing to union officials. The months preceding the turn of the millenium may be even more confusing and chaotic than when the clock really does strike 12 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2000. No one knows what to test, where to test it, how to test it or who has already tested what. It is difficult to prepare the aviation industry for what may or may not become a crisis, when no one knows what to even expect."

I feel SO much better knowing that my ever-benevolent and omniscient government would NEVER do anything to put the SAFETY of the public at RISK, and would NEVER, EVER COVER UP ANY MISTAKES OR ERRORS.

Read the WHOLE article. It just gets better and better...

(any pollys want to read this article and respond...?)

The LINK.

208 days remain.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 07, 1999

Answers

Y2KNewswire can be discounted by virtue of the fact that their only goal is to prejudice all the information they can and gather new clients for their advertisers. (You know the suppliers of survivalist equipment and food stuffs.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 07, 1999.

Well Cherri, there you go attacking the messenger and not the message. I insist that the official forum censors please remove this response since it does not conform to official forum criteria of appropriate participation.

-- Pickles (112@34.com), June 07, 1999.

Just about 100 working days remain, according to to the gubbmint.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.

Cherry;

You need to learn the difference between news and opinion. Just because someone is selling something, doesn't change a press release. It may, or may not change how they choose to spin the article.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 07, 1999.

Well, Y2k"NEWS"Wire seems to have missed the latest update:

FAA Update

As of May 31:

Of 631 total systems, 610 have been fixed and implemented. 17 left to implement, 4 to retire.

Of 423 mission-critical systems, 409 have been fixed and implemented.

Maybe someone can send them the update? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to print it.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 07, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

Hopefully those figures mean they will be ready. It does seem however that these last (and certainly critical)systems are hammering them with no end in sight. Well, maybe one is in sight. I hope they are able to regroup, and make this all work. It does not look good though.

-- Kristi (securx@succeed.net), June 07, 1999.

Richard Branson and Virgin Airlines will NOT be flying - they know the score - that's good enough for me. I have NO confidence in the FAA - they are renowned for sloppiness at the best of times (i.e. allowing rogue spare parts firms to get away with their junk yard scams, cover-ups galore...), there last Director resigned in disgust...

Anyway, screw the FAA, what about the rest of the world (England is in deep merde with their new facility on the south coast), the FAA can be compliant up the kazoo but without a worldwide success story the US Airlines and Boeing will be crippled.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.

Kristi:

Don't really have the inclination to once again go through all the BS in the "NEWS"Wire "article".

Been through the "lies" of the FAA before. As well, many of the systems problems in the "article" have nothing to do with being ready for Y2k, such as STARS.

That "NEWS"Wire resorts to this rehash of old, misleading BS about the FAA I think says alot about the current state of the "doomer"s, and says even more about their, for lack of a better term, "editorial" policy.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 07, 1999.

I know nothing about the FAA and its problems. The only 2 cents worth I have to contribute to this thread is that about 6 weeks ago I read a newspaper article which quoted people from several government agencies on the subject of windowing for Y2K remediation. Ray Long of the FAA was the only one who did NOT have his head up his butt.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), June 07, 1999.

ED MEAGHER'S (Y2K Today/Radio) BINARY QUESTION

ARE YOU USING THE SYSTEMS THAT YOU WILL BE USING IN 2000?

IF NOT, THEN WHEN WILL THEY BE IMPLEMENTED?

Just like the code, IF-THEN-ELSE. The FAA is/has been lying for so long it's passe. 99%, 92%, XX% means nothing!! Integrated Testing? I think not! CYA...oh YES.

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), June 07, 1999.

Boyoboy!

A true classic!

"Koehler claims all the bad press is just a "difference in perception" and adds the agency missed the May 1 deadline "on purpose" because it needed more time."

No, we didn't miss our deadline, you see, we did that on PURPOSE. But only because we needed more time.

Only a used car salesman could slick-up the truth better than that!

Cheers,

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 07, 1999.

Curious, they missed the quoted number in mid-April saying that 4500 known items needed to be completed before they finish Y2K remediation.

Guess all 4500 got done at all sites between mid-April and now (if only 12 are left incomplete per Sir Hoffmeister); or those not done are the ones taking until Mid-August, mid-September, or whenevre they will next re-schedule.

Frankly, on this issue, I'd trust nobody but the ATC members actually using the machines. As one of them is my college roomate, and I (and otehr friends) already trust our lives to his hands, I'll continue to go with his judgement, not a Clinton administration mouthpiece.

IBM, after all, sent them a letter saying the "compoters are broke - and we can't fix them (no matter what you offer), and we won't tell you they will work either..." but the FAA pulled two IBM guys out of retirement who "did it."

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 07, 1999.

Unc

Again, the FAA never said they would make the March 31st or May deadline; they have always held to their own schedule of June 30.

Robert

Yes, the 4500 number was a count of "individual events", as in implementing a system at multiple sites. Doesn't really make sense to guesstimate now on this. They say they'll be done on June 30, which isn't all that long to see.

But you surprise me sometimes, Robert, in attempting to once again confuse the issue. I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that any of the projects scheduled for later implementations are required to have the FAA ready for Y2k.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 07, 1999.

Dennis: I've known you long enough to know that just about EVERYTHING is a MUST READ to you. [grin] Y2knewswire...I thought Pam broke you of the habit of reading that rag. Why not get your news where Andy gets his? www.sightings.com. George Bush is really a reptile in disguise...I KNOW...because www.sightings.com said so.

Hoff: I've said this very same thing on other fora. The earlier dates were artificial dates imposed by folks not familiar with the project. Heck, even if they slip on June 30 (oftentimes reported in the media as June 31...a non-existent date), they STILL have 6 months left, right?

I just don't understand the urgency for everyone to be compliant RIGHT NOW. What does it gain a corporation?

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), June 07, 1999.

No - you need to consider the total impact of a change - if any project (any company, not just FAA) is affecting the same systems and the same software (or affecting systems and processes (like hardware, training, operational guidelines, or procedures) that are already in place and working, then these "new" or changed processes are affecting the Y2K effort.

Or, vice versa, the Y2K efforts are affecting these other processes. Why does it matter? The specific "date-related" or "date-restricted" year 2000 problems facing the FAA cannot be delayed or avoided. there is no work-around if their current systems fail - because they are already using "backups" and "spares" to try to keep the existing "old" processes going. mechaically (lectronically running, not just the operating system or the software is in trouble there.) So anything that interferes with, or must be done in addition to year 2000 date-related repairs slows testing, slows installations, slows interference-removel and training, slow resolutions of problems, adds new problems, and delays the year 2000 date repairs.

On the other hand, if something were not date-related, but was maintenance or reliability-related such that it is essential to replace or upgrade near this time frame, then - regardless of specific cause(s) of the impending failure, it is still (to the traveling public at large), a year 2000 event.

If the screen goes dark while airplanes are in the air - at or near or after Jan 2000 - because the FAA eitehr delayed installing the repair because of year 2000 testing, year 2000 delays, or year 2000 problems prevented it from getting fixed in the first place, it's a year 2000 failure.

Also - the repairs to many systems, as I understand from what I've seen second-hand from the technical descriptions, do involve in many cases upgrades to bring parts of the system to compliance. Granted, the whole may not be year 2000 related, but if the "part" needed to be changed and tested priot to Jan 2000, it's a year 2000 event.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 07, 1999.

Sorry, Robert, but from what I've seen of the FAA plans, they basically mirror other corps I've dealt with.

The FAA has redundantly addressed certain systems, such as the HOST system. That is, they have a replacement project in place. It may or may not be completed in time. Knowing they would cut it too close, they also remediated the existing system. Stop-gap, to be sure, but they covered their bases. Just smart business, in my opinion, and they should be praised for the effort, not denigrated.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 07, 1999.

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:54:26 -0400 From: NATE MURPHY <105174.1470@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Sighting: FAA ATC Computers Y2K OK! To: "INTERNET:year2000-discuss@year2000.com"

Re: FAA

Ralph,

Yes, you are a skeptic and unnecessarily so.

The FAA started developing this system over thithy years ago. It went into production in the Los Angeles Airtraffic Control Center in 1972. The National Airspace System(NAS) was developed as a result of several air collisions that occurred in the 1950's. They understand more about the business of air traffic control and air safety than any organization that I am aware of. Believe me, Flight Plans, Departure flights, Tracking and Handoffs to ARTS(departure and landing) are all part of this multiprocessing, continuously operational(24x7) fully recoverable software / fail hardware system. This is a hugh messaging system written with its own priority operating(pre OS/360) and database management system(" DBMS" word not invented yet). This is a time dependent system(not Date Sensitive). Day is only important when it read the daily flight plan tape which is supplied by the airlines.

Believe this, on March 23,1998, Stan Graham,TechBeamers, Bob Nagel and myself met for two hours with Ray Long, the FAA year 2000 manager and his staff. We discussed several alternatives with Ray. Ray's top priority was to analyze the micro code in the 3083's because it was the best alternative for the FAA, and it worked. At the time, we did not feel it would be appropriate to share that information with the group. By the way, it only took twenty lines of code to make the Enroute Air Traffic System year 2000 compliant.

Ray and his staff deserves credit for saving a lot of time and money. They are perfectionist and the airways are much safer because of their technical tenacity.

Nate Murphy Nate Murphy & Associates 105174.1470@compuserve.com The Assembler People 609-234-2353

**************

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1998-07/22/014r-072298-idx. html

-- spacer Air Traffic Control Computer System Cleared for 2000 IBM Warning Prompted Tests

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 22, 1998; Page A15

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J.Federal Aviation Administration technicians have concluded that a critical mainframe computer system used in the nation's largest air traffic control centers will function properly in the year 2000, despite warnings from the system's manufacturer that the agency should replace the equipment.

The determination, reached over the past few weeks by programmers at the FAA's technical center here, has elicited cheers from agency officials, who had been castigated by congressional investigators earlier this year for not planning a quick replacement of the systems.

"The examination has revealed that the [system] will transition the millennium in a routine manner," FAA Administrator Jane F. Garvey said in an interview yesterday.

The mainframe computers at issue, made by International Business Machines Corp., are used at the FAA's 20 air route traffic control centers to track high-altitude aircraft between airports. The computers, IBM's Model 3083 mainframes, receive data from radar systems and integrate that information into a picture for air traffic controllers.

Last October, IBM sent a letter to the FAA warning that "the appropriate skills and tools do not exist to conduct a complete Year 2000 test assessment" of the 3083 computers, once the mainstay of large corporate data centers. The machines have been mothballed by most users, a step IBM urged the FAA to take.

Although the FAA plans to replace the mainframes as part of a broader modernization effort, agency officials were unsure they could complete the process by 2000. As a result, they embarked on an aggressive testing program to figure out how the computer system would be affected. snip Without specialized reprogramming, it was feared that the IBM 3083s would recognize "00" not as 2000 but as 1900, a glitch that could cause them to malfunction. snip To conduct the testing, the FAA hired two retired IBM programmers and assigned a handful of other agency employees to the project, which involved checking more than 40 million lines of "microcode" -- software that controls the mainframe's most basic functions. Among the initial areas of concern was whether a date problem would affect the operation of the mainframe's cooling pumps. If the computer does not regularly switch from one cooling pump to another, it can overheat and shut down, causing controllers' radar screens to go blank.

The technicians, however, found that the microcode doesn't consider the last two digits of the year when processing dates. Instead, it stores the year as a two-digit number between one and 32, assuming that 1975 was year one. As a result, they determined, the system would fail in 2007, but not in 2000.

"Nothing we have found will cause an operational aberration over the new year. It will continue to function as it's supposed to," said one FAA technician working on the project. FAA officials recently allowed a reporter to tour the facility here and talk to employees on the condition that they not be named.

"We're dealing with minutes and seconds in air traffic control," said another technician. "The systems don't really care about days and years."

The programmers did find four software modules that need to be repaired to handle the leap year in 2000, but they said the task would be relatively straightforward.

While the technicians came to their conclusions a few weeks ago, Garvey only recently was briefed on the findings. The results, sources said, have not yet been shared widely within the Transportation Department or with lawmakers.

Agency officials acknowledge their determination will be met with skepticism on Capitol Hill and in the aviation industry. To bolster their case, the technicians said they have compiled reams of computer printouts that back up their conclusions.

The findings highlight one of the uncertainties of year 2000 repair work. While some projects can be more costly and time consuming than originally expected, others can be unexpectedly simple.

"It's a welcome surprise," Garvey said. "And we don't get many of them in government."

***********

Subject: Re: Cover-ups, Systems and the Truth Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:07:50 -0700 From: Cherri Stewart To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com References: 1

Ken ,

You ask "Would anyone care to tell me how this was not a lie?".

I can answer that. You are confusing ATC with FAA. A lot of people do. The FAA has many different functions other than being in charge of ATC. They investigate accidents, make regulations reguarding the entire airline industry etc. The ATC computers were "fixed" as she said last September (see below). So they are now testing.

The FAA itself has it's own computers that do many things unrelated to ATC. THOSE are the computers they are still working on fixing. There timeline is here; http://www.faay2k.com/html/news.html http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/0928/web-faa-9-29-98.html

So you see, that was not a lie. You just did not know enough to differentiate between the two.

Cherri

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 08, 1999.