JULY 21, 1999 . . . 14:59 EDT
FAA: All systems Y2K-compliant

BY COLLEEN O'HARA (ohara@fcw.com)

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0719/web-faay2k-7-21-99.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

The Federal Aviation Administration today announced that all of its computer systems are Year 2000-compliant, including air traffic control systems.

The agency said Science Applications International Corp. recently finished independently verifying and validating the FAA's Year 2000 fixes. However, while the independent verification and validation process extended into July, FAA officials said they had met their publicly stated goal of having its systems compliant by June 30.

FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said in a statement that the agency's Year 2000 program "will serve as a model for a new way of doing business for all future FAA management programs."

The FAA plans to continue to test its systems and contingency plans up to Dec. 31 and through leap day on Feb. 29, 2000.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999

Answers

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) a Fortune 500 company, is the largest employee-owned research and engineering company in the United States. We invite you to learn more About SAIC...

http://www.saic.com/

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

See also...

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS MOUNTING NATIONAL PROTEST!!! SUPPORT THEM:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0015ka

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Hey Y2K Pro - How's that crow?

LOL Y2K "Crow"

-- a (a@a.a), July 21, 1999.

Cory H. has good sources on FAA, he called this one.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 21, 1999.

JULY 19, 1999

Airports resist new tests
Airport council calls post-Dec. 31 Year 2000 tests 'absurd'

BY MARGRET JOHNSTON (margret_johnston@fcw.com)

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0719/fcw-newsairport-07-19- 99.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

A Federal Aviation Administration proposal that would require Year 2000 tests of emergency support equipment and other ground controls early on Jan. 1 is unnecessary and might cause some airports to shut down temporarily, an official of the Airports Council International- North America (ACI-NA) said last week.

The FAA wants to require equipment tests after midnight on Dec. 31 to check for any Year 2000 problems that were missed during tests that would have been conducted before the date change.

Under a proposal posted in the July 8 Federal Register, airport operators would have to conduct readiness tests on computers and embedded microprocessors that run airfield lighting systems, emergency communications systems, emergency equipment and systems that control vehicle and passenger gates before the first scheduled flight of the new year.

All of those systems are to be tested for Year 2000 problems before Dec. 31, but the FAA said the additional tests are necessary to ensure that the airports identify and address any unforeseen problems with date-sensitive airfield equipment and systems.

But Richard Marchi, senior vice president of technical and environmental affairs at ACI-NA, said the proposal has not been well received by airport operators.

"I think the proposed requirement is unnecessary, and it's unworkable," Marchi said. Numerous systems would have to be examined simultaneously in the middle of the night, which is "absurd on its face," he said.

ACI-NA members include 150 airport authorities across the United States, representing 97 percent of all airport traffic. Marchi said some of those airports have indicated that they would have to shut down operations for the first few hours of the new year to allow enough time to conduct the tests.

ACI-NA has been working closely with the FAA on Year 2000 issues and did not expect the agency to set such broad requirements, according to Marchi. Rather, ACI-NA expected the FAA to issue letters to specific airports that have systems with known Year 2000 problems and require them to fix or replace the equipment or face revocation of their safety certification.

The FAA declined to answer any Year 2000-related questions.

Marchi said the proposed rule was particularly disappointing in light of all the contingency plans in place and the testing that has been done or will be done before Jan. 1.

Airports already are required to inspect some of the systems in question on a daily basis, but the FAA says those tests typically are conducted during the day and therefore might not be conducted Jan. 1 before the first flight. If special testing is not required, a problem might only be detected when the equipment was needed for an actual emergency, according to the proposal.

"We look at this as a quality-assurance assessment," said Robert E. David, manager of the FAA's Airport Safety and Operations Division. The tests would be done to assure the public that the systems are functioning after the date rollover, David said. He said it does not explain how the reporting requirement would be handled or whether it fits with the planned Year 2000 Information Coordination Center.

The proposal also would require airport operators to report their test results to the FAA so that the information could be used to warn other airports of potential problems, David said.

John Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, was unaware of the FAA's proposal but said the FAA would conduct tests on Jan. 1 just like every federal organization to make certain that there are no disruptions.

-- Orlando De Bruce contributed to this article.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

GAO Reports--Year 2000 Computing Crisis

http://www.gao.gov/y2kr.htm

Might want to re-check...

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Is Making Progress But Important Challenges Remain. GAO/T-AIMD/RCED-99-118) March 15. (Click further for report links).

http:// www.gao.gov/AIndexFY99/abstracts/a599118t.htm

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Airports' Efforts to Deal with Date Change Problem. GAO/RCED/AIMD-99-57 January 29. (Click further for report links).

http:// www.gao.gov/AIndexFY99/abstracts/r199057.htm

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Airports Council International- North America (ACI-NA)

http://www.aci-na.org

Or...

Airports Council International - Pacific Region - representing more than 125 Pacific Rim airports and a branch of Airports Council International (ACI), which fosters cooperation among its member airports and other partners in world aviation.

http://www.aci-pacific.org/

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Diane,

This thread is a classic example of your dedication to the readers of this forum. You are one of the reasons that I check back here once in awhile. Although my preps were complete in January, I still come back to check the most imformed Y2K forum on the net. Thank You and may GOD bless you always.

Mike

-- Flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), July 21, 1999.

Did I read this right? The FAA has hired a verification firm, they are "going into July" with verification (in other words they are not finished verifying yet) but the FAA then claims they are compliant?

Just what did I miss? When will verification be complete? January?

If anyone believes that this statment from the FAA is true then I've got a great deal for you. Cash, small bills only, no checks. I'm make you a great deal.

-- John Beck (eurisko111@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Y2K is making me suspicious. The FAA says, "We're ready now!!!!" Then they make impossible demands on airports. I guess the next step is to announce that there can be no flights until the airports are all up and operating -- thus giving the FAA time to fix on failure? Am I really reading this?

-- de (delewis@inetone.net), July 21, 1999.

This is the FAA's own testimony to Congress - thanks for the link up there: read the words, they have NOT tested end-to-end the system: they "spot checked three typical systems" - the verification clearly says the verification (by SAIC) was ONLY of the documentation (that is, the test PLAN).

The three tests themselves - possibly, remain incomplete, I didn't see specific "data" showing the results.

By the way, the first paragraph repeats their previous 99% complete installation in September report ....

___

FAA has now addressed these recommendations. The agency has a strong Year 2000 management structure; an overall Year 2000 strategy; detailed standards and guidance for renovating, validating, and implementing mission- critical systems; a database of schedules and milestones for these activities; and a draft Year 2000 business continuity and contingency plan. Additionally, FAA reported that it completed 99 percent of its missioncritical systems repairs by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) September 1998 deadline and 74 percent of its systems testing by OMB's January 1999 deadline.

...

FAA faces several challenges in completing its Year 2000 activities. These challenges include ensuring that systems validation efforts are adequate, implementing multiple systems at numerous facilities, completing data exchange efforts, and completing end- to- end testing.

Support for Systems' Validation Is Not Always Sufficient and Complete

FAA's Year 2000 program office has developed standards for testing and implementing mission- critical systems that require system owners to prepare and obtain approval on a validation plan that includes test plans and procedures, funding requirements, test management roles, and

schedules. The system owners are then required to test the system according to this plan, complete a checklist of required validation activities, and prepare a Year 2000 validation results report. Once this report has been approved within the relevant FAA business line, a

contractor for FAA's Year 2000 program office performs an independent verification and validation (IV& V) review of key validation documents. The system is then considered ready to be implemented.

In reviewing validation plans, reports, and supporting test documentation for six mission- critical air traffic systems 2 that were reported as having completed validation, we found that the validation of three systems was

[rest of this sentence was missing in the text file!]

[...their text restumed here...]

1 The 12 systems are (1) the Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS- IIIE), (2) the Host Environment, (3) the En Route Automated Radar Tracking System, (4) the Graphic Weather Display System, (5) the U. S. Notices to Airmen System, (6) the Aeronautical Mobile Communications Services, (7) the Integrated Communications Switching System (ICSS) Litton- types 2 and 3, (8) ICSS type III- Denro, (9) Terminal Doppler Weather Radar, (10) the Remote Maintenance Monitoring System, (11) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems, and (12) Mejoras Al Enlace De Voz Del ATS, a satellite- based communications system in the Caribbean and Central American regions.

2 In choosing systems for our case studies, we attempted to cover a range of air traffic control functions in different environments. We selected validated systems from three different critical core functions (surveillance, communications, and weather processing) that operated in one or more of the different air traffic control environments (en route, terminal, tower, and flight service station). Two of the systems (FSAS and ICSS- Litton type 2,3) were also chosen because they were identified by FAA as among the 26 most at- risk systems.

____

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 22, 1999.

See this thread for some new information on this topic:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00181a

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 23, 1999.

By the way, the only way they could have "actually" met their publicized June 30 date - while admitting that the "documentation-only" verification was continuing into July - would be if SAIC found no problems in any of the documents, and if all units were actually installed and in service with no errors.

No folks - saying it so, doesn't make it so. The computer doesn't care whether the administration claims 99% compliance, 96% compliance, 92% compliance, or 80% compliance. The computer (and all associated equipment) only cares whether the program runs corrctly.

And they have not installed the equipment yet, not run the programs yet, and have not tested them yet. They have inspected the documentation and the test procedures. It may actually operate correctly next year.

But - until it (the system) is installed - the FAA isn't compliant.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 23, 1999.

Robert Cook:

Here's a little exercise for you. Say you're head of the FAA. Most of the upper level people in your organization (level 5 and above) came from the airline industry, and even more of them will be employed by that industry when they leave.

Now, you have an unsurmountable problem here. Your equipment is obsolete (much of it vacuum-tube technology!), your computers aren't compliant, they can't be replaced, they can't be made compliant, IBM won't cooperate, your history of modernization stinks. You recognize that your budget is inadequate for the task assigned, and it's being poorly spent and you can't do much about this.

Your mandate, such as it is, starts and nearly ends with a single directive: DO NOTHING to hurt the airline industry! And that means *right now*, as well as next year. Don't undermine confidence in their ability to fly, don't undermine confidence in airports, don't hurt ticket sales. Oh yes, also make sure that airports are functional and ATCs are functional, we don't want any actual physical problems that would impede flights. But most of all, don't do ANYTHING that might interfere with current airline revenues.

Meanwhile, the GAO, the OMB, and the press are on your back asking you how it's coming. It's impossible! What do you say? HOW do you organize your PR so as to (1) Describe good progress; (2) Be at least nominally honest about your status; and (3) DON'T HURT the airlines!

NOW, what the FAA did was to cobble up a very complex system of reporting phases, and issue reports on the progress towards the latest phase, and organize demonstration 'tests', and announce compliance in theory while burying the practice in the footnotes, and postpone some problems (like the custom 3083's) for a few more years, etc. All in all, a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

But what would YOU have done? Remember, if you do ANYTHING to hurt the airlines, not only is your future destroyed, but so is the future of a LOT of good people under you. What do you say?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 1999.

You tell the truth and galvanize a whole host of interrelated industries to step up to the plate and cooperatively roll up the collective sleeves and figure out how to make things work, or work around what won't. And you share what you're doing. And get everyone involved.

You also mobilize Congress and the President... openly.

You also quit risking your organizational reputation and setting yourself up for "crashing" consumer confidence by repeatedly LYING. (Or even risking other crashes).

And you help this country get prepared and be part of the upcoming solutions, rather than setting them up to get hit with the all the potential problems... suddenly.

That's the slippery slope to panic, IMHO.

And you can thank all the corporate and government liars for setting up that end-game rather than being responsible to the public they are supposed to serve... and protect.

You treat citizens like adults, instead of children, and quit acting like parents and become peers.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

That's what they should DO and SAY, IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Diane:

Your strategy sounds great in theory. In practice, things don't work quite that way. Perhaps I should not have assumed you knew the facts of life, but I'll make those assumptions more explicit here:

1) You don't *know* that things will go terribly wrong. In fact, there's a good chance that problems will be minor and bearable.

2) You do know that if you attempt what you (Diane) consider 'honesty', it will be viewed as a disloyalty campaign. You will be replaced by a team player, and discredited (and made unemployable) by a disgruntled administration. Accomplishing exactly nothing.

3) Your goal is to *fix* things, not to engage in a Quixotic campaign to frighten the public. If you can get them fixed well enough by focusing all your efforts in that direction, there would have been no need to frighten people at all.

The way you propose to go about it, you'll kill airline revenues starting today, whether it turns out you were correct or not (it will be difficult for your replacement to undo the damage). You end up doing no more than adding 5 months' hardship to a lot of people. Congratulations.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 1999.

Hey y'all..been on vacation for a week. Miss anything?

To Robert, just what do you think isn't "installed"?

From http://www.dot.gov/affa irs/dot10699.htm

...After more than three years of effort involving 1,100 FAA technical experts, all of the agencys computer systems requiring Y2K repairs have been successfully implemented, or installed, across the United States....

Seems pretty explicit to me.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 23, 1999.

reply later - will be off line for a while.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 23, 1999.