To Robert Cook: Enough is Enoughgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Robert, this is the third time I'm requesting you back up statements regarding the FAA.Most recently, on this thread, you state:
No, the FAA's "written procedures" were verified by SAIC. The actual changes (to software, to the radar processors and consoles, to the control programs, and to the ancient computers actually running the programs have not been completed yet.
Robert, it's time to put up or shut up. The FAA and DOT stated, here that:
All computer systems of the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) including systems that involve the operation of the nation's air traffic control system are now fully compliant for the Year 2000(Y2K).
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.
Data verifying that all FAA systems were implemented as Y2K compliant have been examined and approved by Science Applications International Corp., Vienna, Va., an independent verification and validation contractor. Additionally, the Department of Transportations Inspector General examined a sample set of systems and approved the FAA's work.
Doesn't leave alot of wiggle room there. So if you have information that the FAA has not done this, please share. Otherwise, stop making accusations which you refuse to backup.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999
Hoffmeister, the major difference between Robert Cook and the FAA is that Robert Cook does not LIE !!Thanks Robert for all of your insightful posts. they are MUCH appreciated.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.
The FAA could well be compliant. We won't know for some time. The problem is -- government always has put a happy face on situations in the past, regardless of the actual situation. That is, they lie. Why should we now believe they've suddenly become honest? Only if -- starting from now -- they start telling the truth will I change my opinion -- but that will take 5 or 10 years of track record. From now. And 2000-01-01 is in 5 months.
-- A (A@AisA.com), August 06, 1999.
BTW, what I said above, goes double for news about the banking system (which is essentially government or rules government).
-- A (A@AisA.com), August 06, 1999.
Update on FAA air traffic control systemshttp://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00181a
-- (just@helping.out), August 06, 1999.
Didn't the GAO catch the FAA lying once already? Perhaps this taught them a lesson, being: don't leave any loose ends when you lie next time.Tippy
-- Tippy (tip@skamania.bmp), August 06, 1999.
Hoff - don't know what your problem is, but on a previous thread, *I* disected their anouncement. (I'll look for the thread as soon as I can).Anyway, the "outside verification" was specifically stated to cover the FAA's ****DOCUMENTATION****. Not the code itself.
As a software engineer, that stood out, because that metric is VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS!!!
Second, the FAA stated that the fully compliant systems WOULD BE INSTALLED (future tense) FIRST IN SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, and EL PASO, TEXAS.
That stood out to me, not only because it was STILL future tense, but also because I used to be a resident of El Paso.
In my opinion, only a fool would believe the FAA on anything; and you're obviously ignoring indications that the FAA has its act together.
Jolly
-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoff, as you are aware, the FAA has been caught lying on numerous occasions. As you are also aware, their track record for new and upgraded software is ABYSMAL. And you also know that they themselves have been confused about their completion status, going from 98% done to 95% done to 90% done...and now 100% done?As for SAIC...almost everyone in the company's upper management is retired military or civil service. In the business, they are considered as essentially a branch of the federal government.
If you choose to believe that they have accomplished what was described by their own IT folks as IMPOSSIBLE just a year ago, feel free to. Just don't expect everyone else on the forum to be hoodwinked as easily.
BTW...don't take it personally. Just because they're not really done doesn't mean they won't still be pushing tin. It just means flying the friendly skies will become a bit more adventurous. :)
-- a (a@a.a), August 06, 1999.
Here is more on:Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.
I just checked the FAA's website. It says that Cleveland will be the last airport to get the new system installed in September of 1999. Funny thing, I can't find anyplace where it was bragging about where the new ATC was up and running. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "100%" is.
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 06, 1999.
Raytheon: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990723/ma_raytheo_1.html
-- (just@helping.out), August 06, 1999.
Sorry, guys, no dice.The previous thread was in reference to the STARS system. STARS is a replacement system for the ARTS system: see this reference.
The FAA renovated and replaced the existing ARTS systems, in addition to moving ahead with the STARS replacement:
From Terminal Y2K Efforts:
During the past several months, the Terminal Integrated Product Team has accomplished several significant milestones to ensure Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance of the nations Terminal air traffic control automation systems. The IPT is responsible for legacy systems (the ARTS IIA and IIIA), as well as the new Common ARTS (ARTS IIE and ARTS IIIE), and STARS systems.
Y2K compliance is defined by the FAA Year 2000 Program Office as Information Systems that are able to accurately process date data, including calculating, comparing, and sequencing from, into, and between twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including leap year calculations. Due to the large number of software and hardware systems, languages, and platforms that are used by the FAA to perform air traffic control and other functions, agency Year 2000 efforts require careful coordination.
Under the FAA Year 2000 Program Office Project Plan, all existing systems will be assessed and then renovated to become Y2K compliant. New systems designed with the Millennium bug in mind have to be tested for Y2K compliance prior to deployment.
For the Terminal IPT, several Y2K activities were completed on its systems. Highlights include:
ARTS IIA An initial assessment of the Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) IIA LSI-2/40 computer yielded no Y2K hardware issues. This, coupled with the fact that the operational software is Y2K compliant, ensures smooth operations. ARTS IIA is scheduled for certification on September 15, 1998.
ARTS IIIA Y2K assessment has been completed. Renovation was initiated on April 10, 1998, and will be completed by July 27, 1998. ARTS IIIA certification is scheduled for September 28, 1998.
Common ARTS IIE/IIIE System baseline activities are on schedule and within cost for all Y2K planned activities. Renovations are scheduled for completion by September 22, 1998. Systems certification is scheduled for completion by December 30, 1998. Field implementation is scheduled for completion by June 11, 1999.
STARS A new approach for conducting Year 2000 testing on the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), warranted to be Y2K compliant by its developer Raytheon, was defined during the past several months.
The approach involves having Raytheon conduct the formal Y2K testing at its facilities, with test personnel from the FAAs William J. Hughes Technical Center on-hand to monitor all test activities.
Once testing is completed satisfactorily and the FAA has determined that the STARS meets all Y2K requirements, the agency will certify the system, prior to deployment to air traffic control facilities.
The Terminal IPT will continue to work hard to ensure that all terminal automation systems run smoothly through the transition to the year 2000. These efforts are imperative for the continued safety of the National Airspace System.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.
I have a neighbor who is a Capt for British Airlines and he lives in London. But has a place near us where he is going to retire. He flies over here about every 6 wks for a few days. He said, this was several months ago, that BOA says they will be flying. But he also says the pilots won't! Says they can fire him, but he is not taking a plane load of passengers up over the roll over....especially since his route is the middle east!! FWIWTaz
-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Who gives a flying f##k about the FAA?They've been caught lying over and over, not just y2k, in safety related natters too i.e. allowing rogue aircraft dismantlers to sell parts with hundreds of hours+ use to be sold as "new"... tip of the iceberg Hoff...
No... the FAA is JUST ONE agency out of 190 countries - the question is HOW ARE THE OTHER 189 DOING...would you feel happy flying into Mexico or Costa Rica or Venezuela over rollover Hoffy?
Or do you just plan on doing business in the USA for the forseeable future Hoffy???
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 06, 1999.
Another interesting thread on the often confused:Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.
COCKPIT: Approach Tower, this is TWA 1310...request clearance for landing on Runway oh-six-niner...over.TOWER: Ah...Just a minute TWA...having a..little..ah...there! TWA you are clear for landing on runway oh-six-niner.
COCKPIT: Ah, roger Tower.
TOWER: Ah, TWA 1310...would you mind flashing your headlights please?
COCKPIT: What's that?
TOWER: Ah, TWA 1310 please flash your headlights.
COCKPIT: Ah, OK Tower. There you ....Tower we have visual contact of an aircraft on runway oh-six-niner...Do you copy?
TOWER: Ah...Just a minute TWA...having a..little problem here...there! TWA you are clear for landing on runway oh-six-niner.
COCKPIT: TOWER! There's an aircraft on the runway!
TOWER: Ah, TWA 1310 could you flash your headlights again?
-- TinPusher (ATC@FAA.gov), August 06, 1999.
Gee, very, umm, informative posts.We've been through the FAA lying before; anyone interested can check out this thread: The FAA: They're all LYING
None of which, however, bears on Robert's claim that the Y2k changes to existing systems have not been made, contrary to the FAA's claim.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.
As you said, dear sir,<>
As reported to Congress (not in a press release) SAIC reviewed the documentation plan, which does not verify the that the system itself worked, or that the test itself was successful. (We hope it does. The Denver test in mid-April required 5 days of "pre-testing" before they allowed the press to witness the single "advanced date" flight.)
I do appreciate the fact that they apparently did a more complete followup test "recently" - hmmmn - no press release on this one. The NJ tests alluded to in their press release indicate that the components making up one actual system was checked (using advanced dates I assume) at one facility.
This is good - we can assume that this NJ facility will operate next year. The rest may, or may not.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 06, 1999.
No, Robert, this post is about repeated claims you have made that the FAA has not implemented systems renovated for Y2k, after they have explicitly stated they have.Do you or don't you have any information that contradicts the FAA statements?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.
Try it differently.Is there one f*cking piece of evidence that FAA is 100% compliant and has implemented all their systems other than taking their word for it?
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 06, 1999.
Hoff:I am a person of few words. After reading your posts and the responses, I think that I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately [and this is may problem with the whole debate], you offer no facts that I can independently verify. The same is true of your opponents. I have no unnamed sources that tell me that everything is fixed or not fixed. I know how many computers that I had to fix in my operation. I know the problem is real. I just can't seem to find reliable information concerning important infrasturcture questions. Too much spin.
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
TOWER: TWA...flash...your...[large fireball appears on end of runway 069]
TOWER:...nevermind...
-- TinPusher (ATC@FAA.gov), August 06, 1999.
Too much spin and one to many "u"'s.
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Too much spin and one too many "u"'s.
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Lies more lies, I lie to you, you lie to me. We lie to each other. Our freinds lie to us. We lie to ourselfs. Our President lies to us. Business lies to us, Media lies. We are raised in a culture where lying is accepted and even expected. We all know it!We are now in the unfortunate predicament of reaping the effect of a culture of lies. Who's is honest? What business, what goverment, what official? Our culture of lying should be the single greatest impetus for preparing!!! IMHO.
-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Reviewing and re-reading things, and the links provided (thank you Ray) - leads to the following:- the new systems (STARS, now being built by Raytheon) were designed to be y2k-compliant, but are not installed now in all airports. Even the original installation schedule - now being delayed by implementation problems - said that it would be installed between 1999 and 2003. Even where installed now, there are repeated stories of the new system being "too slow" and of its being yanked off-line after failuers and near-misses. This system is reported (in press releases by the FAA and Raytheon) to have been tested in the lab to be y2k-compliant.
The new system has been repeated blamed for flight delays by the airlines - citing a 20% reduction in flights needed as the controllers are re-trained on the new systems. The FAA ( Paul Takemoto, again) has denied that these delays were caused by the FAA.
- So that leaves us with the absolute conclusion that almost ALL of the old computers (ARTS II and ARTS III - 1970's era computers according to the FAA web site) must still be used next year. The FAA has said these units are compliant, and apparently IBM, the Air Traffic Control Unions, the pilots, and the aviation press - which repeated has said these systems are non-compliant - has formally disagreed.
Now, please - give me the exact configuration of the equipment used in the four recent NJ tests (I will ignore Garvey's and Paul Takemoto's insistance that "all testing was complete in March), and we will have a little more evidence that the FAA has one system in place that will work next year.
___
We will ignore the status of the airports and airlines themselves, and that of the infrastructure needed at all airports for the time being. (To the best of my knowledge, only isolated aircraft themselves have been tested.
We hope there are no systemic or individual problems there as well.
__
But that depends on what your defintion of "will be" is.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 06, 1999.
I've got a couple hundred more pages of background data to read through - perhaps more explicit info later.By the way - this administration has clearly indicated that it doesn't matter whether any given report is true or not - only that there is "wiggle room" to worm out of the truth. Any administration that sells us to the Communistic Chinese, that bombs asprin factories to create international political news to cover national political news, and that actively attacks its its opponents illegally and unethically through the FBI, IRS, DOD, and ATF has no scruples.
We could continue through some 200plus different cases of active Clinton administration deceits, frauds, and cover-ups.
These actions prove they have no fear of lies, no fear of exposure by a complacence mass media and a sated public, but rather welcome the opportunity to lie - if it allows them to remain in power. The FAA appears to merely continue that tradition.
___
By the way - the current June 30 completion date had been mentioned as early as last September - amazing, ian't it, that this is the first scheduled software project the FAA has ever claimed to finish on time - and they finished exactly on time to the day!
___
Maybe we should ask those techinicians in the back what they are still working on ..... oh - yeah, the new y2k-compliant STARS systems. Are the current systems - the ones they are using now, and must use next spring - compliant? Have they been checked at each installation?
I've used that generation of equipment - back when 250 kbytes was a lot of memory and tape drives were "new" technology. And each ship installtion was slightly different.
Who is claiming compliance? Clinton's administrators? I'd trust the people who will hit the ground first if the administrators are wrong.
And it appears those are the people (the pilots and ATC unions) who are most vocal in the criticism...
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 06, 1999.
I think I have my answer, Robert. I think.But you then go on with this statement:
The FAA has said these units are compliant, and apparently IBM, the Air Traffic Control Unions, the pilots, and the aviation press - which repeated has said these systems are non-compliant - has formally disagreed.
Where do you find these statements?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoff:You describe my problem. I know what I had to do to become compliant. The problem is real. My other problem is still the same: you don't provide any information that I can confirm myself [and neither do your opponents in this arguement]. Everyone supplies press reports. In my experience, this is not a good source of technical information. I guess requiring facts is not important now'a'days!....
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoffmeister Cook-------------------|-----------------
1 0
Can't you doomers learn to deal with GOOD NEWS?
-- (a@aaaa.hole), August 06, 1999.
Hoff: It makes no difference. Where can I get the data to independently verify the FAA statement. I can't find it anywhere. I have no associates that can tell me this is true on non-true, or that we will be invaded/ or not by aliens. I hate to be Poole-like, but where is the data?,,,
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Z1X4Y7Just what evidence are you looking for?
Far and away, organizations have provided more information on Y2k than any other IT project.
Take the FAA. They have provided detailed information on the status of each phase of their project; for this, their statements are distorted, and they are accused of lying.
They employ IV&V, which everyone is clamoring for; but it's not ggod enough.
So, just what information do you consider sufficent?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.
I repeat my question to Hoffy, would you volunteer to fly at rollover from any US City of your choice to any South American city of your choice.???You may return (!) after a 1 day stopover.
I propose a whip-round from forum members to send Hoffy on the journey (perhaps last) of his sorry lifetime.
I'll start the collection with $20, any more takers to send Hoffy into oblivion?
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 06, 1999.
Aftr all the arguments between Hoff and others -- THE BOTTOM LINE IS:"The FAA could well be compliant. (or not.) We won't know for some time. The problem is -- government always has put a happy face on situations in the past, regardless of the actual situation. That is, they lie. Why should we now believe they've suddenly become honest? Only if -- starting from now -- they start telling the truth will I change my opinion -- but that will take 5 or 10 years of track record. From now. And 2000-01-01 is in 5 months."
So the prudent position I am taking is? (Hint -- govt lies -- they ain't and won't be ready.)
And like I said before, that goes double for the banking system.
-- A (A@AisA.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoff:I am not saying that they are wrong. I am just saying that you are reporting press releases. I am a molecular bioligist. I have had my research explained to the public by an administrator [that is what you are reading]. No relatioship to what I am doing. Leads to big problems when it becomes a matter of contention in the public. All I am saying is that I need hard data that I can confirm independently. That is not the way industrial technology works, but is how science works. Science works better!
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoff wrote, "The FAA has said these units are compliant, and apparently IBM, the Air Traffic Control Unions, the pilots, and the aviation press - which repeated has said these systems are non-compliant - has formally disagreed. Where do you find these statements?Can't recall the specifics at the moment but this is really old news.
IBM took out full page ads way back when urging the FAA to implement new hardware systems because the old systems could not be made compliant.
I'll see what I can dig up.
Mike
===============================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoff:Hard data means numbers. Descriptions of systems assessed and probabilities of failures of each type [both hardware and software]. That general type of stuff. Hope this helps. I could go on and on, but why..... Please realize that I am not being confrontational.....
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoffmeister,
If I told you a lie, and then it became public knowledge that I had lied to you, how long would it be before you believed me again?
Would it really take no more than for me to tell you something that you wanted to hear?
BTW, Robert,
The "New Jersey location" is almost certainly NAFEC, the FAA's test facility in Atlantic City. . .
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), August 06, 1999.
TinPusher,Just flash your headlights? Ha ha. ROFLTIP haha.
-- (Haha@haha.com), August 06, 1999.
Z:As I understand this, FAA's y2k status reports have never been *internally* inconsistent, although at times they've been less than obvious to understand. Almost all of the claims that the FAA has been inconsistent have stemmed from two sources: confusing the status of different phases with the overall status (this requires reading the fine print to avoid); and confusing upgrade from one system to another with upgrades for y2k compliance.
However, there have been reports of statements by FAA officials at meetings (reported by known doomies, for whatever that's worth) which are inconsistent with FAA's published statements. Specifically, that upgrades for compliance have not been implemented at all locations even though FAA's published documentation says otherwise. In addition, there is still some confusion (at least in my mind) as to whether the independent validation was of the plans for implementation, or of the implementations themselves (assuming they've been done).
It would certainly be interesting to know if FAA currently has anyone out in the field doing y2k stuff to their equipment, and if so, what it might be.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 06, 1999.
Hardliner, just what lie are you talking about?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 06, 1999.
Hoffmeister,
As I recall, a high level FAA official went before a congressional committee and said something to the effect of, "We'll be 100% on Thursday." I don't recall the exact circumstances or the wording, but I do recall that a reasonable and prudent man who believed that statement would have concluded that the FAA was going to be completely done with its Y2K efforts in two days. Maybe someone else has saved the relevant links or quotes, but I have not.
Whether or not the FAA has "technically" lied or not is, in my opinion, in exactly the same category as, "That depends on what the meaning of 'is', is."
Unfortunately for us all, our government has compiled a track record of deceit and, like the boy who cried wolf, is simply not credible when it most needs to be.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), August 06, 1999.
The new compliant systems are not in place at our airports, and I defy and beg anyone to suggest otherwise. If I'm right, the FAA claim is a lie by any laymen standard.
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 06, 1999.
