The doomer fixation with the FAA is truly amazing. Now, the "lies" are proven by the use of Primeon for auditting services, gleaned from this article, The Federal Aviation Administration and Primeon Work Together to Mitigate the Effect of Y2K.

Since my name was invoked on the previous thread, I dug a little deeper (funny, how all this supposed "research" here only seems to find pessimistic information).

Apologies (I guess) for not responding sooner, was at a client site.

Anyway, the "lie" charges now seem to stem from a supposed "change" from SAIC to Primeon for IV&V, and that the claims made that the repair and implementation had passed IV&V in July were false.

Now, I know this requires some research, but the FAA has had their project plan published on their web-site for quite some time. It can be found at http://www.faay2k.com/html/ProjPlan.html (Even have three different versions, including Word 6.0 and 97, for all you PDF impaired folks).

If y'all would take the time to actually read it, you'd find the following listed in section 4.5 Implementation Tasks:

---------

Task 25: Coordinate Independent Verification & Validation Activities(6/30/99)Completed

An independent verification and validation (IV&V) of the adherence to FAA Y2K repair process and standards will be performed on repair documentation and activities. The goals are to ensure that the requirements established for all Phases, as well as compliance criteria, have been met for all required or replaced system configuration items. Validation criteria consists of six categories which must be incorporated into the system validation process: 1) general integrity, 2) interface integrity, 3) data integrity, 4) input integrity, 5) output integrity, and 6) processing integrity. If necessary, some IV&V activities will be extended into the post-implementation phase scheduled to end on January 31, 2000.

Activities:

• Identify and hire a third party to conduct an independent verification and validation on the FAAs repair activities
• Review system folders for systems that have completed validation
• Inspect systems that have completed validation to make sure that date issues have been addressed
• Witness execution of tests for selected systems to verify that tests are being carried out appropriately and in an orderly way
• Inspect selected systems that were certified and did not go through renovation
• Inspect selected systems that were addressed as not impacted (e.g., "stones" and "trees")

Deliverables:

• Reports from the IV&V contractor, defining the process of and laying out the investigation performed, by procedures/steps taken and the corresponding results
• Renovation Review Results report
• Report on the results of system folder reviews for systems that have completed validation
• Report on the system inspections to make sure that date issues have been addressed for systems that have completed validation
• Report on the results of the witnessed tests for selected systems
• Report on the results of the inspections of selected systems that did not go through renovation and were certified compliant
• Report on the results of the inspections of selected systems that were assessed as not impacted

--------------

According to available documents, this was the function SAIC was performing for the FAA.

Now, going little further, following Implementation, the FAA defines the Post-Implementation phase as:

--------------

The beginning of the Post-Implementation Phase will vary from system to system, depending upon the date that the system will complete Validation (for systems that were not repaired) or Implementation (for systems that were repaired). Following completion of the Implementation Phase, scheduled for June 30, 1999, all FAA systems will be operational in a certified Y2K-compliant version.

The Post-Implementation Phase has four main objectives:

• Ensure that a system that has been certified Y2K compliant maintains compliant status through the modifications and upgrades of its life cycle until and beyond December 1999;
• Address all new Y2K-related issues that may arise on systems that have been certified compliant and implemented;
• Track training and testing of contingency plan and mitigation strategies and the resolution of Y2K-related system failures and outages;
• Report year 2000-related failures to Department of Transportation during Day-One periods; and
• Ensure that the certified Y2K compliant systems are not vulnerable to information-based and other disruptions and attacks that may take advantage of Y2K problems.

During the Post-Implementation Phase, the FAA will focus on performing its normal system activities while maintaining the complaint status on any system or field deployed version of a system. For all systems, the end of the Post-Implementation Phase will be March 31, 2000, one month after the potential occurrence of the last major Y2K problem (February 29, 2000). At that point, all Y2K-related functions and responsibilities will be embedded into normal FAA procedures and organizations.

----------------------

And further, you'll find, listed in the Post-Implementation Tasks:

----------------------

Task 32: Develop Watch List of Critical Systems (10/31/99)

The FAA Year 2000 Program Office will develop a "Watch List" of forty systems deemed most critical to the National Airspace System (NAS) and business continuity. The list is comprised of systems that are of interest to FAA senior management, General Accounting Office (GAO) and Inspector General (OIG). Heightened monitoring for watch list systems will be provided during the post-implementation period. Third-party contractor code assessment tools will be used to further test watch list systems. Configuration management audits will also be conducted for systems on this list. The FAA Year 2000 Program Office will provide liaison with oversight organizations (GAO, OIG, Congress, etc.) regarding the monitoring results for watch list systems. Heightened monitoring of watch list systems further mitigates potential risk to FAA key systems and supported processes.

Activities:

• Support (where necessary) contact among contractor and system owners to obtain code for assessment
• Meet with contractor and system owners to review results
• Distribute report results
• Facilitate any corrective actions that are identified
• Provide liaison to oversight organizations (GAO/OIG) and conduct briefings, as required

Deliverables:

• Code assessment reports
• Status of Current FAA Configuration Management Processes Report

----------------

Apparently the above is the function Primeon is performing.

So what do we have? The FAA recognizes the importance of change management on systems previously validated and implemented, to ensure compliance is maintained. The FAA goes the extra mile, and monitors a "Watch List" of critical systems, performing detailed code assessments over and above the original IV&V.

And the results? Once again, the doomers jump all over the FAA for supposed "lies". Really, guys, this record is truly stuck in the wrong groove.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999

Answers

Sorry, Hoff. What were we thinking? We must've forgotten that the FAA's track record regarding honesty is as pure as the driven snow.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

So the new 100% Y2K compliant air traffic control systems are in place at all the airports and are functioning flawlessly, and Primeon has just been hired to monitor them and make sure no new bugs surface?

I'm just amazed that this happened with no fanfare! We need to contact an air traffic controller to verify this. I'd like to buy one of the vacuum tubes from the old system as a souvenir. They have no use for them now, right?

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), September 01, 1999.

Hoff -- when I went to school, IV&V was conducted before we claimed that projects were done. That was before "is" was anything other than "is". We would have considered it "lying" to represent to the public that everything was done before that. You know, we might have said something very "complicated" like, "The core remediation work is complete and we are now moving into the validation phase. We believe that we will enter 1/1/2000 with full compliance demonstrated by the end of the year." I guess you have a Clintonian view of truth.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

Yes, BigDog, and point me precisely to where the FAA said anything about being "done".

Every statement made that I've found also said they would continue testing systems and contingency plans.

Nobody, I repeat nobody can be "done" at this point.

When "I" went to school, you didn't bother repeating in detail every element of a project within every statement made. Especially when you've provided the details, and made them publicly available.

You just take you chances with the yappers waiting to pounce on individual "sound-bites".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Hoffmeister commented:

"Yes, BigDog, and point me precisely to where the FAA said anything about being "done". "

Hoffmsiter, do you mean to tell me that the FAA is not done ??????

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 01, 1999.

You just take you chances with the yappers waiting to pounce on individual "sound-bites".

Dic.: see Ray.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Hoff -- there has been a flood of press for months that, with minimal to no nuancing, states, replete with FAA quotes, often from Garvey, that everything is ALREADY ready, ie, "done". Or, at least, that is what they have decided to let the reasonable citizen conclude -- I sure would have concluded that if I didn't follow this stuff closely.

CYA with endless other qualifiers? Sure. So?

"The doomer fixation with the FAA is truly amazing." Fixation. Amazing.

No, we just don't swallow all the bilge that you do about their "integrity". Fixated on the FAA? You've gotta be kidding. They just had the misfortune to be caught in a few lies early on.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

Sure, BigDog. Like this "Lie", right?

Could you elaborate on just which "lies" they were caught in?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Hoff -- And have you stopped beating your wife? This gets so tiresome.

They are just starting IV&V Hoff. They ARE DISGRACEFULLY LATE ON DOING THIS. IV&V of their entire system(s) CANNOT BE DONE PROFESSIONALLY in four months. Yet, THEY REPRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE PUBLIC AS 'DONE'.

This is a LIE, Hoff.

L-I-E.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

Big Dog,

Don't knock Vaccuum Tubes...they are WAY cool in certain expensive audio equipment. And I have to get four (4) tubes for my trusty Short Wave receiver circa 1970's to monitor what is really going on! Spares are a good idea.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), September 01, 1999.

I don't bother with statements or "facts" anymore.

Couple weeks ago CNN passed on from .gov that FAA and IRS were susceptible to hacking.

That's all I need to know.

We'll all know soon enough, anyway.

-- lisa (lisa@work.hey), September 01, 1999.

No, BigDog. Y'all shtick is BS. That's B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T.

They are not just starting IV&V on their entire system. This is Doombrood BS at its finest.

Even the Primeon release states "Primeon has audited the most critical systems for the FAA". Has, as in already done.

SAIC performed a level of IV&V on their remediation and testing.

Primeon is apparently performing audits of change management, and provided a post-implementation code assessment of the "Watch-List" systems to find things potentially missed. Much like the SSA did, finding 1536 errors in what, 40 million lines of code?

The FAA realized no remediation will be 100% in finding all errors. So they again take the extra steps, to address this. And for this, they get called "liars".

Yes, BigDog, it IS truly amazing.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Off

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

Sir Hoff;

There are several reasons for this degree of attention to the FAA problems:

1. The FAA cannot implemetn any "work-around" or "manual" air traffic handling process without drastically curtailing airline, mail, and parcel package flights - probably to 1/4, perhaps 1/5 of today's levels. Further, these reduced levels CANNOT be increased until all phases of the ATC systems at ALL airports are compliant and "back in service" - if one hub goes down, that secotr (business, postal, and parcel) is shutdown and affects all other parts of the country and international, to a smaller degree.

Yes, weather now forces shutdowns elsewhere, FOR ONE DAY AT MOST. More often, four/six hours. And that single shutdown almost immediately starts hurting other airports, and within hours, produces delays that can't be cleaned up for two or more shifts.

2. The FAA has a terrible history of partial and incomplete and completely abandoned computer upgrade attempts. They have never had a single success story (until now?) when faced with the most urgent/most complete peril they face.

3. Despite extremely old equipment, that may/may not even have an operating system effective past 2000, they appear to be completely and utterly in the hands of their current old computer radars and systems. htey simply have not replaced any of their old hardware, despite being told by IBM the machines are not trustworthy next year.

So, will they work at all? Ibm doesn't seem to think so....what do the political leaders of the FAA know that that IBM doesn't? I'm willing to listen to a technical argument that maintains the old (existing) equipment will remain serviceable and reliable next spring, but not to any Clinton politcal appointee.

4. The FAA is reported relying on single point tests of single systems at single installations, issue widely-spread and immediate released press reports of "complete success". In other words, they immediately and forcefully and transparently lie about a crucial system vital to the national economy and the lives of passengers, flight attendents and pilots. They distort (deliberately and forcefully) what was tested, how much was tested, and what the impact of the test is.

You can upgrade one PC in the World trade center, you can test that one PC on ONE trunover date - but you can't then publicize that the WTC is compliant. This is what we (correctly) term "deliberately exaggerating the truth to mislead the public" - but is it a lie?

After all, the IRS found that its phone systems failed - after one little publicized test last year - only after running successfully for 24 hourts. But it failed utterly two days later.

This is a life support system affected by technical problems, but the Clintons's political appointees are treating as a public relations effort to convince people to fly that day - and the next two. And the FAA computers are not going to listen to public realtions press releases.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 01, 1999.

On a related note, I just heard that a large software system where I work that has been y2k compliant for months, has failed the latest round of y2k testing.

Of course, since I am anonymous, you can safely disregard this report.

-- a (a@a.a), September 01, 1999.

Go to this page on Hoff's site:

http://www.faay2k.com/html/news.html

Click on FAA Y2K Progress Update"

All four categories say "certified Y2K Compliant".

Someone please tell me what the meaning of "certified" is.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

Robert,

I know there is no point in arguing facts with you since you are only defending your religious views, but really, some of the whoppers you just told go beyond the imagination.

" they simply have not replaced any of their old hardware, despite being told by IBM the machines are not trustworthy next year."

Is complete nonsense. They have scrapped the systems that could not be remediated - a process clearly outlined on their Web site. Have you been there? Perhaps you should...

Hoff,

It is an almost pointless exercise to rationally debate the mechanics of remediation with many of the Tinfoil crowd. They believe in TEOTWAWKI, they want TEOTWAWKI and nothing will dissuade them that TEOTWAWKI is not around the corner - facts be damned.

The recent responses to a Doomer survey indicated that 30% polled expected 100 million or more Y2K related deaths and many think the entire grid is going to go done for up to a month. Irrational? Of course. A mental illness? Perhaps. Arrogant exaggeration? Most definitely

Really, all we can do now is save some of the most outrageous claims of doom for future reference. I for one can hardly wait until the non-event that January will bring, so I can shove stuff like this up the Tinfoil keister:

"Violence will be the killer. Cities will become burning incinerators after 3 days of no power. I think the Jo Anne effect will come into effect. It really is not that hard to imagine what the scenario will be, it will be a total breakdown of society, and years to recuperate. "

n Got Ammo? (gotammo@gotammoooo.com), September 01, 1999.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

"They are not just starting IV&V on their entire system. This is Doombrood BS at its finest."

Where did I say this, Hoff? I didn't say they had done NO IV&V. I said they cannot finish IV&V on their entire systems over the next four months.

You're letting this get personal, which isn't good.

What I said, Mr. Parser, is that it is fundamentally a L-I-E to represent oneself as done when one isn't. Most of us learned this when we were in elementary school. Why is this beyond your technical (or perhaps your ethical) ability to understand? Do you know how silly you sound?

Sometimes lying is just lying.

I defer to Robert Cook on the details, so you can simplify your efforts to promote the FAA in the face of the obvious.

-- (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

Take a look at Primeon's page and what they are doing. Their IVV (as performed by Primeon) is apparently going to be a cursory automated text scan of umpty languages, using a date-related dataname "seed" list. This is the cheapest, fastest, poorest way to look for date sensitivities.

The original press release sort of prepares you for that, saying Primeon's "services are ... a quick check [for] date-related errors ... within ... code that has already been through a full remediation program". In other words, this is one last fast pass with no high expectations. And THIS is what they consider IVV? IVV is where you make sure the car starts and runs. This is more like checking for fingerprints in the paint before the customer comes to pick it up.

home@puget.sound), September 01, 1999.

Yes Pro, by all means SAVE THE QUOTES.

That way, if things go in the crapper, you can regurgitate them for ongoing "I told you so's". (But why do I think you'd never be heard from again on this board, IF?)

As my bud Clint would say.... "Do ya feel lucky.... PUNK?"

121 days until we know.

-- Dennis (djoslon@pressenter.com), September 01, 1999.

Link didn't work first time

-- bw (home@puget.sound), September 01, 1999.

Sysman --- certified = not-really-certified = ready = lying.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

This is really too good, BigDog.

You parse every statement related to the FAA, and call them liars for not detailing each step in each release, yet can't read your own statements?

"They are not just starting IV&V on their entire system. This is Doombrood BS at its finest."

Where did I say this, Hoff? I didn't say they had done NO IV&V. I said they cannot finish IV&V on their entire systems over the next four months.

Where did you say this? About 8 posts up. Quote:

"They are just starting IV&V Hoff. They ARE DISGRACEFULLY LATE ON DOING THIS. IV&V of their entire system(s) CANNOT BE DONE PROFESSIONALLY in four months. Yet, THEY REPRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE PUBLIC AS 'DONE'

What I said, Mr. Parser, is that it is fundamentally a L-I-E to represent oneself as done when one isn't. Most of us learned this when we were in elementary school. Why is this beyond your technical (or perhaps your ethical) ability to understand? Do you know how silly you sound?

Silly maybe, BigDog. Silly for attempting to bring some reality here. Silly for attempting to reason with the "they must be lying" mentality displayed here.

You're right, BigDog. I have been silly.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.

You're copping out, Hoff. The problem isn't the people posting here. I don't have a "they must be lying" mentality. I have a "they SHOULDN'T lie" mentality.

Gee, maybe I should get counseling for this .... problem I have. Funny, I have the same problem about Clinton and Janet Reno too.

You can't spin it this time, Hoff. Now, how about responding to Robert if you're able?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

another old thread (march) where we beat this up

but this one has an auditor's opinion

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.

Another problem? Some systems are customized. "There may have been local adaptations at that facility... that will have to be dealt with when they actually implement the Y2K fix at that location," Stefani said.

-- (lisa@work.now), September 01, 1999.

Hoffmeister

Do you know where I can find a list of the airports where the 100% Y2K compliant systems are in use today?

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), September 01, 1999.

Well, at the risk of appearing even more "silly":

1. The FAA cannot implemetn any "work-around" or "manual" air traffic handling process without drastically curtailing airline, mail, and parcel package flights - probably to 1/4, perhaps 1/5 of today's levels. Further, these reduced levels CANNOT be increased until all phases of the ATC systems at ALL airports are compliant and "back in service" - if one hub goes down, that secotr (business, postal, and parcel) is shutdown and affects all other parts of the country and international, to a smaller degree.

Yes, weather now forces shutdowns elsewhere, FOR ONE DAY AT MOST. More often, four/six hours. And that single shutdown almost immediately starts hurting other airports, and within hours, produces delays that can't be cleaned up for two or more shifts.

A rather long-winded statement that the ATC systems are important.

Yes, agreed.

The part about "all" systems having to function is a bit misleading. Individual airports can and are subjected to reduced traffic. Yes, there are affects, but not to level of reducing all to equivalent levels.

2. The FAA has a terrible history of partial and incomplete and completely abandoned computer upgrade attempts. They have never had a single success story (until now?) when faced with the most urgent/most complete peril they face.

Actually, I think this has more to do with the difference between Y2k remediation and implementation of new systems.

3. Despite extremely old equipment, that may/may not even have an operating system effective past 2000, they appear to be completely and utterly in the hands of their current old computer radars and systems. htey simply have not replaced any of their old hardware, despite being told by IBM the machines are not trustworthy next year.

So, will they work at all? Ibm doesn't seem to think so....what do the political leaders of the FAA know that that IBM doesn't? I'm willing to listen to a technical argument that maintains the old (existing) equipment will remain serviceable and reliable next spring, but not to any Clinton politcal appointee.

Now this is truly misleading. It wasn't "political leaders" at the FAA, but former IBM technicians that reviewed the 3083's.

IBM didn't want to support the 3083's, and in effect washed their hands. In fact, IBM basically said they weren't qualified to analyze the 3083 microcode.

Do you really think the FAA has not been running the 3083's through extensive rollover environments?

4. The FAA is reported relying on single point tests of single systems at single installations, issue widely-spread and immediate released press reports of "complete success". In other words, they immediately and forcefully and transparently lie about a crucial system vital to the national economy and the lives of passengers, flight attendents and pilots. They distort (deliberately and forcefully) what was tested, how much was tested, and what the impact of the test is.

You can upgrade one PC in the World trade center, you can test that one PC on ONE trunover date - but you can't then publicize that the WTC is compliant. This is what we (correctly) term "deliberately exaggerating the truth to mislead the public" - but is it a lie?

Robert, you appear to believe the only testing the FAA has done are the publicized demonstrations.

Here, take some time to review these links (again, all publicly available). Then we can discuss "testing":

http://www.faay2k.com/h tml/testing.html

http://www.f aay2k.com/html/FAQsMiddle.html#Testing

There's more when you're done with those. The FAA is conducting 3 more System Integration Tests not described on those pages.

As well, the Project Plan I linked to above contains more details on "testing".

After that, we'll go forward with whether the FAA is "lying" about testing and systems.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 01, 1999.