Hoff, Mr. Paranoia here, please get these folks straightened out. Many thanks!!

==================================== Start

Much Y2K Aviation Work Remains, U.S. Hearing Told

Updated 4:57 PM ET September 9, 1999

By Tim Dobbyn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Plenty of potential Year 2000 computer glitches could still affect the aviation industry despite major achievements by the Federal Aviation Administration in fixing its equipment, a congressional hearing was told Thursday.

Congress's General Accounting Office (GAO) said the FAA should do more tests of its systems while they are linked together and guard against problems stemming from airports, airlines and foreign air traffic control services.

"These factors could impede FAA's ability to provide reliable aviation services, which could seriously affect the flow of air traffic across the nation and around the world," GAO information systems expert Joel Willemssen said.

The uncertainty surrounding aviation systems in other countries was highlighted by data showing 53 countries had not responded as of Aug. 31 to an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) survey on Y2K readiness.

The Year 2000 problem, or Y2K glitch, occurs because many older computers and their software only allocated two digits for the year in a date.

Unless computers are repaired or replaced, the year 2000 may be read as 1900, causing computer systems to make mistakes or shut down. For air travelers that could mean anything from airport escalators not working to long delays if controllers screens fail and traffic is restricted to maintain safety.

FEW U.S. TRAVELERS WORRIED-POLL

Despite the warnings against overconfidence sounded in Washington, aviation industry officials gathered in New York Thursday to declare that air travel on Jan. 1 will be as reliable and safe as it is now.

The Air Transport Association and other industry groups, issued results of a poll showing 75 percent of 800 U.S. adults surveyed Sept. 6-7 believe the Y2K bug will be a minor problem and only 9 percent had changed plans to avoid flying around Jan. 1.

The FAA was late in starting work on its elderly patchwork of hundreds of computers that make up the air traffic control system but declared it had implemented all repairs on June 30.

"Overall FAA continues to make excellent progress on Y2K," Willemssen told a joint hearing by subcommittees of the House Science and House Government Reform panels.

But Willemssen stressed the job was not over, a view backed by Department of Transportation Inspector General Ken Mead, who raised a number of concerns.

Mead testified the FAA needed to exercise great caution to ensure local programs and upgrades did not undo the repair work already done.

He also said the union representing technicians who maintain air traffic control equipment had not played a significant role in drawing up contingency plans in the event equipment failed on the evening of Dec. 31.

Mead said he believed the large airlines that carry 95 percent of passengers were handling preparations for Y2K well, but the FAA now faced the challenge of following up with nearly 2,000 small and medium carriers which did not respond to its earlier surveys.

MANY COUNTRIES QUIET ON Y2K STATUS

The transportation inspector general said that as of Aug. 31, 53 countries out of 185 had not responded to ICAO, a United Nations organization based in Montreal.

Without naming specific nations, he said 18 were in Asia and the Pacific, 12 were in Central and South America, 10 were in Africa, eight were in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, four were in the Middle East and one was in Europe.

Mead said the lack of information from these countries, plus the absence of a U.S. policy on whether American carriers could fly to countries that have not resolved the Y2K problem, was creating significant uncertainty for international travelers at the year's end.

"Time is running out. In our opinion, these uncertainties should be resolved by Oct. 15," Mead said.

FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said her agency was working with the Departments of Defense and State to gauge the readiness of foreign civil aviation authorities.

"At this point it appears that if any Y2K impact is felt, it would take the form of limited disruption of service in some locations," Garvey said.

FAA would look into whether additional large scale tests were needed but Garvey expressed satisfaction with a successful demonstration in April of Y2K repairs.

==================================== End

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 09, 1999

Answers

You can post this as many times as you like, Ray, but Hoff won't be touching this with a 10-ft windsock.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 09, 1999.

Lisa, he's probably in the back room hunched over a big oval conference table with a bunch of PR Flacks planning their rebuttal !!

Let's give him a little more time.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 09, 1999.

Ray, please stop your doomer extremism. You are upsetting these nice people!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.

Link for the article:

http://infoseek.go.com/Content?arn=a3668reuff-19990909&qt=% 22year+2000% 22+bug*+glitch*+y2k&sv=IS&lk=noframes&col=NX&kt=A&ak=news1486

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 09, 1999.

The air travel situation was the first story tonight on the evening news on ABC. 9/9/99 was (very briefly) the second story.

The local news right before ABC called 9/9/99 a "Y2K bug," interviewed our local electric utility, and the news anchor said the non-events of today was encouraging about what might happen on January 1st.

You'd think by now someone would know that 9/9/99 is its own, unique type of glitch that is different from Y2K.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 09, 1999.

Linkmeister,

Maybe they don't want to know it's different. Maybe they just want to mislead the public at large. Maybe they are just clueless. In any event, it's lousy reportage, and not the least bit enlightening. News like that is available in the tabloids every week. Thank god we have the Internet and good forums like this to get the facts, fast. Sure, we get some facts wrong too, but not for long. There's plenty of posters jumping in with other data if something even *looks* wrong. That doesn't happen on the mass media. Nobody will bother to air another report saying 9/9/99 had nothing to do with Y2k.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 09, 1999.

Just got back from the PR meeti....err, my kid's football practice.

What needs to be set straight, Ray?

The GAO and Meade want:

1) Continued testing. Yep. Anyone ever done enough testing?

2) Continue with contingency plans. Yep.

3) Make sure any future modifications don't effect the Y2k work. Yep. Pretty much what everyone has to do.

Sorry, y'all. But if you're insinuating this somehow rebuts what the FAA has said, just don't see it.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.