FAA: U.S. air travel OK for Y2K

WASHINGTON (AP) - Airline passengers will fly safely through U.S. skies as the calendar turns to Jan. 1, 2000, government officials say. But they're not sure airports will handle the baggage properly or that passengers won't have troubles traveling overseas because of the Year 2000 computer problem.

Top Federal Aviation Administration officials made those pronouncements Thursday, responding to continuing questions about whether the nation's aviation system will be able to deal with the glitch.

"From the air traffic control system, our end-to-end testing says there will be no impact on Jan. 1," Ray Long, director of the FAA's Y2K program, told reporters. "The impact could be more to the infrastructure, how you get to and from the airport."

FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said "There may be some disruptions because of delayed baggage or something like that," but the agency is working hard "to make sure that those disruptions are at a minimum."

She plans to fly coast-to-coast with Long on New Year's Eve to demonstrate their confidence in the agency's computer handiwork.

Their optimism contrasts sharply with recent failing Y2K grades given to the FAA and the Transportation Department in general by Rep. Stephen Horn,R-Calif., who chairs the House Government Reform and Oversight panel on government management, information and technology.

Long conceded the agency was seven months late in starting its attack on the problem and that it will fall 35% short of meeting a March 31 deadline set by President Clinton. But he vowed that all 626 FAA computer systems,including 151 "mission critical" systems that operate everything from air traffic control to the agency's payroll, will be analyzed, repaired, tested and running properly in the field as of June 30.

A live air traffic control test with non-passenger aircraft will be conducted at Denver's airport in the early morning hours of April 10.

"Safety is not an issue," declared Garvey.

The bigger question is whether aviation-related systems not controlled by the FAA will operate properly.

The Y2K problem is an outgrowth of an old computer programming technique in which years were labeled for record-keeping purposes only by their final two digits, such as "99" for 1999. There is concern that computers will malfunction when the date changes to 2000, which some computers might interpret as 1900 instead of the start of the new millennium.

U.S. airlines are now working with their foreign partners on the problem, having largely fixed their own computer systems already.

"The airlines are telling us they're more concerned about the VCR in the back, making sure that the entertainment system worked, than they are about the flight deck of the aircraft," Long said.

However, a recent General Accounting Office report found that only a third of the nation's 50 largest airports would be Y2K compliant as of June 30. Another third said they would miss the date and were in the midst of contingency planning, while the final third did not meet either criteria.

The airports in that third category include nine of the nation's 50 largest, although they were not identified by GAO, the investigative branch of Congress.

Long said the FAA is making contingency plans to ensure its services continue uninterrupted, such as through backup power generators. He and Garvey said local airport operators are responsible for other services, such as baggage handling, passenger check-in and utilities.

Another major concern is foreign air travel. The FAA has signed agreements with six nations -- including the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas and the Dominican Republic -- to ensure their air traffic control systems can transfer planes without interruption. It is in the midst of negotiating similar agreements with other nations.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, meanwhile, is conducting a Y2K survey of foreign airports and airlines. And the FAA and the State Department plan to announce July 1 which countries they believe will be safe for air travel as of Jan. 1, 2000.

-- Moron slayer (NWO@hotmail.com), March 08, 1999

Answers

Dear Moron, Someone on this forum is bound to call your post a "suicide note." Of course, I wouldn't do that, but someone will.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 08, 1999.

Moron slayer,

The article you posted *could* be true. On the other hand, the FAA has made numerous statements in the past about its Y2K progress that were "inaccurate".

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 08, 1999.

Also see this article...

http://www.y2kculture.com/reality/19990308.travel.html

[snip]

What did an official in the FAA's inspector general's offica -- 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.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 08, 1999.

Well Moron slayer, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and book a filght on 1/1? My money says if you do, your flight will be cancelled. The FAA just got cought with their pants down. And if you want a side bet, I'll give you 2 to 1 that insurance companies will announce that they won't cover any flights on that day, and many following days. But what do I know. I've only been programming for 31 years. I'm just a moron. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

I've only been programming for 31 years. I'm just a moron. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

The fact that you are a moron was self evident - you need not have stated it so baldly...

p.s. I'll take you bet

-- Moron Slayer (NWO@hotmail.com), March 08, 1999.

Sysman

I see you have identified yourself as a Y2Krackpot - whose views will not be changed regardless of the evidence. Nice work!

Flanagan

-- Flanagan (terry@consultink.com), March 08, 1999.

Sysman is right. So I'm a "Krackpot"...big deal. On 1/1/2000, I'll be safe and sound on the ground partying.

But then again, only a "moron" would believe the accuracy of any government report. If you have any idea how really bad the information systems are in our government, you would begin to get a grip on reality.

P.S. - Have a nice flight. But I would hope you wouldn't chicken out; take a flight to one of those Y2K compliant locations you believe are out there. Like, oh, Turkey or Syria maybe...

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), March 08, 1999.

Moron Slayer,

You are simply NOT paying attention. "Airline passengers" being able to "fly through U.S. skies" on 1/1/99 is so insignificant as to barely warrant a passing glance. Pay attention to what's going on in the rest of the world (particularly Russia), with the nuclear industry, global trade, litigation, the implications od the Senate report, oil, the current freakout of the banking industry, ad nauseum.

The days of calling people Y2Krazees are over. Wake up, kid!

-- moron slayer (slayer@NWO.sucks), March 08, 1999.

Moron Slayer and Flanagan. What an odd couple you make. Are you guys sure you want to play hardball in this park? We have some pretty big bats here. Let's start with the Senate report released last week. Have either one of you idiots bothered to read it? I mean cover to cover, not just what you hear from the media that is trying to avoid panic. Why don't you start with that and try to educate yourselves a little.

Funny that you guys find one article, and in this case an article that just today has been proven to be false (see Kevin's link above), and this one article says to you that we won't have any Y2K problems? Why is it that for every one of these questionable articles you find, we can find a hundred that say just the opposite?

I would suggest that if you are going to attack us, you had better get the facts first, because now you guys look like Abbot and Costello. I really do feel sorry for both of you, but I can't waste any more time on this. Most people are here looking for answers, and I'm one of those that is trying to help them find those answers. Have a nice day, and a Happy New Year. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 08, 1999.

"Moron Slayer and Flanagan. What an odd couple you make. Are you guys sure you want to play hardball in this park? We have some pretty big bats here."

I don't know about moron slayer, but I would say that your bats are made of jello. The FAA announcement on their compliance is no more, and no less reliable than anything else I have read here. I do not discount it just because it has come from the "hated guv'ment", I simply consider it as another piece of the puzzle.

You my friend need to learn some perspective.

Flanagan

Let's start with the Senate report released last week. Have either one of you idiots bothered to read it? I mean cover to cover, not just what you hear from the media that is trying to avoid panic. Why don't you start with that and try to educate yourselves a little.

-- Flanagan (terry@consultink.com), March 08, 1999.

Jeepers! The article isn't even very positive! Every "positive" statement by the FAA is followed by another that contradicts it.

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 08, 1999.

Sysman, may I remind you of your post a few days ago:

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

-- Dilbert (got@it.gov), March 08, 1999.

"well they would say that wouldn't they"

mandy rice davies

-- dick of the dale (jcooney@figroup.co.uk), March 09, 1999.

Dick's obscure reference is to Amanda Rice-Davis, involved with Christine Keeler in the Profumo case. John Profumo was a Defense Minister who was caught more or less en flagrante with one or both of these ladies, who were also messing about with a Soviet spy. Can't remember all the details, it was in the early sixties or thereabouts.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 09, 1999.

Is this a strange thread, or what?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

Yes, King,...very strange indeed!:>

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), March 09, 1999.

add penguins

-- burgess meredith (?@?.com), March 10, 1999.

I fail to see their point - where is the demonstratable good news in even the FAA's "chirpy" feel-good comments?

One test - in April - at the nation's newest airport (Denver) that had an unholy mess of trying to get its simple one-system baggage handling program to work. And this will demonstrate that cross-country flight will be safely managed across regional systems running on computers that IBM says "won't work" - that are physically breaking down from years of service and overheating. Sorry - with no figures, no test dates for each FAA center, and no copy of the test plan - this is promotional hype and more lies.

Or did you indicate that we can now start to believe this government? When will we know they are lieing, and when when are they telling the truth?

Well - if she wants to demonstrate confidence in the system - she not should fly cross-country, but airport - airport - airport,

Better yet, be on the ground near her telephone to call the potentail victims' families. Personally.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 10, 1999.

Since someone mentioned penguins, this may be illustrative (or not).

* * * * * * * * * * *

A Mexican newspaper reports that bored Royal Air Force pilots stationed on the Falkland Islands have devised what they consider a marvelous new game.

Noting that the local penguins are fascinated by airplanes, the pilots search out a beach where the birds are gathered and fly slowly along it at the water's edge. Perhaps ten thousand penguins turn their heads in unison watching the planes go by, and when the pilots turn around and fly back, the birds turn their heads in the opposite direction, like spectators at a slow-motion tennis match. Then, the paper reports, "The pilots fly out to sea and directly to the penguin colony and overfly it."

Heads go up, up, up, and ten thousand penguins fall over gently onto their backs.

-- Audobon Society Magazine

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 10, 1999.

MORON,

There are still about 10 unanswered questions for every one that is answered in that article. Problem with idiots like yourself is you don't have enough imagination to see beyond your television set.

One of the major questions still lingering is whether or not Airlines from the United States will be able to land in foreign countries. Gee, that probably only accounts for about 50% of their revenues - no big deal!

-- @ (@@@.@), March 10, 1999.

Them peguins or reporters - mindlessly following the official airplane feeding them information, until they fall "gently" on the b**ts.?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 10, 1999.