Tuesday April 6 3:49 AM ET

FAA Confident Of Y2K Repairs, Says 88 Percent Done

By Tim Dobbyn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday it was confident its air traffic computers will work correctly at the end of the year, with Year 2000 work already completed on 88 percent of systems.

FAA Year 2000 program director Ray Long said the remaining computers would be returned to service by June 30.

A critical test of repaired air traffic control computers working together will take place next weekend in the skies over Colorado.

Long said he was confident FAA's fixes would hold up in the test and help win public trust. ``We've been saying this for a year. This is our chance to prove it,'' he told reporters.

The Year 2000 computer problem, also known as Y2K for short, arises because many computers and their software until recently allocated only two digits for the year in the date.

Unless computers are repaired or replaced, the year 2000 may be read as 1900, causing computers to crash or make mistakes.

For travelers, any problems could cause huge delays as FAA has promised to slash the number of planes taking to the air rather than risk mid-air collisions if its computers fail.

FAA has come in for special scrutiny on Y2K because of its crucial role in aviation and because it started its work late, missing most recently the March 31 date set by the government for all work to be completed.

Long said FAA had made up tremendous ground after being told a year ago it was seven months behind, but had never thought it could make the March 31 date.

``We are on track for the FAA to be certified Y2K compliant by June 30 of this year,'' Long said.

Of 641 separate FAA computer systems, 564 or 88 percent were now Y2K compliant, meaning they had been repaired if necessary, tested and returned to service.

Of those 641 systems, 423 are judged to be ``mission critical.'' Of the mission critical systems, 151 had required Y2K repairs and 108 or 72 percent had been repaired, tested and returned to service, Long said.

In the Colorado test, the FAA will set the clocks forward to nearly midnight Dec. 31, 1999, on its backup computers in several key air traffic control centers on the evening of April 10.

The date will move to 2000 on the backup system at midnight mountain time. As a safety precaution, controllers that night will be working with radar and other information supplied by the main computer systems working with the actual date.

FAA experts will later compare data recorded from both systems for any discrepancies in the date-advanced system. ''What we want to see is nothing. That's the point,'' said Long.

Other FAA officials said Monday that the largest U.S. airports were devoting considerable resources to tackling Y2K problems and would either make repairs to critical safety and security systems or have in place FAA-approved contingency measures.

The situation overseas is less certain, with U.S. carriers serving over 200 foreign airports in over 90 countries. More should be known by July 1, when the 185 member countries of the International Civil Aviation Organization are due to report on their progress.

-- Norm (nwo@hotmail.com), April 06, 1999

Answers

"Of the mission critical systems, 151 had required Y2K repairs and 108 or 72 percent had been repaired, tested and returned to service, Long said."

Hmm, let's see. They had 99% complete last September, but now they're down to 72% of mission critical systems finished.

But of course, as Maria notes, they don't lie. (do they?)

-- faa-is (full@of.it), April 06, 1999.

IT folks, help me out here...is it the 80/20 rule? Even if the FAA is not fudging with the critical systems numbers, I would think 80/20 applies.

She Who Is Very Happy Not To Be An IT Professional

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 06, 1999.

Open then close!

-- Close (html@tag.man), April 06, 1999.

Is it my imagination or does it appear that folks like Norm, Hoffmeister and Maria are jumping on the FAA bandwagon. It seems that the more we discuss the validity of the FAAs statements the more press releases and newspaper articles magically appear on this forum.

Do we have professional SPINNERS at work here? Is it possible that .gov has a BOILER ROOM operation going on to quell inquisitive minds? Stay tuned.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

I have a question for Hoffmeister.

Russia supplies ~40% of Germany's power?

SAP's HQs are in Germany? (I realize SAP's US HQ is in PA.)

I believe most, if not all, of SAP development (actual design and coding) is done in Germany.

You suppose SAP will move the tech support people and programmers to PA? Assuming Germany's infrastructure gets whacked, that is.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 06, 1999.

remember the childhood story about crying wolf... i thought after 3 times crying wolf you had no credibility left... norm you should really open up your brain.. take a look at all the statements made by the FAA and you will see that they have no credibility left.. the major media refuses to point this out.. happy face!!! happy face!!!

-- drdeath (drdeath@yahoo.com), April 06, 1999.

Ok faa is full of it. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Prove they are lying. Examine each and very word and prove it. Dissecting each word won't get you any closer to the truth. You must go to the FAA and find out from the source.

OH I forgot the consequences are so great! Our lives are at stake!

What difference does it make if at the end of March 31, 1999 they are 99%, 89%, or 69% complete? Why do the numbers matter so much to you? Did it help in your evaluation of whether or not to prepare? You are doing the preparations as if they won't be complaint, so it shouldn't make any difference to you.

I don't think they would do an end-end test if they weren't ready. But then again what do I know. I certainly don't know much because I can't see the total picture and you are sooooo much smarter than me, as evidence by your ability to see the big picture. Son of Sam saw a big picture too that not everyone else could see.

The test is not too far away, let's wait for the report. (Oh but Maria, there's no time to wait. We don't have time. The deadline can't be pushed back. We need to prepare.)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Lisa:

Really have no clue.

The systems used for OSS appear to be in Waldorf. Don't know if they have the ability to mirror over to US or not.

Actually, alot of development is done here in the States. They also have a development group out in California.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria commented:

"What difference does it make if at the end of March 31, 1999 they are 99%, 89%, or 69% complete? Why do the numbers matter so much to you? Did it help in your evaluation of whether or not to prepare? You are doing the preparations as if they won't be complaint, so it shouldn't make any difference to you. "

Maria, it makes a lot of difference to me if the FAA is LYING. Don't you understand about the meaning of TRUST?

"I don't think they would do an end-end test if they weren't ready. But then again what do I know. I certainly don't know much because I can't see the total picture and you are sooooo much smarter than me, as evidence by your ability to see the big picture. Son of Sam saw a big picture too that not everyone else could see.

The test is not too far away, let's wait for the report. (Oh but Maria, there's no time to wait. We don't have time. The deadline can't be pushed back. We need to prepare.) "

Maria, do you think the FAA would set up a test that had any chance of major failure? Please give me a break.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Oh I get it Ray, so they are lying about the objectives of the test also. Wow, that takes balls!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria, a bit of clarification for your confused mind:

Your comment:

"Oh I get it Ray, so they are lying about the objectives of the test also. Wow, that takes balls! "

Never did I say they were lying about the test objectives. I merely asked the question do you think the FAA would set up a test that had a chance of major failure. You see Maria, this is a publicity stunt so to speak. It has been pre-announced and will be the focus of the major media outlets. You know, something like the fireside chats that the Commander and Chief used to hold where CNN would filter out any of those nasty Conserative Extremists.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Well enlighten me Ray. What kind of test is it with this media attention?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria commented:

"Well enlighten me Ray. What kind of test is it with this media attention?"

I wish I could !! Is there anyone out there that can assist in this ENLIGHTENMENT?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Here a suggestion Ray, as I said before, "I don't think they would do an end-end test if they weren't ready." They have completed remediation and system tests, have identified objectives and test scripts of an end-end test that goes beyond system testing, have set up the test conditions, have identifed the test team, and have identified the expected results. The test may give some unexpected results but that is exactly the purpose of a test, to find the latent bugs. And as I said before, they will fix the bugs and do some regression testing. How much more do I need to spell out for you Ray?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria, nothing more thank you.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Comments about the FAA from March 1999:

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

[snip]

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.

In other words, even though the planes and computers owned by private companies should be fine, the government-controlled air traffic system may not be. No wonder the airline industry is so spooked.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999.

Ray,

Please stop badgering Maria and just repeat after me: "The FAA is going to be OK, the FAA is going to be OK..."

When you get to the point that you believe that one, then say: "The entire government is going to be OK, the entire government is going to be OK..."

You'll be surprised at what the power of positive thinking can accomplish, Ray. Just visualize it in your mind, and it will be so. I know I feel much better about Y2K after doing these mental exercises:-)...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), April 06, 1999.

" Why do the numbers matter so much to you?" (Maria asks.)

The numbers apparently matter to you, Maria, or you wouldn't stress them so much. Why shouldn't the numbers matter to other people?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Tom please tell me where I have stressed them so much. Numbers don't matter to me. The important fact is that work is getting done. Businesses and government are making progress. I know I've stated that many times on this forum. I never once compared numbers. There you go taking things out of context.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 07, 1999.

Maria commented:

"Tom please tell me where I have stressed them so much. Numbers don't matter to me. The important fact is that work is getting done. Businesses and government are making progress. I know I've stated that many times on this forum. I never once compared numbers. There you go taking things out of context."

This line of thought is only good for about nine more months Maria. Then the piper must be paid!!

BTW, what did you thinik about the USA Today article on the FAA?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

The numbers matter - and not the bland-feel-good-statements - because the numbers are the only independent track of progress.

99 - 88 - 72% tells me they don't know what's going on, or (more likely correct) are only now finding out what is really going on. Sure, let each system at eacch airport and each control point and each in-route point get checked, remediated (computer and software updated), get reported, get tested, and get fixed. Each is a step on the road, and each step forward is good.

But to date, the FAA has been stepping backwards - the latest "fixed" software is reported by USA Today (hardly an administration critic!) in its Wed April 7 front page as being too slow to be useful in real time.

If they begin publishling actual numbers, and when those actual numbers begin tracking positive, then "we" (their critics ?) will have pushed them in the first step to manageing their own projects.

And yes - this administration lies. The higher you go, the more likely the lie. The closer you get to the White House, the bigger the lie. So only by tracking numbers over time can you determine relative truth - or at least you are forcing them to to work harder to hide the truth of their failure.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 08, 1999.

Robert:

More of the same BS about backsliding? I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else.

And by the way, the system described in the April 7th story apparently has nothing to do with Y2k.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 08, 1999.

Didn't mean to explicitly indicate that it did - though I can see no reason whythey would want to introduce two probelms at the same time.....could be why they can't apparently figure out when they are going to get through, nor how many things they have left to fix.

For a longer description of their past failures, and the admin screw-up's involved in their historical "cover-up's", read the book: "Software Runaways" by Robert Glass; Ed Yourdon also covers many of the common "symptoms" that are appearing in this project in his book "Death March" - the parallels are astounding.

It's like they (the FAA) are content to simply to write another chapter in both books of what NOT to do to get a large, complex project under control, and get it to production in the least amount of time.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 08, 1999.

Well, Robert, you certainly seemed to imply that it was Y2k related, in saying "the latest fixed software". If not, then my mistake.

And again, the history of the FAA is not my point. You referenced the "99, 88, 72..", which apply to current statements, statements that have been consistent by the FAA.

If you want to talk about the FAA history, I have no clue or opinion. But I can read the statements made by the FAA on its Y2k progress, something others seem unwilling or unable to do.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 08, 1999.