Air traffic center upgrades radar screens, computers

May 21, 1999

BY GILBERT JIMENEZ TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

New computers and radar displays will limit the effects of power and equipment failures at the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center in Aurora and provide a platform for future safety improvements, officials said Thursday.

The square Display System Replacement takes over for the old round radar screens and computers that used to track aircraft, said Eliot Brenner, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman.

Because each of the center's 52 new units has its own processor and power supply, each operates independently. There is also an emergency power supply for more generalized power outages.

Under the old setup, a computer failure would knock out a whole row of displays, seriously affecting air safety, officials said.

An air traffic controller sitting at the state-of-the-art display system is gatekeeper for some of the 2.8 million aircraft that maneuver each year through the 76,000 square miles handled by the center, which guides aircraft between airports.

Each target on a screen identifies an aircraft and shows its altitude, airspeed and direction. The system also projects the paths that planes will take two minutes into the future and sounds an alarm if there is a danger of a collision.

There haven't been any significant radar outages at the center during the last 17 months. But in 1995 a slew of them prompted FAA officials to install an interim display system.

Additional enhancements for the new display system are scheduled to be implemented over the next several years, officials said. One improvement will allow flight paths to be previewed 10 minutes into the future.

On Thursday, FAA officials showed off some of their new gear, which is Y2K compliant. Air traffic in the region has been reduced 10 percent to 20 percent while controllers learn the new system.

Chicago Center National Air Traffic Controllers Association representative Ronald Downen said the new displays might make the system more reliable. But at the Cleveland center, three of 42 new displays have failed.

Controllers expect to be fully familiar with the new gear in a few weeks. The system is scheduled to be 100 percent operational sometime in August, a month ahead of schedule, Brenner said.

-- Norm (nwo@hotmail.com), May 21, 1999

Answers

But the new processor.... is it a 286?

-- (cannot-say@this.time), May 21, 1999.

Wow. It's partially installed. It's reduced efficiency 20%. Similar components have failed elsewhere. The rest of it will be installed later. This is really great news.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 21, 1999.

three of 42 new displays have failed.

Maybe thy should have left in the "old vacume tube" computers until they had worked the bugs out of the new systems!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 21, 1999.

....and, Norm, it took how long to get this first (test) set in place - where they evidently aren't working very reliably, and still need to "continue installation and testing" until August, and in any case nonly installed in one facility.

Now, how many other ATC centers are there? How many need training and 20% slowdowns for training and familization? How many (in these otehr facilities) are NOT y2K compatible?

Hey - you tried, but only came up with BAD news from the government - again.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 21, 1999.

It never ceases to amaze me that the negative crowd will try to pervert every story so that it appears good news is bad. The spokesperson said this:

"Controllers expect to be fully familiar with the new gear in a few weeks. The system is scheduled to be 100 percent operational sometime in August, a month ahead of schedule"

Does that not answer the critics?

I may be relatively new here, but are people so entrenched in their views (positive and negative) that they cannot appreciate valid news from the "other side"?

If not (and that sadly seems the case) then what use is discussion?

-- Freda Bok (freda@hates.spam), May 21, 1999.

Actually, Freda, after you've been here awhile you'll learn that words like "expect" and "scheduled" don't mean a darn thing to us. Neither do phrases such as "we feel we will be Y2K ready" and "we have every confidence" and claptrap such as that. We on this board have been waiting for the first industry to announce compliance, fully remediated and tested. We're still waiting.

-- Vic (Rdrunneris@compliant.com), May 21, 1999.

Freda -

Discussion because otherwise we would think with your rose-colored glasses that ALL FAA systems were in the same shape which is definately NOT the case were you to read the archives regarding the FAA and their back pedalling not to mention the disinformation they have put out regarding the % of completed remediation and testing. Extrapolating out from one airport center to include all FAA control centers is downright dangerous.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), May 21, 1999.

Yes, and every so often, the ole 'FAA backpedaling' has to be hauled out; no matter that it's been thoroughly debunked.

And no, Robert, this isn't the "first" installation of DSR. Even a cursory reading of the article indicates it's already installed in Cleveland.

Actually, the first seems to have been installed in Seattle, in January:

http://www.faa. gov/aua/news/jan99article01.html

Also found a link indicating it's been installed at Fort Worth:

http://www.zfwartcc.jccb i.gov/dsr1.htm

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 21, 1999.

Freda,

A short example using the paragraph that you quoted:

"Controllers expect to be (if this were not a "happy face" press release and were indeed "good news", this would say, "are" or "will be") fully familiar with the new gear ("now" or "already" instead of)in a few weeks. The system is scheduled to be (if this were not a "happy face" press release and were indeed "good news", this would say, "is" or "will be")100 percent operational sometime in August, a month ahead of schedule"

Even the use of, "will be" is a little "iffy", but competent and confident responsible people do not hedge or "weasel". The PR types always leave themselves an "out" so that they can later say, "We didn't say it would be ready, we said we expected it to be ready. We just didn't know that "so-and-so" would happen and prevent it."

In plain language, what the above really says is that the controllers "think" that they'll be familiar with the new equipment in a few weeks and that the system is scheduled to be 100% operational a month before it is scheduled to be 100% operational!

Does that clear up anything?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 21, 1999.

"In plain language, what the above really says is that the controllers "think" that they'll be familiar with the new equipment in a few weeks and that the system is scheduled to be 100% operational a month before it is scheduled to be 100% operational!

Does that clear up anything? "

Yes it seems to indicate good news. It seems to indicate progression.

It does not seem to support Mr. Cook's assertion that: "Hey - you tried, but only came up with BAD news from the government - again. "

Again I ask, how is this "bad news"?

-- Freda Bok (freda@hates.spam), May 21, 1999.

Freda,

All right, I'll spell it out for you.

There are no definitive statements in that paragraph about the purported subject matter of that paragraph.

The fact that the only "progress reports" given are verbal mush is bad news. It would be good news if the reports actually said anything definite instead of guiding the gullible to assumptions that favor the objectives of the writers.

Then there is the matter of individuals controlling the in-flight activities of civil air traffic who the writers "expect" but are not certain enough to say, "will" be done, or better yet, "are" done. In fairness to the controllers (I have known a great many), it must be said that they are, as a group, a very competent bunch. If you go to their web-site, you'll get more accurate information about what they really think (which means that it'll be "spun" by their union PR flaks).

Then you have to ask, "How many "schedules" do they have? Is there one that says August and they've "re-scheduled" it or are there two, one for August and another for "a month ahead?" Just how can you schedule something ahead of schedule? The point is that a topic as vital as ATC equipment readiness should be spoken to by someone who speaks plainly and honestly rather than in circles and conjecture.

If this piece were in isolated incident it might be written off as an extremely inept reporter, but this "M.O." is the norm. I do not believe that it's an accident.

Perhaps "it seems to indicate" is good enough for you to climb into an airplane, but it won't cut it for me. It's certainly your choice, and it's definitely your safety.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 21, 1999.

Interesting article in USA Today about how the new FAA system shut down air traffic for over an hour yesterday causing over 300 airplanes to be late. Lot of people don't have a lot of confidence in the new system.

-- rod (rbeary@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Norm,

Understand that what is being replaced is the individual controller's display units, not the flight data management computer. This is analgous to replacing the monitor on your home computer.

Just as you can make display set-up changes on your new monitor, there are things that the new "smart displays" can be programmed and set-up to do independent of the air traffic control center host computer. An example is that at a dedicated controller station, the display can have local obstructions (such as all of New York City's tall buildings at LaGuardia) programmed as user-defined "permenent diplay items". Intersection points and navaids are other examples of what kinds of independent programming and processing these display systems are capable of.

But these displays do not process the raw radar and transponder return information used to create the information display the controllers need to direct traffic. That is still the job of the old IBM 8032's, which are the Y2K problem part of the air traffic control system.

If the truth be known, the reason that the controller's displays require replacement independent of the host computers is that the old radar displays are just worn-out beyond the point of making any more repairs. These are old, 1950's and 1960's vintage electronic devices and some of the parts used in them are just plain unobtainable these days. I had contacts in Air Force air traffic control activities and got to see how they were cannabalizing some their display units to keep others working as far back as 1992. I can't imagine it's gotten any better these days.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), May 21, 1999.

Freda -

The fact that two control center systems are upgraded is good news - if it weren't for the fact that this leaves many dozens left to upgrade, indoctrinate the workers, and debug. Yet "norm" sees this single story, as biased as it is, as undeluted "happy" news.

It isn't. It is one small brick in the dike, one brick that is needed to keep back inevitable "rising tide" of an non-changing deadline - perhaps literally - a deadline.

Now, consider how hard you had to "read" the issue to see that one other facility already had this change installed - but the story wasn't writtent o show what was still needed to allow safe air transport - it was deliberately skewed to imply that aftert his change - air traffic will be faster and safer everywhere. Yes - they left in the fact that many screens at the other installation failed - but that is a story itself, isn't it? Why was it not emphasized? Doesn't this story actually reflect badly on the FAA and its progress - considering the change is so late, and still cannot be implemented without "hardware" failures - those are the easy ones to correct BEFORE installation on LIVE passengers.

Please, show me the "good" news here - the FAA declared itself 99% finished last September.

Yet these screens., these controllers, these power supplies needed to be replaced to become Y2K compatible? What about the rest of the country? Where are they?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 23, 1999.

Robert:

This was a story about one facility. It doesn't say the rest are fixed, and it doesn't say they aren't. I don't think we can conclude very much about what it doesn't say. You are extrapolating from zero data points, very poor form.

We've been over this FAA stuff too many times now. At one point last year, they said they were 99% complete with the first (of four) phases. No, I don't think the FAA's phase-specific reporting technique is very understandable. But repeatedly using your own misunderstanding against the FAA, especially when by now you know better, is beneath you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 23, 1999.