OK, we did not make this up!

Y'all remember the "Norm" pattern of happy-face articles where the headlines and first couple paragraphs are Good News Happy Days Are Here Again? And then you keep reading and, uh, some, err, qualifiers send it to the pits?

[ For Educational Purposes Only ]

Military Planes Pass Y2K Test

Communications OK In Air Force Simulation

LAS VEGAS, Posted 2:46 p.m., June 21, 1999 -- U.S military aircraft will be able to communicate effectively when the clock rolls over on Jan. 1, according to an officer overseeing a test of Y2K compliance at Nellis Air Force Base.

Lt. Col. Paul Avella said the four-day exercise called "Y2K Flag," produced no surprises by the time it ended Thursday. The military exercise was intended to test whether communications systems between planes would be impaired by the Year 2000 problem, which will limit many computers' ability to ascertain the correct date after 1999.

Two F-15 pilots participating in the exercise were injured, neither seriously, when their planes crashed Tuesday. The cause is under investigation.

The Air Force has spent three years and $1.16 billion readying its computer systems for Y2K. The director of the Air Force Year 2000 Office, Brig. Gen. Gary A. Ambrose, has said he expects the military branch will experience only minor problems related to the computer problem.

"Most will probably last no longer than a few minutes, and some might develop over time. But we don't envision any catastrophic failures," Ambrose said in the Air Force's March policy letter.

Various aircraft were tested on the sprawling Nellis Air Force Range to determine if their communications systems are Y2K compliant. Avella said no surprises were found in the mix of aircraft tested. U-2 and E-8C "sensor" surveillance craft communicated successfully, and B-2, F-117 stealth fighter, F-16 and F-15 aircraft responded to targets during a simulated change of the calendar from Dec. 31 to Jan. 1.

Assessments also were made in anticipation of potential airstrikes on Feb. 29 during a leap year, which occurs every fourth year and will occur in 2000.

Avella said potential problems include readings of calendar dates on aircraft and pilot communications.

To avoid potential problems on Dec. 31 through Jan. 1 and on Feb. 29, dates can be reprogrammed. In the case of ground-based communications, vital equipment such as what Avella called a mission planning system can be fixed or "patched" through computer programming to function properly on those days.
----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999

Answers

Communications OK In Air Force Simulation
U.S military aircraft will be able to communicate effectively when the clock rolls over ... according to an officer overseeing a test of Y2K compliance .... said the four-day exercise ... produced no surprises by the time it ended Thursday. The military exercise was intended to test whether communications systems between planes would be impaired ...

Two F-15 pilots participating in the exercise were injured, neither seriously, when their planes crashed Tuesday. The cause is under investigation.

---------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

wiggle finger ... waggle head ... NO PLANES WILL FALL OUT OF THE SKY

-- gasping for air (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

How much does an F-15 cost? They sure are blase about it.

No surprises, huh? Well yeah there's been LOTS of military plane crashes lately ... lots of testing ... hhmmm, ya don't think there could be a CONNECTION, do ya?

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

They must be grading on a curve. If anybody left alive or the site remains barely recognizable, they PASS with flying colors.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

Perhaps they are using a "distance of thrown sparks" to determine the test grade.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.

Leska,

I wouldn't get too alarmed about military aircraft because of that news release. Here is what I had to say about it in another thread:

Dean,

I am particularly sensitive to events involving the aviation world, and I read that news release from Nellis AFB very carefully. There was no statement that the F15 crash was Y2K related and to be truthful, I didn't even get the glimmer of a suspicion that it might have been. Having participated in many such exercises (although none for Y2K testing), I must note that crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in "normal" times in military aviation. That's why no one wants to sell you life insurance if you are a pilot (military or otherwise).

As a general comment:

As for the "falling out of the sky" term, let's put that to rest once and for all (if only we could).

An aircraft will fall out of the sky if and only if its physical aerodynamic characteristics are compromised. That means if a wing breaks off or if the fuselage comes unglued or the engine quits and the bird won't fly without power (very low or non existent glide ratio) or if the computer quits and the bird is aerodynamically unstable and unflyable without it (F117, for example). Crashes, except those caused by the above (and other compromises of physical characteristics), are usually an example of the aircraft flying into the ground for one reason or another.

"Falling out of the sky" is simply an ignorant thing to say which is, unfortunately, scary to many folks who do not understand what makes flight possible.

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

Those were probably F-15E Strike Eagles, first deployed in 1988. They run about $42M-$60M per (depending on who's doing the marketing, errrr, math), which is still a mere pittance compared to some of the newer aircraft. For example, the proposed replacement for the F-15E (the F-22) looks like it'll cost 3x as much! And don't even ask about those high-tech, alarmingly-fragile Stealth bombers...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 21, 1999.

Let's inject just a *little* reality into this, shall we?

1) Planes have crashed during just about every military exercise in living memory. Without any indication that y2k is involved here as in any of *many* prior crashes, why assume it? Why now wait to find out what really happened?

2) Even if y2k *did* cause these crashes (very unlikely despite your fantasies), you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If these 'tests' have no problems, you say they are fake tests and therefore we face certain doom. If they do have problems, you claim this as evidence of certain doom. Can't you even see that *no matter what* happens, with enough determination and bias, you can turn it into 'evidence' of your preconceptions?

3) We certainly hope that such tests are real tests, uncovering real date bugs, so that these bugs can be identified and repaired. What in God's Name do you want here? If they don't test, wer'e doomed. If they test and find no problems, we're doomed. If they test and find real problems, we're doomed. Do you really believe that such tightly closed circular reasoning will lead to understanding? Or are you trying to *create* an understanding of your own devising, reality be damned? If so, you need to be a bit more subtle about it. They way you're doing it, only abject simpletons will be fooled.

But as my sainted mother used to say, God sure must love stupid people, He made so many of them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.

Hardliner, we did a search before starting this thread, on "plane" "military" "pass" "test" etc. and only posted when nothing matched! We hadn't read the thread you linked; the title did not attract us ;~(

About "Planes falling out of the sky" *of course* we know that's a fairly moronic phrase, but the stoooooopid media INSISTS on using it ad nauseum just to highlight their ridicule of Y2K fears.

Which makes it even MORE ironic when planes DO fall out of the sky in connection with Y2K. Whether its testing or fiddling or distracting or onboard systems or communications snafu collisions or WHATEVER the CAUSE more and more planes have increasingly become flaming falling objects.

The above article is HILARIOUS because it drones on in the slick hunky dory zzzzzzz fashion and slips in that passed no surprises BTW two planes crashed but we're glossing right on over that everything will be OK rest assured go back to sleep the military has it under control we're all done isn't that nice.

There's a serious DISCONNECT in the Pooers That Be.

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

Two F-15 pilots were injured when their F-15s crashed during a Y2k test.

Sewage gushed from a man-hole during a Y2K test.

My experience with testing is that when an incident happens during or immediately after a test, one looks to what was being tested. One does not immediately assume that what was being tested did not cause the incident.

Maybe it wasn't related, maybe it was. Until the cause has been identified, the jury is out. Best not to forget that this happened during the test.

-- Jean (jmacmanu@bellsouth.net), June 21, 1999.

Flint had a Mother?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.

Hardliner, I too am particularly sensitive to aviation objects coming down from the blue. Grew up in Tucson, Arizona, home of Davis Monthan Air Force Base. Dad worked at Hughes. Spent a great deal of my life around the University of Arizona. Planes buzzed low and loud all the time. Right under the flight path. One day was walking down the street, BOOM, crash, flames, two girls to the left dead. Close call, can't forget the sounds, smells, heat, screams. Later, watched planes streak and crash through the night sky, felt the ground shake on impact. So I know from experience that it happens. Also know firsthand how TPTB and the media and the Base covered problems up, quite boldly.

Notice our posts were about the way the info was presented, not an analysis of exactly why the planes crashed. It does seem significant that they crashed while participating in the "Y2K Flag" exercises; that did raise our red flag. But we know of course to NEVER outright think or SAY anything "is" Y2K - caused/related. Is is a finger-pointing word, after all, wouldn't want to be definite about anything ;^)

Y2K, the unmentionable untouchable dirty closeted invisible word

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

jean good observation, Crash occured during the test Key point. It may not be related or it may. Good chance it was. They would only check two with mission critical tests the rest would be just com and data checks to minimize potential life safety hazards. They wont tell if crashes were caused by y2k other than the way they did. They have a job to do protecting the country. The fact that they even let us know about the crashes were to send a message to the politicians not to play games in approving what ever funds it takes to fix y2k it's serious business. Take Note.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation .com), June 21, 1999.

Jean is exactly right. The fact that these accidents happended during y2k tests is highly suspicious, but no more than that. They may have been unrelated (unlikely), they may have been artifacts of a poor testing methodology (more likely of the sewage spill), and they may have been genuine y2k bugs.

All nontrivial systems have bugs. Fact of life. Any test that finds no bugs is therefore improperly constructed, because it didn't find bugs that we know are always there. Any y2k test that's real (not an after-the-fact PR event) that doesn't fail dismally makes me nervous, unless a wide variety of tests has been administered many times each. That's how testing works.

There's a fine line here. Testing must assume a monster under every bed. Doesn't mean there is one, it means that's testing protocol. But every failed test is a positive sign. It means the tests are happening, it means they're genuine, hopefully it means the bugs are being found and fixed. By now, good testing is our last, best hope. Testing should be neither misunderstood nor underestimated.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.

Ashton & Leska,

This thread:

Nellis AFB Says Military Aircraft Will Be Y2K Compliant (Good News?) at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000yNy

covers the same news, reported in an earlier AP article.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

Thank you, No Spam! We didn't see it ... sorry to repeat.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

How could a comm test cause a plane to crash? Sounds more like pilot inattention to flying/paying too much attention to the test.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 22, 1999.

Communications causing a military plane crash? It has happened before, but I'll bet against it in this case. I suspect this crash was not because the pilots screwed while changing frequencies up as Paul Davis alludes.

But perhaps because is was a screw-up in a transmission of the JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Display System), a sort of Local Area Network between US aircraft. JTIDS is a very time-sychronization dependent system which transmits data between aircraft, ships and ground stations over a secure radio link. I seriously that this would be the "communications systems" being tested during Y2K Flag, not the voice comm systems most people would envision.

What if the F-15s were using JTIDS-distributed sensor information, say radar maps from a JSTARS or U-2 to provide navigation and terrain cues. Ths would allow the F-15s to fly without using their own radars and giving their positions away. It's called EMCON: emissions control, a form of radio silence involving radars and other transmissions. But then the F-15s would be totally dependent on correctness of that data for their safety.

If such JTIDS transmissions were possibly corrupted, well there are a lot of high hills and mountains on the Nellis Range that are more than ready to smite your aircraft from the sky. Quite unfortunately, I personally know of several people who met their fate against Nevada mountainsides in past Red Flag, Checkered Flag, Green Flag and Desert Flag excercises.

Hmmm.... Time sychronization of data transfer systems, isn't that one of those things GPS is used for? I wonder if...

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), June 22, 1999.