FAA Stuff for Y2KPro.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Pro said: "You're the king of the strawmen Mr. Dunderhead. Who said the FAA will be 100% compliant in two days? Did the FAA say it? No. Cory said it. Perhaps you should wait until Friday before asking your question." -- Y2K Pro (y2kpro@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Whoa Pro, I was rushed and didn't blurt out the full story. The FAA Y2K Marketeer was my source. The good news is that they're done and tested done.

The bad news is that the code is not yet installed in production and they believe that each system will require patches and fixes specific to the operating site. This implies that any site could be a show stopper.

The FAA also did a couple "full up" tests. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the "full up" tests were more partial tests and not as full up as they're claiming. Jim Lord was on the FAA Y2K Marketeer's case big time.

I was kinda embarrassed for the FAA guy because Lord asked specific questions such as, Why are there many fewer mission critical systems now than 6 months ago? How can you call a test that involves one plane and one ATC a full up test? How can you call a test that runs for a couple hours with a small set of data a stress test?

Lets face it, the FAA is shamming us again. They have made progress, some of the progress was a paper trick but some of the code has been worked on.

I am certain that their systems are in better shape than the last time they were 99% done, which was about a year ago. At the rate they're going, I'd guess that they'll slam the last brick into place, in, oh, 2004 or so. Call it, 900-1,100 donuts if you have one donut a day. For some of us, it's 2,000 donuts until the FAA is done.

I'd be delighted if they finish sooner, say, Summer 2002.

Are they done now? I'm voting with the Air Traffic Controllers but would be glad to be proven wrong.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), July 21, 1999

Answers

See also...

FAA: All Systems Y2K-Compliant (Federal Computer Week)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0017Oh



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.


They have not announced compliance in a while so I guess it is time. They still have time to do it once more before the year is over.

And then there is always next year....

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 21, 1999.


The GPS rollover is only 4 1/2 weeks away. How many fools like JFK Jr. will be flying that weekend with noncompliant GPS receivers. I for one will stay on the ground. I have no desire to have some inexperienced, risky pilot plowing into the 737 that I am riding in.

-- Mr. Adequate (mr@adequate.com), July 22, 1999.

Why are there many fewer mission critical systems now than 6 months ago?

Because they changed the definition of "mission-critical" from "what must get fixed in time" to "what we might possibly have some chance of fixing in time"? Just a hunch....

When and where was Jim Lord doing this kind of questioning? That is, the kind of questioning that the mainstream media should have been doing for years now.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 22, 1999.


"When and where was Jim Lord doing this kind of questioning? That is, the kind of questioning that the mainstream media should have been doing for years now. "

"Mainstream" media is a business. Its income comes from advertisers. Virtually all advertisers would be hurt by "hard- hitting" Y2K news - sales of non-essentials would be hit hard.

The minimal fee charged for newspapers and cable-TV does not begin to cover expenses, let-alone profit. "Commercial" TV charges viewers nothing. From a money-making perspective, ADVERTISERS are mass-media's customers, NOT VIEWERS/READERS.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 22, 1999.



Cory:

While I admit the FAA continues to have public relations problems, the nation's air traffic control system has indeed achieved compliance. The ATCs that are being replaced in all those cities are themselves already compliant. They need to be replaced for other reasons (old and kludgy). Some will be replaced this year - most next year.

The systems throughout the FAA have been examined and approved by an independent verification and validation contractor as well as the Department of Transportation's Inspector General - all things requested by the Doomer brigade.

So here we have an organization that has gone through a five step process -Initial Awareness, Assessment, Renovation, Validation and Implementation. They have done significant testing, including end-to-end testing with both their own systems as well as NAV CANADA, the Mexicans, Iceland and the Brits. (might be others, I don't know)

They have received INDEPENDENT verification (Science Applications International Corp)about their compliance, yet you continue to paint a dark picture.

Please provide some proof that the independent verifiers are either lying or incompetent. The "I heard from a friend who heard from a barber" is not acceptable.

The FAA are an unnecessarily bureaucratic, large and unwieldy organization - however, based on the evidence, they also seem to be one hundred percent Y2K compliant.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.


My son's room was *finally* cleaned up too. The fact that the frame of his bed was no longer touching the floor, and you couldn't open his closet door, was beside the point.....the 'floor' was clean, after all! He had done what had been asked and yes, demanded of him. Too bad the FAA didn't give more attention to this problem than my nine year old gave to *his* chore.

The job IS done, depending upon what your definition of is is.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.


"The systems throughout the FAA have been examined and approved by an independent verification and validation contractor as well as the Department of Transportation's Inspector General - all things requested by the Doomer brigade."

This is what Doomers have requested - independent verification. When an organization receives this verification, the Doomers say "not good enough"

Tell us Will Not Think, in your proffesional opinion, what remediation steps are now not completed that you see as essential?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.


Y2K Pro

I'm not aware of any airport or regional control center where the new system has been successfully installed, much less all of them. That doesn't seem too ready to me. Can you set me straight here?

Last I heard, they were batting 0-4 in attempts.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 22, 1999.


I, for one, would like to thank Y2K Pro for telling us what he/she knows. This is the kind of troll we can use.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 22, 1999.


Pro, I'm not saying they're lying, but SAIC is hardly an unbiased IV&V outfit. Their BOD reads like a Whos Who among retired federal government officials and it is well known in the defense contracting arena that dividing line between the company management and USG is pretty blurry.

-- a (a@a.a), July 22, 1999.

The words i read about the SAIC verification effort were that it was a "documentation" review, not an audit or test.

In other words, "Here is our plan and procedures to become compliant. Based on what is written down, will we be compliant if we do everything we say we will do on time and completely successfully - without errors? The plan(s) lists all the systems we say we have, and what (we say) we need to do to make them compliant."

That's nice, but it all based on the accuracy adn completenes of the "plan" - and on the ability to execute the "plan" exactly as written, and assuming the "plan" is itself 100% correct and self-correcting.

Until each airport and each control systems (tower + radar + computer + powe supplies + airport + regional control center + ALL communications between them are tested, all you have is an audited piece of paper.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 22, 1999.


--a, and Robert,

That's pretty much the way I see it too. I have to really laugh at our Polly Y2k Pro when he says the FAA has a public relations problem. Kind of like OJ has a public relations problem, or the Prez has a public relations problem. Well, when you are caught in lie after lie I guess you do have a problem in relating to the public.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 22, 1999.


Y2KPro,

I second what Robert said about it being a documentation review.

Just think about how much money the American economy could save if we did away with all that silly testing and instead chose to rely on documentation. The auto industry could save millions on crash tests. The drug industry could just do away with those long and costly tests required by the FDA.

Y2KPro, would YOU want to buy a car that had never been tested? Would YOU want to take a drug that had never been tested? I wouldn't, and I sure wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that was being guided by and untested air traffic control system.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 22, 1999.


Robert, please provide some evidence that the FAA are lying when they say:

"Data verifying that all FAA systems were implemented as Y2K compliant have been examined and approved by Science Applications International Corp., Vienna, Va., an independent verification and validation contractor."

Clearly, this states the verification process was NOT a documentation review. I am looking forward to seeing your evidence to the contrary.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.



Y2K Pro,

"Data verifying that all FAA systems were implemented as Y2K compliant have been examined and approved by Science Applications International Corp., Vienna, Va., an independent verification and validation contractor."

If you look at it another way...

Science Applications International Corp., Vienna, Va., an independent verification and validation contractor, [has] examined and approved data verifying that all FAA systems were implemented as Y2K compliant.

The sentences say the same thing.

After looking at this way, it 'appears' they only 'examined and approved' data, not the systems.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), July 22, 1999.


"Data verifying that all FAA systems were implemented as Y2K compliant have been examined and approved by Science Applications International Corp., Vienna, Va., an independent verification and validation contractor."

Clearly, this states the verification process was NOT a documentation review. I am looking forward to seeing your evidence to the contrary.

Nothing "clear" about it.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 22, 1999.


Did anyone else see it??? I certiainly did.

Y2KPro actually made a post without any personal attacks or profanity!!! I'm impressed, really... (no sarcasm here)

But then Will Continue, in his normal fashion, comes back with snideness, and sarcasm... Hmmmm.....

Kudos Mr. Pro, I take back everything I have ever said about you...

scratchin' at the door,

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 22, 1999.


In May, an implementation of Air Traffic Control software had to be backed out at O'Hare, and the old release was NOTcompliant, according to the Chicago Trib. I can't find any info on what happened after that. Does anyone know?

-- Deborah Barr (debbarr@concentric.net), July 22, 1999.

The system serving Boston's Logan airport, out of Nashua, New Hampshire HAS NOT been installed and WON'T BE INSTALLED until THIS FALL. Compliant vaporware, folks!

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.

Y2KPro sez:" Please provide some proof that the independent verifiers are either lying or incompetent. The "I heard from a friend who heard from a barber" is not acceptable."

My source was Mr. Dana Lakeman of the FAA who spoke at Fannie Mae Headquarters in Washington DC at 7:00PM on July 20, 1999. Mr. Lakeman is an excellent speaker and was an official representative of the FAA. He meets with Jane Garvey and the FAA's senior management on a weekly basis on Y2K. He presented a very positive view of the FAA's situation. I hope Mr. Lakeman meets your criteria as a credible source.

Mr. Lakeman stated that the systems have not been installed and that there are site specific local patches to the base code. The local patches have not been integrated nor have they been tested.

You can interpret this to mean that they are done or that they are not done. It's your call.

My interpretation is that the FAA is scamming us yet again. Please note that I don't think the FAA's failure is as much a showstopper as failures in other industries. This is simply something to learn from.

I'm sure that Jim Lord will report on this too. I hope to have a transcript in the near future.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), July 22, 1999.


This explains my justification for "documentation review only" - I'm using their words, not mine below: The complete links to the FAA testimony to Congress are in the other FAA thread.

This is the FAA's own testimony to Congress - read the words, they have NOT tested end-to-end the system: they "spot checked three typical systems" - the verification clearly says the verification (by SAIC) was ONLY of the documentation (that is, the test PLAN).

The three tests themselves - possibly, remain incomplete, I didn't see specific "data" showing the results.

By the way, the first paragraph repeats their previous 99% complete installation in September report ....

___

FAA has now addressed these recommendations. The agency has a strong Year 2000 management structure; an overall Year 2000 strategy; detailed standards and guidance for renovating, validating, and implementing mission- critical systems; a database of schedules and milestones for these activities; and a draft Year 2000 business continuity and contingency plan. Additionally, FAA reported that it completed 99 percent of its missioncritical systems repairs by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) September 1998 deadline and 74 percent of its systems testing by OMB's January 1999 deadline.

...

FAA faces several challenges in completing its Year 2000 activities. These challenges include ensuring that systems validation efforts are adequate, implementing multiple systems at numerous facilities, completing data exchange efforts, and completing end- to- end testing.

Support for Systems' Validation Is Not Always Sufficient and Complete

FAA's Year 2000 program office has developed standards for testing and implementing mission- critical systems that require system owners to prepare and obtain approval on a validation plan that includes test plans and procedures, funding requirements, test management roles, and

schedules. The system owners are then required to test the system according to this plan, complete a checklist of required validation activities, and prepare a Year 2000 validation results report. Once this report has been approved within the relevant FAA business line, a

contractor for FAA's Year 2000 program office performs an independent verification and validation (IV& V) review of key validation documents. The system is then considered ready to be implemented.

In reviewing validation plans, reports, and supporting test documentation for six mission- critical air traffic systems 2 that were reported as having completed validation, we found that the validation of three systems was

[rest of this sentence was missing in the text file!]

[...their text restumed here...]

1 The 12 systems are (1) the Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS- IIIE), (2) the Host Environment, (3) the En Route Automated Radar Tracking System, (4) the Graphic Weather Display System, (5) the U. S. Notices to Airmen System, (6) the Aeronautical Mobile Communications Services, (7) the Integrated Communications Switching System (ICSS) Litton- types 2 and 3, (8) ICSS type III- Denro, (9) Terminal Doppler Weather Radar, (10) the Remote Maintenance Monitoring System, (11) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems, and (12) Mejoras Al Enlace De Voz Del ATS, a satellite- based communications system in the Caribbean and Central American regions.

2 In choosing systems for our case studies, we attempted to cover a range of air traffic control functions in different environments. We selected validated systems from three different critical core functions (surveillance, communications, and weather processing) that operated in one or more of the different air traffic control environments (en route, terminal, tower, and flight service station). Two of the systems (FSAS and ICSS- Litton type 2,3) were also chosen because they were identified by FAA as among the 26 most at- risk systems.

____

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 22, 1999.


Actually Pro, I have immediate family who fly ALOT. I'd just appreciate their screens staying up in their remediated systems, that's all. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a clue about that, do you? Do I need certain credentials for that? Apparently I don't meet your big brained criteria, eh? You are arrogant and pompous, much like the majority of your comrades and I've NEVER been impressed with you either. Whoopie dooooo.

Watch your back, Dog, Pro's out of character here, and I'm a 5'6" 130 lb, nasty tempered redheaded Scottish/Cherokee 'broad'. I'm no man, but I've taken a few down in my time!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 23, 1999.


Cory:

According to the FAA, the systems to be replaced are ALREADY compliant - no new installation - no problem. The new systems will have to have site specific local patches, that is true, but nothing has to be installed for the ATC to remain compliant.

Robert:

I'm not sure you can use old FAA testimony to Congress to disprove a new statement from the regulator - much may have happened since, however, your point is taken. I will have the opportunity to speak with Ray Long (FAA Y2K chief) and I'm sure the subject will come up.

Will Continue Not Thinking:

It is nice to see you are admitting you are a know-nothing, semi-literate blowhard. Not exactly news to anyone here, but a nice admission...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.


You're welcome.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 23, 1999.

Dog Gone, didn't you see in the news about Denver's test. It went smoothly, also included an aircraft. My, the doomers not only spin the good news but then they completely ignore it as if it never happened at all.

Robert, do you Y2K remediation? IV&V in Y2K context is not what most think of as IV&V. It is exactly another contractor looking at the code. It doesn't necessarily need to be automated means, it could be manual means. But Pro is right, you scream about getting IV&V (even thought Will has no idea what it means) and then you say it's not good enough.

Just to make my point again: ED IS WRONG, IV&V is not necessary for Y2K remediation. TESTING (of the interfaces) is necessary.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 23, 1999.


Maria,

You mean the limited test using one airplane? Yep, it sounded encouraging. Tell me though, why isn't the new system online at Denver now for all planes?

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 23, 1999.


Will continue,

OOPS... or as Cory would put it... OOPSIE!!!

Aliases on the forum are a bit confusing at times. Please accept my sincere apology. I won't make that mistake with you again. I didn't realize your alias was a concept and not a descriptive.

I have been putting my paw in my mouth a lot lately!

Regarding my alias, it describes my interpetation of my USE in society... figuratively speaking. I remember when the board found out Old Git was female... DOH!

I am genuinely hoping Y2KPro's change of journalism 'will continue'... (sorry, I couldn't help it)

FWIW, I am male 6'3", 210 lbs., and women of your stature HAVE taken me out a time or two....

removing paw from muzzle...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 23, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ