The link link below might need revision???!!! http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9912/31/bn.19.html Millennium 2000: FAA Says Air Travel is Y2K Safe

What would the FAA think of this non-compliance moving through their compliant airspace?

Y2K bug hits airliner over Atlantic 11:59 Saturday 1 January 2000 AAP A YEAR 2000 computer problem is believed to have occurred on board a British Airways Boeing 777 flying from London to Boston, an AFP correspondent among the passengers reported. The incident happened at 1140 GMT, less than one hour after the plane took off from London's Heathrow airport, and when it was already passing over the Atlantic.

Passengers heard the pilot of BA flight 213 say: "We have a millennium bug problem. We will switch to manual system. This will interrupt the TV transmission.''

The announcement caused surprise but no apparent panic among those on board.

The television monitors in the passenger cabin shut off for nearly three minutes.

The flight continued on to Boston without any further explanation or subsequent incident.

The original source was ...

http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20000101/A2257-2000Jan1.html

I am not saying that aviation is unsafe. I am saying that it is a rather large assumption to make. We should expect "glitches" and take the necessary precautions, even if it takes time or costs more money. Exactly what did the FAA base their original assumption on? A LEVEL of testing performed with their own equipment only. They cannot possibly have tested the equipment of every other country also, and I would doubt that they tested US planes in many foreign airports? Perhaps they could provide some detail on the exact tests carried out etc???

Check my previous post if you are still convinced aviation is safe and the FAA are not simply spinning a story!

Makes me wounder who else might be spinning if the FAA are so transparent?

-- MOD (mod@Y2NOTOK.com), January 02, 2000

Answers

Sorry about the format!

-- MOD (mod@Y2NOTOK.com), January 02, 2000.

have a little faith in the pilots. I believe we would be hearing from them on the news if it is, or becomes unsafe to fly. There would be more than a few refusing to pilot the planes. -k-

-- KatInSeattle (YouC@ntSpamMe.com), January 02, 2000.

Boeing DID NOT Find Out Until ***TONIGHT*** [New Years Eve @ midnight] -- After Rollover Whether Or Not......

First Hand Information:

Flight management computers (in most all modern aircraft) along with their installed and current Jeppesen data actually fly most aircraft from the takeoff rotation at the departing runway to the main gear touchdown at the destination.

This computer tells the autopilot which direction to fly, which altitude to climb, hold or descend, and it autotunes the navigation receivers inflight for further triangulation of current position. It constantly receives latitude and longitude information from its laser gyro platforms.

It is the electronic, navigating pilot in the cockpit. The physical pilots monitor the flight progress and input flight route information into the flight management computer via the control display units in the cockpit. The control display units are the pilots' link to the flight management computer and because of this, it is their primary source of inflight information in many instances.

It is considered by most flight crew to be an essential cockpit flight system.

Boeing DID NOT KNOW UNTIL TONIGHT [New Years Eve @ midnight], whether or not all of the aircraft with this system installed would work with their Jeppesen data (date sensitive data) after the rollover. They do not know for sure how these systems will perform in use. Sporadic failures at rollover tonight were expected. Out of a fleet, maybe one might fail, maybe none might fail, or maybe all might fail.

Not the kind of information you find in press releases.

-- flight management systems (maybe.they.work@or.maybe.they.dont), January 02, 2000.

Switching off the autopilot won't turn off the TVs. The report sounds bogus. Or perhaps the "millenium bug" had to do with the cabin entertainment system, in which case who cares?

-- Fubar (fubar@foo.bar), January 02, 2000.

KatInSeattle,

Most pilots leave aircraft maintenance to the ground crew and only perform minimal inspection personally. Radar, telecomuniications etc may present problems but planes can still crash due to incorrect maintenance. This is more subtle and takes longer to manifest itself. What exactly did the FAA consider adequate testing here? This is typically periodic scheduled maintenance controlled by software on the ground (more in my first post today).

flight management systems (maybe.they.work@or.maybe.they.dont) - Thats another excellent example! It shows that the attitude of all concerned is to gamble with peoples lives. How can these people be so sure that aviation is safe? If they are so sure then can we see the published results of their testing? The fact that there is any doubt or the testing is inadequate is simply unacceptable in my view.

We are being told what they think we will believe. What is the alternative? Costly - for them!

-- MOD (mod@Y2NOTOK.com), January 02, 2000.

Fubar,

Hey, maybe you are correct but they could have put the passengers out of their misery by explaining. They were after all only an hour in the air and its a long flight to Boston. I am sure the phrase "millennium bug" would not be mentioned unless it was a bigger problem than in flight entertainment ;) then again I would not rule it out. My big point is why was this not apparent in testing??? Show us the tests, publish them on the net. We can all then decide for ourselves?

The problem here is that these "glitches" appear to be happening and swept under the carpet for "business reasons".

The source I gave is good and I have seen the same story mirrored on an independent source also in Australia.

-- MOD (mod@Y2NOTOK.com), January 02, 2000.