FAA Grounds All Flights From West Coast Due To Computer "Glitch"

a reply to: Zaphod58

Geez, I make a light hearted but honest response, and in following the thread learned quite a bit. Seriously, this is 40 year old tech? Correct me if Im wrong but are you implying air traffic control is running on programs akin to what ran on a TRS 80? I am obviously clueless, but interested in knowing if you have the time to illuminate further.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Pretty much, yes. They were planning to upgrade to a satellite based air traffic control system about 15 years ago or so now. They haven't had a formal budget in about that long, and have only had the money for patchwork upgrades.

Okay, let me get this right.... Russian S-300 and S-500 Air Defense systems can go from 65mph, running on down the highway and minding their own business, to stopping, deploying, and being ready to fire on tracks out of as many as 100 choices being tracked at once...out to ranges far beyond LAX radar ...and all of this can happen in a matter of minutes from slowing to exit the highway.

Yet...The major international airports in this nation can't keep basic systems operational with all the advantages of time, permanent location and supposedly a nation with the highest technology available to anyone.

Our system is broken...but the physical equipment isn't the main problem, I think. Humans are.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

That's an unfair comparison. A SAM system doesn't deal with anything even remotely close to what an ATC system has to deal with.

A SAM system is more robust, because it has to be transported, and generally isn't in use 24/7/365. A lot of the new systems don't have a moveable antenna either, which removes the biggest maintenance concern.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You miss what was being compared. The relative reliability and simplicity is developed and created when it's just a mobile unit to kill airplanes with vs. a critical public safety component that would improve quality of life and flight stats across the board.

Humans are the problem, in that if humans focused on making the ATC system better instead of making even more powerful ones directing missile batteries, we'd have an air system we'd all be happy to travel on.

What we have kinda sorta working, or barely keeping on..vs. what 'finds a way to happen' and happen quite well is a difference that is just inexcusable at times.

It seems to have passed quickly and painlessly then? Ctl-Alt-Del did the trick.

I still find the synchronous timing with the UK problem interesting.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

They've developed a much better system. Once again Congress stops it from being built. They can't pass anything but a continuing resolution for the FAA budget, instead of a real budget.

Until they have an actual budget they can't start replacing our current system with the new one. They can't even upgrade the current system and make improvements to it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the insight...you know I swore I would stay out of the politics when I joined this site, but no matter what thread I find myself on, I just keep finding a path back to congress.

Wow, the FAA advisory writer mispells accommodate? a reply to: pale5218

The Military has said it was a high flying U2 in the area confusing the computers and I call BS!!!!

The computers at the L.A. Center are programmed to keep commercial airliners and other aircraft from colliding with each other. The U-2 was flying at 60,000 feet, but the computers were attempting to keep it from colliding with planes that were actually miles beneath it. Though the exact technical causes are not known, the spy plane’s altitude and route apparently overloaded a computer system called ERAM, which generates display data for air-traffic controllers. Back-up computer systems also failed.

www.nbcnews.com...


This seems complete BS to me and it was probably a jamming op by Russia to see if they could do it or send a warning to us. It could have been our own military that did it on accident.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Yes, because 40 year old ATC computers won't have any problems with a U-2 flying overhead at 60,000 feet. It has to be the Russians, because there's no way that the US would allow their equipment to get so outdated that anything we have would cause a problem.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

The radar's weren't "jammed" though, so do tell what exactly the "Russians" did. As far as I am aware, ATC systems should be on closed networks so not exactly a choice target for any hackers.

Tbh, the explanation makes sense and when you take Zaph's accounts into consideration re: the outdated systems, it seems entirely plausible.

Certainly more plausible than the "Russians did it"

I was in denver when this was going on. We were grounded for 2 hours for high winds, then another 4 for a "computer malfunction". All anybody was talking about on the plane was it was a hack on the system. Never did find out the reason till now, so thanks for that info.

a reply to: tnhiker

Yep, there you go - apparently Bono's ego got so massive, it confused the ATC....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Yes, because 40 year old ATC computers won't have any problems with a U-2 flying overhead at 60,000 feet. It has to be the Russians, because there's no way that the US would allow their equipment to get so outdated that anything we have would cause a problem.

Just curious Zaphod58 and question why now? Surely the U-2 being in existence since the mid-fifties has overflown LAX and environs many many times before. So why would systems fail now?

a reply to: Phoenix

Why does your computer, or TV, or washing machine run fine for years and then all of a sudden it just breaks?

Or, to put it another way, the company I work for runs an old PDH network that is, in parts, 30+ years old. Many of the bits and bobs will run fine for years and years, but then just go pop and take an age to repair, due to age and lack of parts.

a reply to: stumason

Yeah got that part already up thread, as I read it the failure was blamed on software that had trouble with altitude separation as they are trying to say U2's height confused system.

My point was this is probably not unusual for a U2 to pass this airspace many times over a nearly 60 year timeframe. It strikes me as odd the system would just all the sudden cough up for the stated reasons.

Hence my question, Why now?

originally posted by: Phoenix
Hence my question, Why now?

I think that was my point I was making - why not now? I was just pointing out that stuff can run quite happily for years and years, then for no reason it just buggers up - or when you come to fix it the usual remedies don't apply despite working the previous 100 times.

Tech can be strange

a reply to: Phoenix

The same reason your computer that's worked just fine for the last two years suddenly crashes one day when you try to run a program. Something broke, but they can't blame the FAA, they're here to keep us safe after all.

One day a U-2 goes over, everything is fine. The next there is an unknown hard drive error, and the software freaks out.