Major Windows screw-up: delayed flights at all US airports
Richard Rasker
My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as an OS:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.faa.gov
Now this is VERY interesting:
Netblock Owner IP address OS Web Server Last changed
Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 17-Jun-2008
Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 20-Apr-2008
Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Apache 19-Apr-2008
Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 17-Apr-2008
Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 8-Apr-2008
Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 7-Apr-2008
Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 25-Mar-2008
So please someone explain to me what is going on here? I'm quite sure that
Microsoft's crapware is responsible for the trouble -- AGAIN:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199902832
But howcome that "Linux" is listed as OS?
When will people ever learn that Windows is utter crap, designed to be sold,
not trusted?
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
Subway steel
"Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
news:48b46c74$0$724$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net...
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>
> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as an OS:
>
> http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.faa.gov
Yes, the FAA *WEB SITE* is possibly hosted on Windows.
> Now this is VERY interesting:
>
> Netblock Owner IP address OS Web Server
> Last changed
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> 17-Jun-2008
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> 20-Apr-2008
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Apache 19-Apr-2008
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> 17-Apr-2008
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> 8-Apr-2008
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> 7-Apr-2008
> Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> 25-Mar-2008
>
> So please someone explain to me what is going on here? I'm quite sure that
> Microsoft's crapware is responsible for the trouble -- AGAIN:
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199902832
>
> But howcome that "Linux" is listed as OS?
>
> When will people ever learn that Windows is utter crap, designed to be
> sold,
> not trusted?
I can't explain why Linux shows up here but there's a much, much bigger
problem than this.
Just because the FAA happens to host their website on a Windows machine you
somehow assume that /all/ FAA computing is done on Windows systems. That's a
rather bizzare assumption to be making and why someone would jump to this
silly conclusion is rather strange as well.
- ss
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Richard Rasker on Tuesday 26 August 2008 20:49 : \____
Not the first time BTW:
Major Flight Delays Caused By Glitch, Dense Fog
,----[ Quote ]
| AMR Corp.'s American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner acknowledged the
| computer troubles and said the nation's largest carrier experienced
| about 50 cancellations on the East Coast, with LaGuardia departures
| being hit the hardest.
`----
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_159145243.html
FAA is to blame, IIRC.
FAA has already considered moving to GNU/Linux and it's stubbornly rejecting
Vista.
No Windows Vista For Would-Be Air Traffic Controllers
,----[ Quote ]
| The Federal Aviation Administration plans to bar contractors who administer
| the air traffic controllers exam from using Windows Vista-based PCs.
`----
http://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2008/07/11/3541592.htm
FAA May Ditch Microsoft's Windows Vista And Office For Google And Linux Combo
,----[ Quote ]
| Bowen said he's in talks with the aviation safety agency's main
| hardware supplier, Dell Computer, to determine if it could
| deliver Linux-based computers capable of accessing Google
| Apps through a non-Microsoft browser once the FAA's XP-based
| computers pass their shelf life.
`----
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197800480
Can Google and Linux Topple Microsoft?
,----[ Quote ]
| The story had a certain flair. In early March, the chief information
| officer of the Federal Aviation Administration, David Bowen, was
| reportedly considering forsaking Microsoft Windows and Office in
| favor of the Linux operating system and the Web-based Google Apps
| Premium office suite.
`----
http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/57534.html
- --
"There's a lot of Linux out there -- much more than Microsoft generally signals
publicly -- and their customers are using it..." --Paul DeGroot, a Directions
On Microsoft analyst.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAki0g0YACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6P8gCgjW+0Zlu1fqadaUCwxmY+ImMZ
hxkAmgLXlOk1qsI+xPHoxumoLaPyFAf4
=YkVo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Moshe Goldfarb.
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>
> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as an OS:
The FAA uses ancient IBM 9672 (in 370 mode) machines running a custom
developed program derived from 370 technology for their flight control.
The air traffic controllers are using AIX based machines that connect to
the 9672 machines.
AFAIK Windows is not used at all as far as flight control either over land
or over water is concerned.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Jerry McBride
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:49:56 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>>
>> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as an OS:
>
> The FAA uses ancient IBM 9672 (in 370 mode) machines running a custom
> developed program derived from 370 technology for their flight control.
> The air traffic controllers are using AIX based machines that connect to
> the 9672 machines.
>
> AFAIK Windows is not used at all as far as flight control either over land
> or over water is concerned.
>
>
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-10-05-the-luser-factor_x.htm
"Though there were a handful of close calls, all 403 planes in the air
during the incident managed to land safely, said FAA spokesman Donn Walker.
A handful violated rules that dictate how close they are allowed to fly to
each other ? but the FAA maintains there were no "near misses."
The genesis of the problem was the transition in 2001 by Harris Corp. of the
Federal Aviation Administration's Voice Switching Control System from
Unix-based servers to Microsoft Corp.'s off-the-shelf Windows Advanced
Server 2000.
By most accounts, the move went well except the new system required regular
maintenance to prevent data overload. When that wasn't done, it turned
itself off as it was designed to do. But the backup also failed. In all,
the southern California system was down for three hours, though other FAA
centers restored communications within seconds, Walker said. "
There are better examples and citations, however, this was the first I
found....
--
Jerry McBride (jmcb...@mail-on.us)
Linonut
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:49:56 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>>
>> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as an OS:
>
> The FAA uses ancient IBM 9672 (in 370 mode) machines running a custom
> developed program derived from 370 technology for their flight control.
> The air traffic controllers are using AIX based machines that connect to
> the 9672 machines.
>
> AFAIK Windows is not used at all as far as flight control either over land
> or over water is concerned.
Windows (and Linux for that matter) would have some trouble in getting
permission to be used for "safety-of-flight" tasks.
We have an app that just reads data from FAA servers (of sorts) and
displays it, and it cost a pretty penny to get it certified.
--
Veni, vidi, vici.
[I came, I saw, I conquered].
-- Gaius Julius Caesar
Moshe Goldfarb.
>
> Windows (and Linux for that matter) would have some trouble in getting
> permission to be used for "safety-of-flight" tasks.
>
> We have an app that just reads data from FAA servers (of sorts) and
> displays it, and it cost a pretty penny to get it certified.
That is correct.
The FAA specs out hardware and software and then they test and certify it
for YEARS before rolling it out to the various centers, all of which are
exactly the same down to the color of the carpeting.. Your tax dollars at
work :)
This results in hardware that is quite obsolete by the current standards by
the time it actually gets to the field. However it also results in ultra
stable and pretty much bug free hardware/software.
Like I said, as far as flight control and tracking is concerned, Windows is
no where near that part of the FAA operation.
DFS
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:49:56 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>>
>> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as
>> an OS:
>
> The FAA uses ancient IBM 9672 (in 370 mode) machines running a custom
> developed program derived from 370 technology for their flight
> control. The air traffic controllers are using AIX based machines
> that connect to the 9672 machines.
Where do you get that info?
Moshe Goldfarb.
A friend of mine works for Lockeed Martin which is a primary contractor for
the FAA.
Linonut
So Moshe, whom DFS claims "owns" COLA, was 7 years behind in his
understanding of the FAA ATC system?
--
Maybe it's time to break that.
-- Larry Wall in <1997103117...@wall.org>
Linonut
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:21:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:49:56 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>>>>
>>>> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as
>>>> an OS:
>>>
>>> The FAA uses ancient IBM 9672 (in 370 mode) machines running a custom
>>> developed program derived from 370 technology for their flight
>>> control. The air traffic controllers are using AIX based machines
>>> that connect to the 9672 machines.
>>
>> Where do you get that info?
>
> A friend of mine works for Lockeed Martin which is a primary contractor for
> the FAA.
Has this friend retired by now?
--
This novel is not to be tossed lightly aside, but to be hurled with great force.
-- Dorothy Parker
Rex Ballard
The ATC system is not exactly public information. I've known a couple
of people who worked on that system, and even they didn't know all of
the other components.
I find it interesting that the FAA stuck with windows even though they
knew about the lock-up problems.
Rex Ballard
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:15:39 -0400, Linonut wrote:
> That is correct.
> The FAA specs out hardware and software and then they test and certify it
> for YEARS before rolling it out to the various centers, all of which are
> exactly the same down to the color of the carpeting.. Your tax dollars at
> work :)
So if Harris decided to switch the system in 2001, and it took several
years to actually get it deployed on Windows 2000, is it possible that
the actual deployment was actually quite recent?
It would be interesting to see exactly when Windows was actually
deployed, and how many "glitches" have occurred since that
deployment. Harris used to be a big UNIX shop.
> This results in hardware that is quite obsolete by the current standards by
> the time it actually gets to the field. However it also results in ultra
> stable and pretty much bug free hardware/software.
Apparently not.
<quote from Jerry McBride formatting mine>
By most accounts, the move went well
except the new system required regular maintenance to prevent data
overload.
When that wasn't done, it turned itself off
as it was designed to do.
But the backup also failed.
In all, the southern California system was down for three hours,
</quote>
> Like I said, as far as flight control and tracking is concerned, Windows is
> no where near that part of the FAA operation.
On the other hand, if you can't talk to the pilots because the voice
switching system failed, that's a pretty critical element that isn't
there.
How many times have the NYC airports, or the Atlanta airport been in
extended delay due to similar problems. What made this outage
interesting was that seemed to impact so many different systems.
Moshe Goldfarb.
That's two different systems....
They are testing ATC.
The current system is called ATOPS.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> * Moshe Goldfarb. peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:21:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:49:56 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/08/26/faa.computer.failure/
>>>>>
>>>>> My oh my, that's awful! Now I wonder what the FAA is relying on as
>>>>> an OS:
>>>>
>>>> The FAA uses ancient IBM 9672 (in 370 mode) machines running a custom
>>>> developed program derived from 370 technology for their flight
>>>> control. The air traffic controllers are using AIX based machines
>>>> that connect to the 9672 machines.
>>>
>>> Where do you get that info?
>>
>> A friend of mine works for Lockeed Martin which is a primary contractor for
>> the FAA.
>
> Has this friend retired by now?
I just spoke to him yesterday.
Those are 2 different systems.....
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Aug 26, 10:17 pm, "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:15:39 -0400, Linonut wrote:
>
>> That is correct.
>> The FAA specs out hardware and software and then they test and certify it
>> for YEARS before rolling it out to the various centers, all of which are
>> exactly the same down to the color of the carpeting.. Your tax dollars at
>> work :)
>
> So if Harris decided to switch the system in 2001, and it took several
> years to actually get it deployed on Windows 2000, is it possible that
> the actual deployment was actually quite recent?
That is correct...
They are currently replacing a lot of legacy systems, like ATOPS, with
current technology.
The problem is because of testing, the technology was current 3 to 5 years
ago.
IOW it's obsolete by the time it makes it to the field.
Also, the entire system doesn't get deployed at once.
The various centers get moved over a little at a time so it is conceivable
to have multiple technologies out there.
> It would be interesting to see exactly when Windows was actually
> deployed, and how many "glitches" have occurred since that
> deployment. Harris used to be a big UNIX shop.
Windows is NOT, I repeat NOT being used to control live flights AFAIK.
Maybe they have some test beds that are secret, that is possible, but they
are a huge AIX/Unix shop and I can tell you for a fact the mainframe is IBM
running in house code and the controllers themselves, within the FAA
centers, have AIX based workstations.
Their internal communications systems AFAIK are Windows based however but
that is for email etc.
They are so secretive that their mainframes don't even have the dial out
call home features enabled and are NOT connected to any network outside the
FAA.
That is supposed to change.
>> This results in hardware that is quite obsolete by the current standards by
>> the time it actually gets to the field. However it also results in ultra
>> stable and pretty much bug free hardware/software.
>
> Apparently not.
>
> <quote from Jerry McBride formatting mine>
> By most accounts, the move went well
> except the new system required regular maintenance to prevent data
> overload.
> When that wasn't done, it turned itself off
> as it was designed to do.
>
> But the backup also failed.
>
> In all, the southern California system was down for three hours,
> </quote>
>
>> Like I said, as far as flight control and tracking is concerned, Windows is
>> no where near that part of the FAA operation.
>
> On the other hand, if you can't talk to the pilots because the voice
> switching system failed, that's a pretty critical element that isn't
> there.
>
> How many times have the NYC airports, or the Atlanta airport been in
> extended delay due to similar problems. What made this outage
> interesting was that seemed to impact so many different systems.
That's proof enough that it's not the ATOPS system because like I said it
doesn't even talk to other centers. Each center is it's own little world.
Now if they are using Windows systems to interface between the various
centers (I don't know), that may be what broke down.
However, I know for a fact when a plane is in the air, Windows has nothing
to do with tracking it.
And BTW do you know how they track planes over the open ocean?
They don't.....
They rely on the pilot to call in, report air speed and vector and they
*assume* it will be at x location in y minutes based on that...
When all planes get fitted with GPS that will change
I've said more than enough in this thread so I will say no more.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:18:09 -0400, Subway steel wrote:
>> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
>> 20-Apr-2008
>> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Apache 19-Apr-2008
>> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
>> 17-Apr-2008
>> Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
>> 8-Apr-2008
>> Akamai Technologies 88.221.179.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
>> 7-Apr-2008
>> Akamai Technologies 88.221.47.130 Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0
>> 25-Mar-2008
> I can't explain why Linux shows up here
Because they're living behind Akamai's distributed network, which is
Linux-based. Think, in essence, "caching proxy".
Richard Rasker
> Now if they are using Windows systems to interface between the various
> centers (I don't know), that may be what broke down.
What broke down was Microsoft's crapware used to run FAA's utterly crucial
communications hub.
http://www.stratustechnologies.com/news/2005/20050314a.htm
"Mar. 14, 2005 – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has selected the
Stratus® ftServer® 6600 server platform with Continuous Processing®
technology as the new foundation for a crucial data communication system
serving the users of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS),
...
The FAA is implementing the Stratus servers, which use Intel Xeon 2.8 MHz
large cache MP processors and support the Microsoft Windows operating
system, at control centers in Atlanta and Salt Lake City."
And the next paragraph is the clincher:
"Uninterrupted availability of the NADIN 1 is important to all aspects of
the aviation industry"
Well, Windows isn't a viable choice then, now is it?
Moshe Goldfarb.
Neither is Linux.
Real Unix, like AIX is which is why the FAA makes extensive use of it.