A Software Glitch, Vintage Computers, and FAA Air Traffic Control

About 60,000 people got the opportunity to practice patience last Tuesday, when the FAA had over 600 flights" in the air, and no computer system to keep track of them.

Redundancy Has Its Place

For some jobs, redundancy isn't a good idea. When you're doing something like raking leaves or delivering pizza, having twice as much equipment as you need doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, when you're keeping several hundred airplanes from running into each other, a little redundancy is nice.

The Federal Aviation Administration, to its credit, does employ redundancy. It's got two computer systems to keep track of air traffic control over the fifty contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and the surrounding region.

One of them's in Atlanta, Georgia. The other's in Salt Lake City, Utah. The FAA's even thinking of maybe setting up a third system, someday.

Actually, the FAA doesn't have as much redundancy as it seems. the Salt Lake City computer handles western flights, and Atlanta's National Airspace Data Interchange Network handles eastern flights: as a rule.

The Atlanta center's computer was developed by a Dutch company that went out of business. The FAA has been maintaining NADIN since the 1980s.

Not to worry. NADIN's being upgraded. And, sooner or later, the FAA's ground-based radar system, designed in the 1940s and 50s, will be replaced by one that uses satellites.

Power plants and credit card companies are expected to have multiply-redundant systems. Maybe air traffic control should, too.

I'm not faulting the FAA all that much. It's a government bureaucracy, and outfits like that seem to have a hard time dealing with new technologies. Besides, I haven't run into a seriously fact-based assertion that the FAA still uses vacuum tubes since 1995.

Still, I'd say it's time for the FAA to upgrade from 1980s information technologies. And take a very serious look at getting a system with real redundancy. Soon.

Soon, Yes: All At Once, No

On the other hand, I'm not sure that I'm on the same page with Wired magazine. Their article says "...that piecemeal upgrades of the air traffic network - which the FAA says has at least 40,000 pieces of equipment - are not good enough...."

I agree that, after twenty-some years, it's time for a new system. But, having survived a situation where the boss got all-new computers and software, all at once, I'd just as soon see the FAA take a "piecemeal" approach.

On the other hand, I hope it's not another twenty years, before the FAA decides that GPS is a good idea, and warms up to the Web and compact disks.

---

In the news:

• "FAA outage reveals odd computing practices"
  Associated Press (August 29, 2008)
• "One small hitch for FAA, one giant mess for fliers "
  Wired (August 27, 2008)
• "FAA probes nationwide flight delay glitch"
  CNN (August 27, 2008)
• "SAFE SKIES"
  PBS Online NewsHour (DECEMBER 26, 1995)