US Midwest Air Travel Is Fucked

[Simon_Jester]

Zaune, from what I know, very few people actually have that kind of murderous hostility towards others. When a person goes truly insane, they are far more likely to direct any violence against themselves, or against a single specific person, than to try and commit a massacre of random people.

Also, note that a major disruption of air traffic control could easily result in a major airline crash, which would have killed far more people than Howard could possibly have killed personally. Is creating, say, a 10% that 200 people will die less bad than actually killing five or ten people yourself?

The point has also been made that this isn't just about human actors. A truly accidental fire might have happened, or a major tornado could have hit the facility, or some other thing occur that would wipe out an ARTCC's ability to function. There's a lot of noise from the politicians about controlling the human factor - better screening, testing, security - but they're NOT talking about non-human risks.

There needs to be better back up for major parts of the system like ARTCCs

Why isn't that being discussed? Money? Stupidity? Both? We can beat up and tweak the human element all we want, that doesn't really fix the vulnerability here. It's not just a matter of making the current ARTCCs more robust, there needs to be better backup, probably reserve facilities. There has been too much centralizing in the name of efficiency. Yes, it is more efficient - until it isn't anymore. A robust and resilient system has redundancy. Aviation KNOWS this - that's why airliners have at least three parallel systems for critical things, like flight instruments and at least two live human pilots. It would be a shitload more efficient and cheap not to do this, but no airline manufacturer or airline is going to do that because shit really does happen in real life and that redundancy saves lives and money time and again.

The problem is that the aviation industry is not what is making decisions to build or not build various support facilities like ARTCCs. It's politics. That's why there is no funding, no redundancy, and way too much finger pointing.

Politicians get their power from controlling people, not things. So it's no surprise that they try to 'fix' a system by controlling people and assume the things will take care of themselves.

It is my opinion, perhaps poorly founded, that this is doubly true in the modern era. Because we have relatively many politicians who have risen purely through political ranks. And relatively few politicians with career experience in areas like the military, or engineering, or medicine, or, hell, anything that forces a person to come to terms with the fact that not all their problems can be made to go away with a clever argument and a "you there, clean up that mess!"

[phongn]

There needs to be better back up for major parts of the system like ARTCCs

Why isn't that being discussed? Money? Stupidity? Both? We can beat up and tweak the human element all we want, that doesn't really fix the vulnerability here. It's not just a matter of making the current ARTCCs more robust, there needs to be better backup, probably reserve facilities. There has been too much centralizing in the name of efficiency. Yes, it is more efficient - until it isn't anymore. A robust and resilient system has redundancy. Aviation KNOWS this - that's why airliners have at least three parallel systems for critical things, like flight instruments and at least two live human pilots. It would be a shitload more efficient and cheap not to do this, but no airline manufacturer or airline is going to do that because shit really does happen in real life and that redundancy saves lives and money time and again.

Those systems, as Sea Skimmer noted, have been slated for replacement for years now with NextGen. It's been stuck in typical government technology hell, but the idea is that ARTCCs won't be needed in their current form. Plus the military redundancy disappeared with the US defense drawdown.

[Broomstick]

Yes, I am quite aware of the reduction of redundancy due to closing of military bases because I was flying in the Chicago airspace, using ATC when required or seemed reasonable, from 1995 to 2007. I watched those things disappear.

The problem is NOT "we're going to replace the current system with NextGen", the problem is that systems weren't updated for DECADES. When I say I had been in working control towers in the Chicago area using equipment dating from the 1950's I was neither kidding nor exaggerating. That stuff was 40-50 years old when I was flying, it's even older now. It should have been upgraded a generation ago. What the fuck else do we expect to operate and rely on using 60 year old equipment in a vital safety capacity? Please, give me an example.

By the mid-1980's shit should have been upgraded, the 1990's at the latest. Or, when it became apparent NextGen wasn't going to happen as quickly as we'd like upgrade ATC anyway. Because literally millions of people depend upon it for safety.

20 years ago the General Accounting Office issued a report warning of this sort of situation and suggestion a back up system be installed. Fuck all was done. Well, after 9/11 they increased security on the facilities, yay, good, but the problem is STILL they're putting all their eggs in just a few baskets and relying on guarding those baskets. That might make it less likely for an incident to occur, but makes any incident that does occur that much worse.

[Broomstick]

Could've been worse, I guess. He could have walked into work with a handgun under his jacket and put a few bullets into his colleagues instead of just smashing up the works.

Well, that depends on how you look at it.

From a standpoint of human life, yes, that would have been worse.

From the standpoint of the aviation industry and enabling transportation... no, it wouldn't. In that particular and restricted sense, controllers are easily replaced. We DO have some redundancy in number of controllers, existing controllers can work overtime, and there are always trainees in the pipeline. While a roomful of dead controllers is a human tragedy and I wouldn't want to see it happen, the brutal fact is that if it ever did happen they'd cart away the bodies, clean the place up, and the next day, or at the most a couple days, replacement controllers would go to work in the center.

Replacing the working guts of an ARTCC takes a few weeks longer.

Now, once again, I am in no way saying it's preferable to have dead people rather than dead equipment, but honestly, if having redundancy in personnel is a good so is redundancy in equipment. At the very least have the needed equipment purchased and in safe storage for transport to failed site immediately.

I mean, holy shit, if little ol' me can figure this out with no special training or expertise why can't the big boys? Oh, wait - people actually in aviation have been warning about this and suggesting backups for decades but hey, what the fuck do we know, right?

[Raj Ahten]

Broomstick asked about other decades old systems controlling vital safety functions so I'll stick my head in to give an example I'm aware of: railroads. The signals systems on US rail is a hodgepodge of technologies from relay based (installed in the 40's and still going) to state of the art digital systems. The crazy part is you'll have all these systems talking with each other and sometimes in the same equipment bungalow. As far as the railroads were concerned for decades if it wasn't broke, don't fix it. Only with the advent of Positive Train Control (by congressional mandate) are the older but still functioning systems being phased out. Hell there is still plenty of track with no signal systems at all.

[Zaune]

That's true in Britain as well; in fact we still have old-fashioned mechanical signals deployed in some places, or the old lineside token system.

On the other hand, unlike the airspace around Chicago, those mechanical signals are only still operating in places where the volume of traffic hasn't increased enough to justify a major upgrade.

[Broomstick]

Sure.

In the US there is airspace that has no ATC at all... because it isn't needed. The population density is low, and the air traffic nearly non-existent. That's a different matter entirely.

The air over Chicago, though, is some of the busiest in the world. It needs a reliable, robust, and intensive traffic control.

[Starglider]

Automated control has been under large scale flight tests in the US for over a decade, this is not snake oil in any sense. By 2025 most present day controller functions are to be taken over by automation and ADS-B, with pilots simply selecting whatever route is most direct to their destination, which is then broadcast to all surrounding pilots, and ground stations where computers look for conflicts.

Well, I assume this is feasible due to the significantly lower density of the US vs the UK, because when NATS looked into it in the late 90s (as part of the general Swannick migration software upgrade) the conclusion was 'better computer warnings sure, positive computer control no way in the near to medium future'.

[phongn]

The problem is NOT "we're going to replace the current system with NextGen", the problem is that systems weren't updated for DECADES. When I say I had been in working control towers in the Chicago area using equipment dating from the 1950's I was neither kidding nor exaggerating. That stuff was 40-50 years old when I was flying, it's even older now. It should have been upgraded a generation ago. What the fuck else do we expect to operate and rely on using 60 year old equipment in a vital safety capacity? Please, give me an example.

The FAA repeatedly tried major systems upgrades and each ended in failure. There's entire case studies in the computer science/information technology literature about the FAA's programs and how they are examples of "what not to do".

[Broomstick]

Sorry I wasn't entirely clear.

Not necessarily upgrade to new technology/methods, just buy new machinery less than 40 years old.

[Simon_Jester]

The FAA repeatedly tried major systems upgrades and each ended in failure. There's entire case studies in the computer science/information technology literature about the FAA's programs and how they are examples of "what not to do".

I find myself horribly interested in any examples of the details you can offer...

[Terralthra]

Here's an article describing one in particular, though it's from an educated layperson's perspective, rather than an MIS perspective.

[Broomstick]

Apparently, President Obama has chosen to fly into Gary, Indiana rather than O'Hare for his Chicago visit, and use Marine One to shuttle about the city of Chicago and nearby points. Well, that explains the military plans I saw go by on Tuesday, no doubt there's some prep work to be done.

I'm only about 5 miles away from there. Between the roof fire down the block today and the PotUS traffic around here is going to be interesting....

And the Northwest Indiana private pilots are probably going to be a bit pissed about missing the fine flying weather.

[phongn]

Sorry I wasn't entirely clear.

Not necessarily upgrade to new technology/methods, just buy new machinery less than 40 years old.

The FAA's systems are so ancient this often means major system rewrites - at which point you might as well bite the bullet. There's no simple upgrade/replacement path.

Apparently, President Obama has chosen to fly into Gary, Indiana rather than O'Hare for his Chicago visit, and use Marine One to shuttle about the city of Chicago and nearby points. Well, that explains the military plans I saw go by on Tuesday, no doubt there's some prep work to be done.

Doesn't he often fly to Rockford? Air Force One into ORD causes all sorts of crazy disruptions.

[Broomstick]

No, normally Air Force One goes to O'Hare.

He used to fly to places like Rockford and Gary but not since he became president.

They deliberately went to Gary this time because traffic at O'Hare and Midway still isn't back to normal and they didn't want to cause further disruption. Gary is still in the area affected by the Aurora arson, but it has no scheduled airline service at present and much, much less traffic overall. Air Force One can get all the attention it needs there, it's still close into Chicago, and the location can be secured adequately for a presidential visit. Any ATC required beyond the Gary tower could be handled by Indianapolis Center.