The FAA can be stupid
I'm a pilot, and as such, I'm generally a fan of the FAA. FAA traffic controllers are generally friendly, helpful, and cool people, for example.
But they can be kinda stupid. Perhaps extremely so. Apparently, they have been replacing Unix servers with Windows servers. Now that's usually pretty dumb, but for air traffic control, that's just plain terrifying. And shockingly, the system broke, causing a highly dangerous environment in Southern California airspace for over three hours.
The new Windows servers have to be rebooted every 49.7 days in order to prevent the inevitable crash that one grows to expect from Windows systems. Undaunted by this (I'd say rather significant) flaw, the FAA has someone reboot the machines manually every 30 days in some fashion that is deemed safe, but someone forgot, and they all rebooted together and the system failer to recover on it's own. The Windows-based version of the system was deplyed a year ago.
This quote summarizes things nicely:
The shutdown is intended to keep the system from becoming overloaded with data and potentially giving controllers wrong information about flights, according to a software analyst cited by the LA Times.
"…wrong information about flights…" Sigh. I guess I should be extra careful when I fly South.
Ironically, the article linked to above has a big ad on it for Windows Server System. Sure thing; sign me up.
Comments
I am interested in ur thoughts on the following:
>Which raises the question: Will the passengers also qualify for >astronaut wings?
>Afraid not, said Hank Price, a spokesman for the F.A.A. The >wings were only for the pilot and crew. But how about if the >pilot hands off the controls to the passenger for a few seconds >during the flight? Nice try, he said. "They'd violate their >license."
>Why, then, does everyone who flies on the space shuttle >receive astronaut wings, even though only two people pilot >each mission?
>For that one, the F.A.A. suggested calling NASA.
> Robert Mirelson, a NASA spokesman, said that under that >agency's rules, "the criteria are more for participation than >sitting in the right seat."
As a pilot, do u believe this is correct?
Posted by: T.J. Hart | October 14, 2004 02:18 AM
I have no idea how one qualifies for astronaut wings, or even what they are, or what FAA's relationship with NASA is with respect to such things. Not being an astronaut, I haven't read any FAA rules about space flight, so I haven't a clue.
Personally, I'm inclined to let NASA give wings to whoever they feel like giving them to. I can't imagine that anyone on a NASA space mission (with the pretty rare exception of the occasional school teacher) has anything less than a critical role to play in said mission. I don't have any problem with the guy who gets in a space suit and operates some gizmo outside of the shuttle but doesn't drive the craft itself calling himself an astronaut.
Posted by: Wilfredo Sanchez | October 14, 2004 09:58 AM