Bush Wants To Cut FAA Budget

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:19:05 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article jD83d.99902$yh.97342@fed1read05, "BTIZ"
wrote:

Let's just go look at what happened last week to LAX ARTCC. A computer
that
controls the communication switching has a built in self test (BIT) that
needs to be reset every 30days, a "reset" of the computer so the computer
knows it's still a computer. Some "maintenance" was not accomplished in
time
so the 30day bit timer ran out and rather than flag a warning on day 29
the
system just shuts down at the end of day 30.

The poor computer maintainer will be fired.. not the FAA higher ups that
bought the POS and approved it in the beginning.

Accepting a system with that kind of workaround is valid from
a system engineering perspective.

It's unclear to me why you use the term 'workaround' in this context.
Exactly what is being worked around? The inability of FAA to think of
a warning bell?

From an ergonomic standpoint, a system that intentionally disables a
functioning critical system, resulting in the entirely avoidable
endangerment of hundreds of human lives, is a total failure. The
individual who decided upon such a scheme should be held responsible
for the cost of the 5 Worker's Compensation claims filed as a result
of this outrageous communications outage.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

Let's just go look at what happened last week to LAX ARTCC. A computer
that
controls the communication switching has a built in self test (BIT)
that
needs to be reset every 30days, a "reset" of the computer so the
computer
knows it's still a computer. Some "maintenance" was not accomplished
in
time
so the 30day bit timer ran out and rather than flag a warning on day
29
the
system just shuts down at the end of day 30.

The poor computer maintainer will be fired.. not the FAA higher ups
that
bought the POS and approved it in the beginning.

Accepting a system with that kind of workaround is valid from
a system engineering perspective.

It's unclear to me why you use the term 'workaround' in this context.

because it is a workaround.

Exactly what is being worked around? The inability of FAA to think of
a warning bell?

no. The workaround is the use of a reset to prevent a failure.


From an ergonomic standpoint, a system that intentionally disables a
functioning critical system, resulting in the entirely avoidable
endangerment of hundreds of human lives, is a total failure.

Yeah, sure, the FAA deliberately designed such a system.

Larry, how many systems have you tested?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.