[HN Gopher] FAA NOTAM System Outage
___________________________________________________________________
FAA NOTAM System Outage
Author : chucksmash
Score : 391 points
Date : 2023-01-11 11:01 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fly.faa.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fly.faa.gov)
| samwillis wrote:
| Edit 2 - * _Ground stop Lifted_ * Update from FAA:
|
| >Update 5: Normal air traffic operations are resuming gradually
| across the U.S. following an overnight outage to the Notice to
| Air Missions system that provides safety info to flight crews.
| The ground stop has been lifted.
|
| >We continue to look into the cause of the initial problem
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/FAANews/status/161317140080139468...
|
| ---
|
| Edit - Update from FAA:
|
| > Update 4: The FAA is making progress in restoring its Notice to
| Air Missions system following an overnight outage. Departures are
| resuming at @EWRairport and @ATLairport due to air traffic
| congestion in those areas. We expect departures to resume at
| other airports at 9 a.m. ET.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/FAANews/status/161316273572174643...
|
| ---
|
| Flightradar24 are reporting:
|
| > Flights to US airports have been groundstopped by the FAA until
| at least 09:30 ET (1430 UTC). This means any flight not in the
| air already will not be allowed to depart. Image: flights over US
| now compared to same time last week. About 700 fewer flights
| airborne now.
|
| > Flights are being held as the FAA works to bring the NOTAM
| (NOtice To Air Missions) system back online.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/flightradar24/status/161315347921...
|
| Latest FAA update:
|
| > Update 3: The FAA is still working to fully restore the Notice
| to Air Missions system following an outage.
|
| > The FAA has ordered airlines to pause all domestic departures
| until 9 a.m. Eastern Time to allow the agency to validate the
| integrity of flight and safety information.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/FAANews/status/161314857927045939...
|
| Statement from the white house:
|
| > The President has been briefed by the Secretary of
| Transportation this morning on the FAA system outage. There is no
| evidence of a cyberattack at this point, but the President
| directed DOT to conduct a full investigation into the causes. The
| FAA will provide regular updates.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/PressSec/status/16131535612899328...
|
| I believe this means that nothing can take off, but aircraft
| already in the air can continue to their planned destinations.
| dx034 wrote:
| Looks like they published some kind of a "master NOTAM" now
| with all important information to restart as soon as possible.
|
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=31&adv_dat...
| FiloSottile wrote:
| That's a routine ATCSCC.
| rwmj wrote:
| Fun stuff about NOTAMs: https://fixingnotams.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/11/Field-Gu...
| xg15 wrote:
| OpsGroup, the organisation behind that guide is also worth
| mentioning. It's a self-organised advocacy organization for
| flight operations personnel. Apparently they have a
| longstanding campaign to reform the NOTAM system (as explained
| in the guide).
|
| They also have a summary of today's incident:
| https://ops.group/blog/us-flights-delayed-after-notam-system...
| bombcar wrote:
| Fun but deadly. They're not wrong about the absolute avalanche
| of irrelevant data that will be used to show you "you should
| have known" - hence the proliferation of "interpretation"
| services.
| lucasisola wrote:
| This is my favorite quote: "In an unintended twist of irony,
| the agencies seeking to cover their legal ass are party to
| creating the most criminal of systems - an unending flow of
| aeronautical sewage rendering the critical few pieces of
| information unfindable."
| azherebtsov wrote:
| But it's up to airline how they present NOTAMS to the pilot
| in the briefing package. They can (and do) use geolocation
| present in some (many) NOTAMs to filter them out. For example
| do not show the NOTAM just because the flight path intersects
| with the airspace. They can do even better - consider not
| only location but also altitude range, the best flight
| planning systems can consider also estimated time of arrival
| of the plane near the location of the NOTAM and filter out
| those which are not yet valid or those which are expired (the
| validity range usually present in each message). This makes
| the problem of including the NOTAM a 4-dimensional -
| geographical location 2 dimensions, altitude 1 dimension and
| a time. Not the easiest to solve, but solvable. Of course for
| every dimension margins can be applied to accommodate re-
| routes or departure delays, or ATC commands. There is no
| written in stone standard of how to present NOTAMS. Newer may
| be displayed at the beginning, etc Not to say that they can
| (and do) separate airfield and airspace messages to segment
| the large set onto meaningful subsets. I mean there ways to
| make sure important information is not lost and less
| important available if needed.
| bombcar wrote:
| Airlines aren't the only things doing "air missions" -
| there is software that filters out much of it, but it IS
| quite archaic (similar to how the "official weather"
| notifications are set out).
|
| Look at the Ukraine one for a pretty scary example.
| tjohns wrote:
| The official weather notifications (METARs/TAFs) can be
| displayed in more modern ways, but many pilots like the
| brief coded weather messages because they can be easily
| skimmed for an entire route of flight.
|
| In my mind, AIRMETs were a bigger problem - they had
| limitations in terms of how they were geographically
| defined, time range, and lack of flexibility (e.g.
| differentiating turbulence vs LLWS vs strong surface
| winds for AIRMET Tango) - but that's been fixed with the
| newer G-AIRMET feed[1], which is based around BUFR[2]
| instead of plain text.
|
| The catch being you can't easily convey G-AIRMETs via
| voice or in an non-interactive environment, so we still
| keep the legacy text-based AIRMET feed around in
| parallel.
|
| [1]: https://www.aviationweather.gov/gairmet/help
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUFR
| dpe82 wrote:
| Nit: it's just "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine." See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine
| bombcar wrote:
| Try replacing it in the sentence - it doesn't work, "the"
| is modifying "one" not Ukraine.
|
| I suppose it could have been written "the Ukrainian one"
| but the the would still be there.
| maxcan wrote:
| Double nit: this was not a misuse the deprecated term
| "The Ukraine" but the correct use of 'the' attaching to
| "Ukrainian one" referring to the NOTAM basically telling
| everyone to remain clear of Ukrainian airspace.
| ineedasername wrote:
| nit RFI: What is it about "Ukraine" (phonetically maybe?)
| that makes me, a westerner in the US, want to put a "the"
| before it every time I reference it as a country instead
| of just, you know, using the name of the country?
|
| I don't go around calling other proper nouns "the"
| (mostly). I don't call my son "Hey there, the Bob, how
| was school today?" (his name is not bob). But if I had
| named my son Ukraine then I feel like I'd change that
| sentence to: "Hey! The Ukraine, how was school today?"
|
| Why is this a thing? I have a formal background in
| applied/computational linguistics and a bit of trivial
| searching doesn't really reveal why this is a general
| tendency. Hurt's my brain meat.
| bombcar wrote:
| Here's some that you want to "the": Alps, Matterhorn, US
| Navy, Rock.
| cwmoore wrote:
| "The Yukon"
| duckmysick wrote:
| Maybe because it's similar to "the UK" (United Kingdom).
| wstuartcl wrote:
| Depending on your age and general personal history, in
| the past it was very common to see references and use of
| "the Ukraine" to talk about the region/area as well as
| the country (that mostly covers that geographical area).
| It could be remnants of your recollections popping up
| subconsciously.
|
| In this case it really was meant to be projected as
| similar to "Have you seen the Bob document yet?"
| azherebtsov wrote:
| Triple nit: "airspaces" - there are 5 FIRs and 1 UIR in
| Ukraine https://uksatse.ua/index.php?s=330da740cf9126adde
| 95bad0face2...
| maxcan wrote:
| 100%. As a GA pilot who mostly flies under IFR, the NOTAM
| system is borderline useless to me.
|
| For every warning about an approach being altered or a runway
| closed, there are 100s of "birds invof airport" or "unlit
| crane 50' AGL 5 miles from the field" NOTAMs. And even for
| the relevant NOTAMs, Foreflight will highlight them for
| approaches etc and ATC won't send you to a closed runway or
| taxiway.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, NOTAMs come into play when the shit hits the fan;
| radios are dead and you can't reach the tower kinda thing,
| but in that case just be sure you declared emergency, then
| they (probably) won't get you much for landing on a closed
| runway or a taxiway.
| azherebtsov wrote:
| It works in both directions. If someone hits a crane in
| the fog they will present a NOTAM and you cannot argue
| that you have not been warned.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| What if the tower's radio goes down?
| t0mas88 wrote:
| They have backup transmitters and if everything fails
| (tower evacuation has happened) you talk to the overlying
| approach / tracon / center frequencies to check. And then
| after that, land anyway and self announce positions for
| other traffic.
|
| It's basically the same as landing at an airport that
| doesn't have a tower. Happens every day at hundreds of
| airports.
| azherebtsov wrote:
| I think you'd not argue that if you flight to the airport
| without ATC (there are plenty of those), reading NOTAMS
| about that airfield is kind of essential exercise before
| flight.
| mike_d wrote:
| It's all fun and games until you have an F-16 head butting
| you because you didn't pay attention to NOTAMs and the Vice
| President happens to be visiting your town.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Seems like it's the sort of thing that's borderline useless
| right up until the moment it's absolutely essential.
|
| Like the smoke alarms in my house, which are actually wired
| up to mains so don't technically need a battery, but they
| still have to have a battery in them and will give high
| pitched chirps ever few minutes when the battery is dead.
| And since there's so many in the house, and the chirp only
| comes every few minutes, it's a PITA to find the _exact_
| one that needs replacing.
|
| So annoying, and again it's wired to mains so it worked
| without batteries! Except in a fire the fire _might_ fry
| the house 's magic box of energy delivery leaving only the
| batteries as the power source and then I really really
| really want them to work.
| pixl97 wrote:
| We recently had a house burn in our neighborhood during a
| power outage that was running on a generator. Generator
| itself caught fire, so pretty much would cover that exact
| situation.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Yes, it wasn't like this in my house until some years ago
| when we had a small expansion constructed and the
| contractor installed these in the new portions just as a
| standard thing he does, and said he was retro fitting the
| rest of the house that way too. ( We know him, friends,
| so we know he wasn't just trying to get extra $ out of
| us)
|
| For a few minutes I thought it seemed a needless detail,
| until I realized that often enough people forget to
| change their stand-alone unit batteries and maybe deal
| with the the occasional chirp in an "I'll get to it"
| mindset until it runs down completely. Having it tied to
| the mains solves that because it's relentlessly annoying
| to hear that chirp at random intervals, and the battery
| is a nice backstop failover from the mains going
| unexpectedly molten.
| brewdad wrote:
| I mean, it is code now to have them hardwired up.
| Actually, I think the requirement might be for
| interconnectivity rather than mains power. It's probably
| both in some areas. It's quite possible, depending on the
| extent of your expansion, that he was required to
| retrofit all of the smoke detectors in the home.
| bombcar wrote:
| Interconnectivity is separate from mains (though both may
| be required) - the modern ones have to be set that if ONE
| goes off, ALL go off.
|
| For those playing at home, get the ones that are BOTH
| ionization AND photoelectric:
| https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Staying-
| safe/Safety-eq...
| mjevans wrote:
| I've had way, way, way, too many 'chirp' at 4am
| situations in my life. The alarms have _literally_
| trained me like Pavlov's dogs that it is _always_ a false
| alarm, to the point where my sleep deprived brain
| stumbles through the door blindly into the hallway
| without even checking if there's heat or smoke.
|
| Some of the other solutions here like cry wolf only if
| battery low _and_ power's out, or a dedicated LED to
| indicate a problem, or the one I keep thinking of; gently
| _saying_ there's a problem with a small sound clip of
| "bat" instead of an angry Chirp that must wake someone up
| would really help. The alternative that I've heard many
| others take is to just disable them entirely if you're in
| a rental. I'll admit that I've been very tempted to do
| just that for individual alarms which are overly
| sensitive to bathroom steam.
| lfowles wrote:
| > gently _saying_ there's a problem with a small sound
| clip of "bat" instead of an angry Chirp
|
| Those do exist! At least one smoke detector in my house
| has voice (primarily to differentiate between smoke and
| CO alarms)
| bombcar wrote:
| I wish those mains-powered ones would just shriek
| continually if the battery was low AND mains power
| failed; then you could kill the breaker and find it
| easily.
| devmor wrote:
| I wish they just had a steady LED from the mains power on
| them when the battery was dead. Seems much easier to me.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, I bet one somewhere has it, but most just flash-
| when-chirp which is kinda annoying:
|
| This alarm has a low/missing battery monitor circuit
| which will cause the alarm to "chirp'" approximately
| every 30 - 40 seconds for a minimum of seven (7) days
| when the battery gets low. The chirp will be accompanied
| by a flash of the Safety Light. Replace both bat- teries
| when this condition occurs.
|
| Some of the newer ones come with a built-in Lithium
| battery that supposedly is good for 10 years.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Interestingly, that seems to be a US-only problem.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| The linked booklet specifically refutes that idea, calling
| out Australia and Greece in particular but implying the
| problem is much broader.
| eternalban wrote:
| _" There are three parts to the problem: the system, the
| format, and the content. The system is actually quite amazing.
| The AFTN network connects every country in the world, and Notam
| information, once added, is immediately available to every
| user. Coupled with the internet, delivery is immediate.
|
| The format is, at best, forgivable. It's pretty awful. It's a
| trip back in time to when Notams were introduced. You might
| think that was the 1960's, or the 50's. In fact, it's 1924,
| when 5-bit ITA2 was introduced. The world shifted to ASCII in
| 1963, bring ing the Upper and Lower case format that every
| QWERTY key board uses today, but we didn't follow - nope, we'll
| stick with our 1924 format, thank you."_
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230104130153/https://www.faa.g...
|
| _" The FAA is changing the format for Notice to Air Missions
| (NOTAM) to align with international standards. The transition
| to the new format will ensure U.S. NOTAMs are compliant with
| standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization
| (ICAO) and promote further global harmonization among
| neighboring Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)."_
|
| _ICAO NOTAM format_
|
| https://vat-air.dk/files/ICAO%20NOTAM%20format.pdf
|
| Example! (decoder ring not included)
|
| "Q) EGTT/QMRXX/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5129N00028W005"
| mzs wrote:
| I want to point out that lower-case is possible with ITA2.
| Start at 4.6 of ITU-T Recommendation S.2 / 11/1988 in the
| Blue Book, basically 11111 & 11011 11111 switch case in
| locking/unlocking mode.
| wstuartcl wrote:
| Its even more amazing when you really sit down and think
| about all of the systems (many highly resistant to change
| like aircraft navigation systems) that all connect and
| utilize this service.
|
| What appear like simple changes and proposals in the
| aerospace realm are extremely hard to execute and many times
| take decades (multiple) to come into play. Global
| services/systems are even harder.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| This is hilarious. Really appreciate the examples of irrelevant
| clutter obscuring important information. Any UX designer can
| learn from this as an example of what not to do.
| zrail wrote:
| As of 06:24 US Eastern the appears to no longer be true. There is
| a NOTAM outage but no full ground stop is mentioned, just a few
| specific due to weather.
|
| Edit: obviously a developing situation, see responses to this
| comment for current advisories.
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" All US domestic flights have been grounded for several
| hours because of a glitch with the flight control system."_
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64236047
| chucksmash wrote:
| Yep, the situation has changed since the post was made.
| Parent comment was correct at the time, however.
|
| At 5:40am Eastern, the agent at my departure gate told us
| that there was a ground stop affecting all flights, which was
| reflected in my original title. This was not reflected in the
| NOTAM I posted, as was pointed out by several early
| commenters, and in fact my flight was able to board and
| depart around 7:00am Eastern before the ground stop took
| effect.
| emn13 wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-faa-sa...
|
| Clearly still developing; we'll see.
| callahad wrote:
| I don't know how these things work, but the most recent
| advisory, 027, seems to imply that United Airlines has a full
| ground stop until 15:00 UTC / 10:00 Eastern.
|
| Edit: Of course as I was typing that, Advisory 028 pops up with
| a nationwide ground stop until 9:30 Eastern: "GROUND STOP ALL
| FLIGHTS / ALL DESTINATIONS EXCLUDES MILITARY AC AND MEDEVAC
| FLIGHTS"
|
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=28&adv_dat...
| [deleted]
| eigenform wrote:
| Space weather?
| nexus7556 wrote:
| Any source for the claim of a ground stop? I see plenty of
| flights still taking off.
| kzrdude wrote:
| The most recent one seems to say something like that. ATCSCC
| ADVZY 023 DCC 01/11/2023 ALL UAL MAIN AND SUBS GROUND STOP
|
| Not that I know how to read it. The event time is three minutes
| ago.
|
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=23&adv_dat...
| [deleted]
| UhUhUhUh wrote:
| Reads United Airlines apparently.
| nexus7556 wrote:
| My understanding is that applies to United Airlines and it's
| regional partners. It seems each airline is making their own
| decision.
|
| This Reddit post seems to have more info: https://old.reddit.
| com/r/flying/comments/108yjgz/faa_notams_...
| eftychis wrote:
| Air Traffic Control System Command Center Advisory 23 by the
| Traffic Management Command Center (DCC) at date [..] - all
| united airlines ... ground stop.
|
| Here is about ground stops: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/p
| ublications/atpubs/foa_html...
| alamortsubite wrote:
| I can see that East Coast UA flights are currently delayed
| because of this.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| MESSAGE:
|
| EVENT TIME: 11/1126 - 11/1500 UAL GROUND STOP ALL FLIGHTS / ALL
| DESTINATIONS PER USER REQUEST DESTINATION AIRPORT; ALL
| FACILITIES INCLUDED: ALL GROUND STOP PERIOD: UNTIL 1500Z
| REASON: USER REQUEST REMARKS: US NOTAMS SYSTEM DOWN
|
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=23&adv_dat...
|
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/advADB.jsp
| nexus7556 wrote:
| UAL = United Airlines, not "all North American flights" as OP
| claimed
| alamortsubite wrote:
| The advisory posted by OP wasn't UA specific. You're
| looking at a later one.
| [deleted]
| callahad wrote:
| Advisory 028 is a nationwide ground stop:
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=28&adv_dat...
| chucksmash wrote:
| This was based on a P.A. announcement from a gate agent, so not
| authoritative. I've updated the title to reflect what is in the
| link.
| jxf wrote:
| Q: Is there anything like a systems architecture diagram for how
| NOTAM works? I'm curious about which parts might have failed and
| what the moving pieces are.
| tyingq wrote:
| Some here, mixed in with other info:
|
| https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/swim/users_forum/...
|
| https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-10/NOTAM%20Mod%...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Wondering if this is just standard aging infrastructure
| embarrassment or could involve a cyberattack? Cause if I were a
| state actor with a beef this is exactly the sort of soft-but-
| expensive injury I'd want to inflict: extremely disruptive, but
| also hard to assess or explain to the public.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Could it have been a nuclear option used by a federal agency to
| hold someone's possible escape? Perhaps they were not sure which
| plane, so they had to hold all. Or it was just the most immediate
| route
| sneak wrote:
| Nothing in the linked page confirms the ground stop mentioned in
| the title.
|
| Reddit comments say that there is no FAA ground stop, but
| airlines are making individual decisions about it.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/108yjgz/faa_notams_...
| emn13 wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-faa-sa...
| Klonoar wrote:
| There _was_ a brief ground stop (I 'm currently flying and it
| momentarily held us up) but Delta at the least isn't stopping
| entirely.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Very entertaining to watch the local TV news this morning.
|
| The reporter keeps pulling people aside as they arrive at the
| airport and asking them what they're going to do with all the
| planes grounded.
|
| None of them know it's happening.
|
| So far, they have all admitted that they either don't look at the
| news, or don't look at the local news, except for one woman who
| defiantly said, "It wasn't on Facebook," as if that meant that
| since the grounded flights weren't in her social media feed that
| it wasn't real.
| yehosef wrote:
| in unrelated news - https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/23/solarwinds-
| hackers-targete... ;) /humor
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| Next time my server is down I'll blame the Russians and Chinese
| too.
| snake_doc wrote:
| For anyone looking for previous FAA outages: In 2014, an U-2
| plane's flight plan crashed LAX's ERAM system because the system
| ran out of memory.
|
| https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%20Actions%20...
| GalenErso wrote:
| Why do secretive spy planes need to file flight plans?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Because they're not always doing secretive stuff, and even
| their secretive missions may start and end in airspace they
| have to share with friendly airliners.
|
| Sometimes it's a deliberate "we see you", too.
| https://twitter.com/Gerjon_/status/1475444704250630148
| pmontra wrote:
| That was a training flight, it's in the PDF.
| mikece wrote:
| I imagine operational flights might "officially" start and
| end as routine training flights, at least on paper.
| sidcool wrote:
| What is the root cause?
| adolph wrote:
| Where are the blockchain advocates?
|
| This seems like a perfect use case for a distributed ledger.
| belter wrote:
| https://twitter.com/FAANews/status/1613171400801394688
|
| " Normal air traffic operations are resuming gradually across the
| U.S. following an overnight outage to the Notice to Air Missions
| system that provides safety info to flight crews. The ground stop
| has been lifted...We continue to look into the cause of the
| initial problem"
| harrego wrote:
| I really like the advisory page -- all info, no sugar.
| [deleted]
| gonzo41 wrote:
| https://lite.cnn.com/en
|
| It's the best way to get the news. No filler, no adds and it
| works on a 2g mobile.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| See also: https://text.npr.org/
| [deleted]
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Not sure CNN is the "best" way to get the news.
|
| Try this: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page
|
| No ads, no adds, no filler, no filters.
|
| Make the news objective again. Repeal Smith-Mundt.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736
| wildrhythms wrote:
| I went to Wikinews (now) and there isn't a single mention
| about all US flights being grounded.
| https://archive.is/rtugM
| kfrzcode wrote:
| There's an app for that!
| https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Breaking_news
| kfrzcode wrote:
| See also: https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page
| [deleted]
| harrego wrote:
| http://68k.news is a fun one too.
| chucksmash wrote:
| Updated title from "FAA Ground Stop for All North America Flights
| Due to NOTAM Outage" to reflect comments that initial title was
| not accurate.
| xattt wrote:
| Confusing title, as Canadian departures with Canadian
| destinations do not appear to be affected.
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| In case you were like me and did not know what a NOTAM is:
| https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/notam/what_is_a_notam
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| The last time the FAA issued a full ground stop was September 11,
| 2001.
|
| What's going on? I don't believe the "technical glitch"
| narrative. I'm sure there have been many glitches since 2001, and
| yet FAA never felt the need to do this.
| twblalock wrote:
| > What's going on? I don't believe the "technical glitch"
| narrative. I'm sure there have been many glitches since 2001,
| and yet FAA never felt the need to do this.
|
| Are you saying the FAA is not telling the truth? What evidence
| do you have to believe this is a conspiracy, rather than simply
| an unusual event?
| belter wrote:
| "Canadian NOTAM Experiences Outage Hours After US NOTAM
| System" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34344089
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Did I say anything about a "conspiracy?" It's not like any
| government agency has ever lied to the population to prevent
| a panic.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| In fairness, the FAA was deep in bed with Boeing until very
| recently and had to be publically embarrassed by Trump of all
| individuals to get them to clean up their act.
|
| So I won't blame someone if they feel the FAA can't be
| trusted.
| tjohns wrote:
| Most glitches are localized, or there's backup systems, or you
| can fall back to manual human processes.
|
| If pilots/dispatchers can't get current NOTAMs, the aircraft
| can't safely depart - especially if they're flying IFR. There's
| no way around it.
|
| (One could argue about whether it's _legal_ for general
| aviation traffic to depart VFR - the regs say you need "all
| available information", and the information isn't available.
| But that's arguing semantics.)
|
| There was a NOTAM outage about a year ago where Leidos' (the
| Flight Service contractor in the lower 48) computer system
| failed and prevented entering new notices, but as a backup they
| were able to call Alaska FSS on the phone. Since Alaska's FSS
| is still run by the federal government and used a different
| computer system, their system was still online.
|
| But in this case the outage is on the FAA's (upstream) side.
| themitigating wrote:
| Evidence?
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Do you have any evidence of a technical glitch? Or evidence
| that there has never been such a technical glitch since 2001?
| smlacy wrote:
| Do you? Your arguments are classic whataboutism, and
| conspiracy/fearmongering.
|
| Read up on the Burden of Proof. If you make outlandish
| claims, they have to come with substantial evidence.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| I think it's an outlandish claim that a technical glitch
| happened today that caused such a degree of widespread
| outage that the FAA had to take a step it hadn't taken
| since September 11, 2001.
| smlacy wrote:
| Your belief isn't evidence, and you shouldn't present it
| as such.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| A vague statement from the FAA isn't evidence either,
| just like a statement from the CDC not to buy masks isn't
| evidence they don't work to protect against a virus.
|
| And I'm not claiming I have any evidence other than
| publicly observable patterns relating to both technical
| glitches and government transparency.
|
| I'm speculating, based on the fact that technical
| glitches usually occur more than once every 21 years (or
| even less frequently, since 9/11 grounding was not due to
| a technical glitch), and that government agencies often
| lie to the public, that the FAA is not telling the whole
| truth.
|
| And that is my right to do when commenting pseudonymously
| on an internet forum. You are similarly free to disagree
| with me or defer to your blind fealty to a government
| agency.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| That's kind of their point... The FAA is making an
| outlandish claim, we'd like to see their proof.
| unionemployee wrote:
| The NOTAM system is embarrassing. This just tops it off.
| Actually, our whole ATC system and the way the FAA operates is
| embarrassing. It all works kind of like waste management in NYC.
| If they were to add new tech and efficiency, fewer people would
| have jobs, so we keep doing it the old way to the detriment of
| everyone else.
| dev_daftly wrote:
| So basically it's the same as every other government entity?
| acdha wrote:
| It's easy to say things are about jobs but do we have any
| evidence of that? There's a modernization project underway at
| the FAA so I'd bet that if you looked there's someone who's
| been trying for years to get attention on it before something
| like this happened.
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Shirley you must be joking.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| Rumack : I won't deceive you, Mr. Striker. We're running out
| of time.
|
| Ted Striker : Surely there must be something you can do.
|
| Rumack : I'm doing everything I can... and stop calling me
| Shirley!
| jmbwell wrote:
| > There's a problem with the NOTAMs...
|
| >> The NOTAMs? What is it?
|
| > It's a system for alerting pilots to hazards.
|
| >> I see, thank you
|
| (ETA: haha aw, well I thought it was funny)
| quantified wrote:
| What embarrasses you about it, esp compared with more modern
| systems?
|
| This seems like the kind of critical infrastructure whose
| uptime requirements can make upgrading challenging once in
| place.
| unionemployee wrote:
| Others have said it better. If you google 'notams are
| broken', numerous results will show up explaining various
| problems with the NOTAM system.
|
| Edit: Here's a good one - https://fixingnotams.org/ending-
| notam-nonsense-in-the-digita...
|
| A general inefficiency example using two airpots I often have
| in mind: IAH and JFK. In IAH, traffic is spaced out in cruise
| well before the arrival begins, where they're burning much
| less fuel at high altitude. They're then instructed to
| descend via the full STAR (standard terminal arrival),
| including the transition to the approach for the runway in
| use. This looks like a hundreds mile long line of planes all
| following the same path to the same runway. The only further
| instruction necessary from ATC is speed adjustment, and
| allows for an almost continuous descent to the runway
| provided there's no weather in the way.
|
| At JFK, the spacing occurs much later and, even though the
| airport has some similar arrivals (though none quite as
| thorough), they instruct every altitude change and speed
| adjustment for every aircraft individually, along with
| vectoring them to the approach for the runway in use. It
| results in an incredibly busy radio environment and numerous
| inputs from pilots flying planes capable of simply following
| a STAR and transition, like in IAH (or ORD, SFO, LAX, etc).
| There's also much more time spent at low altitude burning
| more fuel. It reminds me of everything else in NYC, which
| seems to be inefficient on purpose (NYPD, MTA, DSNY, etc.).
|
| JFK and IAH have a similar number of aircraft movements. Yes,
| NYC has busier airspace with numerous airports, however, I
| don't see how this prevents the design and implementation of
| more modern procedures. Flying around at 4000 feet in an
| airliner getting numerous vectors just seems ridiculous
| compared to what I experience elsewhere.
| beowulfey wrote:
| Based on this and the other great PDF someone posted, it
| sounds like the system itself is fine, but the _content_ is
| the core problem.
| [deleted]
| allen-munsch wrote:
| I was wondering if this might be related to elastic's "several
| customer facing deployments deleted across multiple regions"
| issue from earlier today? The timing seemed to line up a bit.
|
| https://status.elastic.co/
| sumanthvepa wrote:
| Was it database failure or did they get hacked?
| testplzignore wrote:
| If I'm understanding the situation correctly: the system stopped
| processing updates yesterday afternoon and it wasn't a big deal,
| then they tried restarting it this morning to fix it and it
| didn't come back up, so now older NOTAMs from before the issue
| started are not available. Is that right?
|
| Do airlines/planes keep a cached copy of these? How large is the
| NOTAM database?
| p_l wrote:
| The problem isn't keeping a copy, it's sending updates that are
| very time critical (for example restricted areas around POTUS,
| any impactful event, etc.)
| stevehawk wrote:
| Not really. And for most commercial pilots this may come down
| to whether or not ForeFlight caches theirs or not. I'd actually
| be really curious to see unofficial commentary from ForeFlight
| developers about this because it's a pretty unique scenario in
| the age of electronic flight bags.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| TIL that NOTAM now stands for "Notice to Air Missions."
|
| Back when I was flying it was "Notice to Airmen." Wondered when
| they would get around to fixing that. Guess they finally did.
| wstuartcl wrote:
| Both are still in use. For instance during your pilots tests
| either is considered an equivalent answer.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| that's the test that makes you a Temporary Airman.
| pookha wrote:
| They JUST changed it. Made a point of signifying to the masses
| about it last month:
| https://generalaviationnews.com/2021/12/07/notams-are-now-no...
|
| What this tells me is a group of government busy-workers are
| playing around with complex systems that can dramatically
| impact millions of people.
| kzrdude wrote:
| ATC can tell pilots what they need to know, right?
| VLM wrote:
| Its a flight planning mystery.
|
| Lets say you are not flying to, but flying by, my hometown
| airport. You decide arbitrarily to use it as a divert in case
| of awful weather or engine trouble enroute or you just want a
| bathroom break (this is more of a Cessna 172 airport than a 747
| airport)
|
| I found a cached list of nine current NOTAMs for my home
| airport. Because its always better to overinform than to
| underinform, until the system overloads and crashes:
|
| A long ramble that boils down to you can't use one of the IFR
| plates for a helicopter approach because of (its a very long
| story but relates to the crane mentioned below)
|
| The modulation level on the closest VOR for
| identification/verification is low, although in legal
| tolerance, so you can use it but please stop trying to open the
| equivalent of a trouble ticket. We know the volume is both
| technically legal although low and not "turned up all the way".
| The techs say its safe until new parts arrive.
|
| There's three failed tower lights in the area (three? Supply
| chain problems? Labor problems? WTF?) and one temporary crane
| obstruction. The crane is flagged and lit, and could
| theoretically be 60 ft AGL which is normally below the legal
| limit but its on airport grounds 0.13 miles away from one
| runway off to the side, so please try not to hit it. Also
| please don't bother reporting a crane off to the side of the
| approach; we know all about it...
|
| Clearance delivery for the "big city" airport nearby has a
| remote trans/rec site nearby that's broken. Legal coverage is
| adequate (kind of a RAID array of retrans sites) so please stop
| reporting the reduced signal strength, we already know.
|
| There's some kind of flood on runway 10 when it very heavily
| rains; the groundskeepers will fix the drainage problem; the
| NWS reports 0% chance of rain today so it probably won't be an
| issue, but don't act all surprised. This is not a NOTAM for
| groundskeeper work, that would be a separate new NOTAM.
| briandear wrote:
| Nailed it exactly. Also be advised that birds are in the
| vicinity of the airport.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Be advised somebody is mowing the grass near the baggage
| terminal.
| psim1 wrote:
| One of our local muni airports adjacent woods always has a
| NOTAM advising of potential for deer on the runway.
| someguydave wrote:
| Is someone who is planning multiple divert airports seriously
| expected to retain all of that information and recall it in
| the case of an emergency?
|
| Seems like 10% of that info might be kinda useful to know and
| 90% of it is "BY FLYING IN OUR DIRECTION YOU AGREED TO ACCEPT
| ..."
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > Is someone who is planning multiple divert airports
| seriously expected to retain all of that information and
| recall it in the case of an emergency?
|
| I am a pilot and yes, you are absolutely expected to be
| aware of all NOTAMS relevant to your flight.
|
| FAA examiners will make you do it on checkrides, and
| depending on how cute they are feeling that day, they may
| very well quiz you, and will gleefully fail you because you
| weren't aware that, say, one particular runway was out of
| service, or there was a runway light out somewhere.
| someguydave wrote:
| The implication is that someone planning a long cross
| country trip may have dozens of NOTAMS at many diversion
| airports to review. At some point all the NOTAM lawyering
| seems a bit much.
| cjrp wrote:
| Not retain it, you probably have a copy with you which you
| would read if you did end up diverting somewhere. NOTAMs
| also affect which airports go in your "would divert to"
| list when you're planning the flight. E.g. if the NOTAMs
| say AirportA's lights are unserviceable, you wouldn't plan
| it as a diversion airport for your night flight.
| someguydave wrote:
| Seems to me like "I am in a sudden aircraft emergency" is
| not the best time for a pilot to begin reading dry
| material.
| cjrp wrote:
| There are many reasons to divert, not all of them big
| emergencies. Weather at your destination is worse than
| forecast, for example.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You're expected to have the information with you. Having
| read it before flight also increase the chance that it jogs
| your memory; "closest airport is CVG, didn't I see
| something... ah, yes, nuked last week, let's go to
| Columbus".
| VLM wrote:
| If I were a helicopter in IFR conditions and I just need a
| gas stop, I've never landed here, I'd forget about it,
| there's five heliports within 20 miles that have absolute
| zero drama. Legally technically the heliport is open but
| why risk it?
|
| If I were shooting an IFR approach for currency in
| perfectly clear air, or with an instructor and its midday
| and cloudless right now, sure, have some good training.
|
| If the engine's on fire, well, your odds are vastly better
| trying to land than trying to fly 20 miles away. If you're
| 600 feet off course and below 60 feet AGL you're probably
| going to crash anyway so don't worry about a crane.
|
| They just have a crane onsite fixing some things, its not
| like the airport is closed just don't be surprised seeing
| some extra flashing lights and flags.
| dx034 wrote:
| The question is, how will ATC know? I'm not that familiar with
| their systems, but maybe they rely on them to get critical
| information?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| ATC will be fine to get everyone on the ground safely. There
| are procedures for everything including ATC itself being
| down.
| p_l wrote:
| ATC can get them back down, but no new flights should
| start.
| dx034 wrote:
| I never doubted that. The question is if they could've
| worked without a ground stop by having ATC give them all
| info.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If I print the NOTAMs for a 600nm flight, they're going
| to typically go 4+ pages of NOTAMs that are fairly
| specific to my flight (just for departure, along route,
| and destination airports) and 15+ pages if I print _all
| available_ NOTAMs in a fairly small font.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No. ATC gets busy enough as is, each plane needs NOTAMs
| covering their entire route, and if the system is down
| ATC isn't getting them either anyways.
| McDyver wrote:
| NOTAM notices are not only for planes but for other people and
| equipment using airspace, like drones, skydivers, ... Those are
| not always connected with ATC, but need the information from
| NOTAM to plan their activities
| cjrp wrote:
| The NOTAMs for a commercial flight from JFK to LAX, for
| example, would be several pages long. Warnings about
| construction work at either airport, closed taxiways, cranes in
| the vicinity of the airport, enroute navigational aids which
| are unusable, etc. ATC can't relay that for every departing
| flight. Additionally, the NOTAM system is where they'd retrieve
| these from, so if that's down they have nothing to relay.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I'm surprised there's not more activity on this here on HN. I
| guess info is limited, so I found what I could from ATCSCC
| notices for today [1]. These are all the notices but portions
| only w/ redundant bits removed. See link in citation if you want
| full messages. Times here appear to be GMT: 004
| DCC 01/11/23 NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE_FYI 01/11/23 00:47
| THE NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE IS BEING ACTIVATED TO ADDRESS THE
| EQUIPMENT OUTAGE ISSUES FOR THE UNITED STATES NOTAM
| SYSTEM. 013 DCC 01/11/23 NOTAM SYSTEM EQUIPMENT
| OUTAGE_FYI 01/11/23 04:18 THE UNITED STATES NOTAM
| SYSTEM FAILED AT 2028Z. SINCE THEN NO NEW NOTAMS OR
| AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED. TECHNICIANS ARE CURRENTLY
| WORKING TO RESTORE THE SYSTEM AND THERE IS NO ESTIMATE FOR
| RESTORATION OF SERVICE AT THIS TIME. 014 DCC
| 01/11/23 NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE_FYI 01/11/23 04:19 HE
| NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE IS BEING ACTIVATED TO ADDRESS THE EQUIPMENT
| OUTAGE ISSUES... 015 DCC 01/11/23 NOTAM OUTAGE
| HOTLINE_FYI 01/11/23 07:42 THE NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE
| IS BEING ACTIVATED TO ADDRESS THE EQUIPMENT...
| 016 DCC 01/11/23 NOTAM SYSTEM EQUIPMENT OUTAGE_FYI 01/11/23 07:44
| THE UNITED STATES NOTAM SYSTEM FAILED AT 2028Z. TECHNICIANS ARE
| CURRENTLY WORKING TO RESTORE THE SYSTEM AND THERE IS NO ESTIMATE
| FOR RESTORATION OF SERVICE AT THIS TIME. THERE IS
| CURRENTLY A HOTLINE IN EFFECT WHICH HAS NAIMES/FAA
| FACILITIES/STAKEHOLDERS IN ATTENDANCE. 020 DCC
| 01/11/23 NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE_FYI 01/11/23 10:58 THE
| NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE IS BEING ACTIVATED... 030 DCC
| 01/11/23 NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE_FYI 01/11/23 12:37 THE
| NOTAM OUTAGE HOTLINE HAS BEEN TERMINATED.
|
| In short, the terminology being used so far is "equipment
| failure".
|
| [1] 1/11/2023 link to the day's messages w/ index numbering for
| each one per my above quotes"
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_list.jsp?WhichAdvisories=ATC...
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Probably because it's not about a package manager , a social
| network, Cloud Service and a chat application.
| eternalban wrote:
| [heads-up: 'r/He\ is/I\ am' in your personal landing page]
| ineedasername wrote:
| I wanted to keep my above comment to the data only, so I'll
| post this here: "Equipment Failure" can cover just about
| anything. I think the "gut" reaction the public might have here
| when hearing that phrase is that it was physical equipment, but
| really it could have been software, network linkages, really
| anything. I hope the real cause here doesn't get buried
| somewhere in lack of follow up.
|
| Also I really wish I'd been awake when the hotline was active
| (# was in the full notices linked) so I could call in and see
| what they were talking about as a silent observer. I can't tell
| from the context if that was a general status hotline, a
| failover service to provide the same data NOTAM would have done
| (though if that were the case then grounding flights wouldn't
| have been necessary) [1] or discussion of the actual problem
| and specific efforts to resolve.
|
| [1] Well, only if it was a more benign & limited cause that
| wouldn't be expected to spill over into other systems. If the
| nature of the problem included the possibility of a malign
| actor then other vectors of attacks would not have been (and
| maybe still aren't, if that was the source) off the table.
| jjav wrote:
| > I wanted to keep my above comment to the data only, so I'll
| post this here: "Equipment Failure" can cover just about
| anything.
|
| Stuxnet was after all an equipment failure. Sure, with an
| interesting plot to get there.
|
| (Just commenting on the term "equipment failure", don't know
| anything about the FAA failure of today.)
| wstuartcl wrote:
| FAA and most all global air systems and services tend to
| use their own nomenclature for communicating to pilots -- I
| would read "equipment failure" as a term that pilots would
| use and understand as "a temporary or permanent failure of
| software or hardware in the system" and not read into it
| any additional common sense from other areas of expertise.
| sidfthec wrote:
| The limited activity is probably because it's actually not that
| exciting from a technical perspective.
|
| The answer is almost certainly something like "lack of funding
| forces FAA to continue using massively outdated systems and
| this is what happens when someone trips over the power cord of
| the mainframe in some basement".
|
| It's much more interesting when companies like Google or
| Facebook go down, because they properly fund their
| infrastructure and there might be something for the HN crowd to
| learn.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A small amount, last month?
|
| Yes, probably unrelated.
| dx034 wrote:
| There's a ground stop for all flights now.
|
| GROUND STOP ALL FLIGHTS / ALL DESTINATIONS EXCLUDES MILITARY AC
| AND MEDEVAC FLIGHTS DESTINATION AIRPORT; ALL FACILITIES INCLUDED:
| ALL GROUND STOP PERIOD: UNTIL 1430Z REASON: EQUIPMENT OUTAGE
| REMARKS: US NOTAMS SYSTEM DOWN
| Tepix wrote:
| Why don't they use lower case letters?
| yrro wrote:
| https://fixingnotams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Field-
| Gu...
| srmarm wrote:
| This might be a silly question, but is that a NOTAM saying that
| NOTAM system is down? How does it get out?
| ape4 wrote:
| Reminds me of that screenshot of a windows popup unable to
| display an error.
| fknorangesite wrote:
| I will never forget trying to set up a printer on a linux
| desktop 20+ years ago: tried to print a diagnostic/test
| page. All that printed was a single line of text: "Unable
| to connect to printer."
| Buffout wrote:
| NOTAM is a notice to alert aircraft pilots of potential
| hazards along a flight route...
|
| Command control can see that NOTAM system is out and publish
| advisory. (Not via NOTAM system)
| zrail wrote:
| As I understand it there's a hotline and periodic
| teleconferences and webinars today that for sure everyone at
| the airlines is participating it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The website and the system that gets it out to all the planes
| are related but not the same.
| jonhohle wrote:
| With all the hate in HN regarding SOA, here's a great
| example of adding resilience by separating concerns at a
| systems level.
| capekwasright wrote:
| This is an Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC)
| advisory: https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=2
| 8&adv_dat...
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Are 2020s the years where the cold war is back as a lukewarm war,
| and also all of NA aviation needs to reconvene with its decrepit
| software? Next plot-twist, it was all ready to blow, but
| ultimately triggered by Russian/Chinese/North Korean hackers.
|
| Ok, taking off my tinfoil hat. Still, maybe I'm suffering of
| nostalgia bias but the last few years really make for a lot of
| prime source material for docudramas.
| yehosef wrote:
| don't forget about this beauty
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/23/solarwinds-hackers-targete...
| [deleted]
| RagnarD wrote:
| No need for a tinfoil hat. Such systems are prime targets for
| states hostile to the U.S. If this one wasn't before, it will
| be now.
| heisenbit wrote:
| Forensic analysis will reveal that there were multiple hidden
| failures over the past years that were covered up by foreign
| hackers to ensure their backdoors were not revealed in an in-
| depth investigation.
| peteradio wrote:
| Free maintenance!
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://twitter.com/AUStinAirport/status/1613134228321087488
|
| > An FAA system outage is causing ground stops at AUS and other
| airports across the country. Arriving & departing passengers can
| expect delays this morning & through the day.
|
| If you're flying today, it's gonna be a rough one.
|
| edit: BBC now confirming a full ground stop.
| https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1613151796955856896
|
| https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=28&adv_dat...
| steponlego wrote:
| They're resuming operations despite "still searching for a
| cause." Comforting.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You've never rebooted a computer to get it working again,
| without immediately knowing why it crashed?
| steponlego wrote:
| Not since I stopped using Microsoft Windows.
| virusuy wrote:
| I made that my career
| josephd79 wrote:
| Gonna be a bad day for those sys admins
| acdha wrote:
| Kinda wondering the odds of there being one crying into their
| coffee over a stack of memos saying they should do something
| before it fails, or some greybeard angrily pointing to their
| quality control concerns on a new system. Both are pretty
| common with federal IT.
| causality0 wrote:
| May none of our fuckups be bad enough to get an article written
| about them. Amen.
| josephd79 wrote:
| Amen.
| chasd00 wrote:
| heh, my boss was on a public sector project that went so far
| south she was stalked by news crews leaving the office. The
| experience left a pretty deep scar on her. This was before my
| time thank babyjeebus.
| [deleted]
| jerpint wrote:
| Looks like it's been fixed:
|
| https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1613174866047340545
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I've got a trip to take in a couple weeks. I have a choice: 4
| hours of driving followed by two regional flights. Or just forget
| flying and drive 16 hours point to point. Between today's issues
| and all the headaches at YVR over the holidays, driving 16 hours
| seems more comfortable and less stressful than rolling the dice
| with regional airline travel.
|
| I would rather be stuck driving my car for a day than spend a day
| sleeping on the floor of an airport lobby.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| 99% chance this won't happen to your flight.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It happened last time on a nearly identical itinerary. First
| flight was late. Missed connection. Landed at second airport
| too late for the bus (military to base where my car was
| parked). Had to spend night in hotel waiting for bus the
| following day.
|
| Time before that, I arrived on time but my bag did not. Had
| to wait at airport for six hours for bag. Missed bus. Hotel.
| Bus the following day.
| toast0 wrote:
| How many people in the car and how many drivers? What do you
| expect for the weather? Anywhere you want to stop somewhere in
| the middle?
|
| Probably less effort and time to fly, but a lot of waiting
| without agency.
| outericky wrote:
| Depending on the length of the stay and whether you need a car,
| I'd do the road trip in a heartbeat.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| Whenever I opt for 'roadtrip', almost inevitably, about 4-5
| hours in, I wish I were flying. When I fly, I don't _usually_
| say "oh, I wish I'd driven" (unless there's a delay or
| problem).
|
| As I've driven more, I need to allot myself more stops. If a
| trip is over 10 hours, I'll probably split it in 2 days, and
| stay overnight some place. 20 years ago, I would have
| 'pressed on', but... it's usually not worth it any more. But
| some of the 'cost savings' of driving go away when you factor
| in hotels.
| watersb wrote:
| REALLY IMPORTANT NOTAMS tend to alert pilots to RESTRICTED
| AIRSPACE or AREAS OF UNUSUAL AIR OPERATIONS. You can't fly
| anywhere near the President of the United States, the movements
| of which can change from day to day.
|
| We get NOTAMS about military aircraft operations; often military
| airspace which is usually permitted may be shut down for a week
| or so.
|
| Wildfire tanker operations or other natural emergencies can close
| an airspace.
|
| It's quite dynamic, all on top of the scheduled flight plans and
| routes.
| ru552 wrote:
| They are also for notifying pilots of potential caution areas.
|
| I used to operate a 550+ meter tower and when I had a tower
| light out, I had to file a NOTAM.
| nkcmr wrote:
| Why do all aviation IT systems feel like they are so fragile?
|
| It feels like not a single month can pass these days without some
| "Airline X has major outage and ruins tons of people's days!"
| story on the news.
|
| What is the tech behind these frail systems?
| dx034 wrote:
| More modern systems are also down once in a while. With
| aviation it's just more visible because one system can affect a
| lot of people.
|
| I'm not sure when ATC systems (which I would count NOTAM to be
| one of) have last failed, I always had the feeling they're very
| stable. It's usually airlines that struggle with their
| applications.
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| I never know how well it applies but headline outages always
| make me think of that "The Coming Software Apocalypse"
| Atlantic article from a few years back[0]
|
| [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/sa
| vin...
| namdnay wrote:
| I think it's just a question of media visibility. Aviation
| outage = queues in airports = easy article to write
| VLM wrote:
| All hyper optimized systems become fragile until they collapse.
|
| The NOTAM system is ridiculous, no surprise it collapsed ...
| you can lose your ticket for flying thru a MOA that went active
| AFTER you took off.
|
| What could possibly go wrong with a "push" notification system
| for every tiny little detail of aerospace scheduling? No force
| is as destructive as the good idea fairy.
| briandear wrote:
| MOAs aren't the same as restricted areas. You can fly in them
| if you want.
| trelane wrote:
| For those who also didn't know, MOA: https://tfmlearning.faa.
| gov/publications/atpubs/AIR/air2501....
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'm not sure your specific example is a particularly good
| one. I can legally fly through an MOA that's active, without
| needing ATC or military authorization.
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| They need Kafka
| dougzcohen wrote:
| They use async communication - they need Pulsar!
| ilyt wrote:
| That's the curse of niche software. Especially one made to fit,
| it's easy for penny pincher to decide "it works fine now, it
| doesn't need ongoing improvements" and you end up with some
| ancient shit needing java 1.7 (or worse) to run with no plan to
| upgrade.
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| Airlines view technology as a cost center.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This is the FAA's system, not the airlines'.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| GP asked about both systems. It's worth noting that the
| FAA's systems are brittle for an entirely different reason
| than, say, Southwest Airlines'.
| tyingq wrote:
| The software is tied to a dependency chain of real people
| (passengers, crew, etc), real equipment, and lots of
| constraints. So problems have a downstream effect that's more
| pronounced and visible than many other spaces.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-11 23:01 UTC)