Smoke (fire?) at Chi-TRACON

[denverpilot]

Nate, money is exactly the reason why your idea, though a great one, isn't feasible. Setting up a remote backup system costs a LOT of money, when you consider that you have to maintain that remote facility 24/7, and keep it certified for service. Not to mention personnel costs to maintain the equipment. Sure, the IT part would be easy, if you had money.



That's why ATC uses its current method of failure recovery. When one facility goes loses all air traffic control capability, it declares ATC Zero. It doesn't happen often, and almost always makes the news. There are contingency plans in place where other facilities take over the airspace and subsequently the traffic for the affected facility. In the case of C90, the contingency plan worked as prescribed. That's no small feat considering this contingency plan, as well as many others across the nation, had never been used before with live traffic. Operations to ORD and MDW resumed shortly after initial evacuation, albeit at a much reduced rate. Normal ATC operations resumed about four hours after initial evacuation.

I've seen much more complex systems in public safety recovered remotely. These are agencies with much smaller budgets and much harder to recover systems.

It's not about the money. FAA has plenty of money. See: ADS-B.

What they don't have is any urgency on it as a priority.

Perhaps it's right not to, perhaps not. I don't care. I am not flying airlines on any regular basis. Not a lot of facility shutdowns for smoke in the ladies room very often, either.

But it isn't that expensive or that hard.

Dump the generally useless ADS-B budget and put even only a portion of that mess into a remote site recovery system, and it could be done in no time.

Certified? Well... Let's not go there. FAA could figure out a way to make any Certification process so long it'd never be completed if they try hard enough.

How certified does a backup to a backup need to be?

I'll give ya an example of common sense. Instead of a "certified" IFR GPS... How about you must have two cheap non-certified models from two competitors who are not allowed to use the same GPS chipset for reception and no common antenna? Good enough? What's the failure rate on that?

Bet it'd STILL be cheaper than one that went through the "certification" process.

Want more redundancy? You must carry a third portable model not attached to aircraft power or external/aircraft antenna.

If they don't match, you can't fly the approach.

Heh. Yeah it has problems, but you see my point. It'd work.

With GPS tech hitting sub-$100 price ranges in every consumer application across the board, except avionics... Someone is being bent over.

Just one of a great many examples of silliness and "we've always done it that way", I'm sure.

Here's a fun one for you, if you want a place to find the money...

Shut down all the servers that feed "free" flight tracking data. That's not core ATC. That's a freebie add-on.

It's not a core service. **** it down. Sorry FlightAware, fund it all yourselves or find a different business model.

Blasphemy, I'm sure many would say. I just say, "priorities are screwed up"...

This is in no way surprising or all that bothersome to me, really. Just obvious. It's government.

But given the willpower, not really more money, they could do it. Doesn't mean they will. Far better to wait for a few more outages and ask for additional budget to "modernize" while retaining all the other budgeted projects, if you're building an empire.

Like I've pointed out on other threads... The folks doing the work are doing fine on all of it and are nice well-meaning folk. What they've been tasked with is often dumb.

FAA wastes more money in a year than it would take to build remote control ability into facilities.

If you cancelled ADS-B and gave me half of its buildout and maintenance budget indefinitely, and I get to pocket whatever is left over, I'd happily guarantee you a remote facility takeover system that worked and I'd be a very very rich man, even after paying my contractors.

 

[ScottM]

That's probably what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. He put ketchup on a hot dog and was never seen again.

Hoffa was a New Yorker. I doubt he ran into the Chicago crews. More likely he demanded good pizza and NY Pizza mafia greased him!

 

[ScottM]

Nope. That's gonna be Friday! (Assuming weather holds out for me.)

I am flying out of ORD on Friday. Don't screw up the traffic by asking for FF until after 10am please!

 

[Palmpilot]

I've seen much more complex systems in public safety recovered remotely. These are agencies with much smaller budgets and much harder to recover systems.

It's not about the money. FAA has plenty of money. See: ADS-B.

What they don't have is any urgency on it as a priority.

Perhaps it's right not to, perhaps not. I don't care. I am not flying airlines on any regular basis. Not a lot of facility shutdowns for smoke in the ladies room very often, either.

But it isn't that expensive or that hard.

Dump the generally useless ADS-B budget and put even only a portion of that mess into a remote site recovery system, and it could be done in no time.

Certified? Well... Let's not go there. FAA could figure out a way to make any Certification process so long it'd never be completed if they try hard enough.

How certified does a backup to a backup need to be?

I'll give ya an example of common sense. Instead of a "certified" IFR GPS... How about you must have two cheap non-certified models from two competitors who are not allowed to use the same GPS chipset for reception and no common antenna? Good enough? What's the failure rate on that?

Bet it'd STILL be cheaper than one that went through the "certification" process.

Want more redundancy? You must carry a third portable model not attached to aircraft power or external/aircraft antenna.

If they don't match, you can't fly the approach.

Heh. Yeah it has problems, but you see my point. It'd work.

With GPS tech hitting sub-$100 price ranges in every consumer application across the board, except avionics... Someone is being bent over.

Just one of a great many examples of silliness and "we've always done it that way", I'm sure.

Here's a fun one for you, if you want a place to find the money...

Shut down all the servers that feed "free" flight tracking data. That's not core ATC. That's a freebie add-on.

It's not a core service. **** it down. Sorry FlightAware, fund it all yourselves or find a different business model.

Blasphemy, I'm sure many would say. I just say, "priorities are screwed up"...

This is in no way surprising or all that bothersome to me, really. Just obvious. It's government.

But given the willpower, not really more money, they could do it. Doesn't mean they will. Far better to wait for a few more outages and ask for additional budget to "modernize" while retaining all the other budgeted projects, if you're building an empire.

Like I've pointed out on other threads... The folks doing the work are doing fine on all of it and are nice well-meaning folk. What they've been tasked with is often dumb.

FAA wastes more money in a year than it would take to build remote control ability into facilities.

If you cancelled ADS-B and gave me half of its buildout and maintenance budget indefinitely, and I get to pocket whatever is left over, I'd happily guarantee you a remote facility takeover system that worked and I'd be a very very rich man, even after paying my contractors.

I think common sense in government is unconstitutional.

 

[EdFred]

No can do. Gonna be in PIA by 11am.

 

[azure]

Hoffa was a New Yorker. I doubt he ran into the Chicago crews. More likely he demanded good pizza and NY Pizza mafia greased him!

I doubt he ran into either, since he was in Detroit or thereabouts when he disappeared. (at the Red Fox restaurant in Bloomfield Hills, if memory serves)

 

[MarkZ]

snip

All your ideas sound good in theory. Who wouldn't want that redundancy? In the real world, your ideas don't work that way. I tried explaining a little of why, but that glossed over. We aren't talking about simple computer systems per se. We are talking about air traffic services, not a simple computer breakdown. Having the amount of automation redundancy you propose requires a duplication of the equipment FAA facilities currently have. And adding equipment costs money. It also requires controllers either transport from one facility to the remote facility, or controllers maintain certification on airspace they likely will never work. Both of those cost money as well.

I am not surprised a GA pilot and private aircraft owner supposes that ADSB would be a useless line item on a budget. ADSB is but one facet of the FAA modernization program called NEXTGEN. It would be shortsighted to not invest in modernizing the NAS, and continue to maintain equipment that pre-dates both of us. However you are correct in that if you take out all the money in modernization, you would have enough money to implement your proposal.

ATC has used ATC Zero contingency plans such as the one implemented earlier this week for decades. Why? They are designed as a temporary measure due to mitigate catastrophic loss. They are not, and never have been, designed to completely replace an affected facility to 100% capacity. That, while optimistic, is not realistic. ATC Zero declarations are so rare due to the amount of redundancy the system already has.

 

[denverpilot]

All your ideas sound good in theory. Who wouldn't want that redundancy? In the real world, your ideas don't work that way. I tried explaining a little of why, but that glossed over. We aren't talking about simple computer systems per se. We are talking about air traffic services, not a simple computer breakdown. Having the amount of automation redundancy you propose requires a duplication of the equipment FAA facilities currently have. And adding equipment costs money. It also requires controllers either transport from one facility to the remote facility, or controllers maintain certification on airspace they likely will never work. Both of those cost money as well.



I am not surprised a GA pilot and private aircraft owner supposes that ADSB would be a useless line item on a budget. ADSB is but one facet of the FAA modernization program called NEXTGEN. It would be shortsighted to not invest in modernizing the NAS, and continue to maintain equipment that pre-dates both of us. However you are correct in that if you take out all the money in modernization, you would have enough money to implement your proposal.



ATC has used ATC Zero contingency plans such as the one implemented earlier this week for decades. Why? They are designed as a temporary measure due to mitigate catastrophic loss. They are not, and never have been, designed to completely replace an affected facility to 100% capacity. That, while optimistic, is not realistic. ATC Zero declarations are so rare due to the amount of redundancy the system already has.

I gave my opinion. All of your arguments against it are easily handled for a lot less money than massive waste on stuff like ADS-B.

Resorting to insults is usually the sign you have nothing to add. You really think this "GA pilot and private aircraft owner" doesn't know that ADS-B is a part of the even larger NEXGEN? Could you provide a cost-benefit analysis on NEXGEN that includes why I'm paying for it? I seriously doubt it.

Hint: I don't care if one FedEx hub can operate more aircraft in a smaller space. As one example. They can pay for their own system and pay to certify it. I can wait an extra day for my package to arrive if it means cutting the FAA spending in half. Priorities.

It's already been made perfectly clear that NEXGEN doesn't replace the need for the older hardware. It's not a replacement for radar. It's not a replacement for anything. It's an add-on.

Transporting controllers to a backup regional facility is child's play. That really what you're going to go with in the modern era? If so, there's some mobile FEMA teams and USFS Fire teams and such that you could chat with about how that gets done. Not hard. Not that expensive.

ATC-Zero doesn't go away. It's still a tool for a catastrophic outage. Loss of a single facility/building in modern business is not a catastrophic outage. There's always a final "all stop" plan at the bottom of the decision tree in life-safety services. Nothing I said would remove that. Just put it another line lower on the checklist.

Leadership and prioritization are the missing elements. Not money. Not staff. Motivation to save money instead of spending it with anyone who could pull it off, would instantly find leaders coming out of the woodwork to do it, too.

 

[mikea]

Obviously you have never eaten a hot dog in Illinois - they [disgustingly] use ketchup.

LIAR! Ketchup is against the law in Illinois.

However, the most important thing that makes Be-Be`s a true Chicago hot dog is an ingredient that`s left off: ketchup.

``Putting ketchup on a hot dog is a mortal sin,`` says North. ``It`s a real mortal sin. If a hot dog has ketchup on it, it`s not Chicago.``

Culinary penance

And the Be-Be`s people have a special punishment for customers who sin by asking for ketchup:

``We make them come over here,`` says Be-Be North, walking over to the counter, ``and then we make this big production, and we make them put their own ketchup on their hot dogs in front of everyone. Most of the time they`re so embarrassed they say, `No, that`s okay, I don`t really want it.` ``

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-18/entertainment/8701210461_1_tuna-big-business-guy

 

[mikea]

Funny how I have to account for disaster recovery on every project I do for the corporation, but the US government counts on the big world theory.

Sarbanes-Oxley and such, besides Wall Street the stockholders have little tolerance for acts of god.

 

[Norman]

Hoffa was a New Yorker.

Think you better research that. Hoffa resided in Michigan most of his life.

 

[mikea]

Think you better research that. Hoffa resided in Michigan most of his life.

He's in New Jersey now.

 

[MarkZ]

I gave my opinion. All of your arguments against it are easily handled for a lot less money than massive waste on stuff like ADS-B.

Resorting to insults is usually the sign you have nothing to add. You really think this "GA pilot and private aircraft owner" doesn't know that ADS-B is a part of the even larger NEXGEN? Could you provide a cost-benefit analysis on NEXGEN that includes why I'm paying for it? I seriously doubt it.

I didn't mean any insult by what I said. Fact is, you are a private aircraft owner who has said ADSB is a useless budget item. I can empathize with you. To implement NEXTGEN, the FAA requires new equipment that every operator must purchase, and I can understand the consternation. My opinion is that your assertion about FAA budgetary usefulness stems from the fact that any aircraft owner and operator will have to buy equipment by 2020 if they wish to participate in the NAS.

Providing cost benefits is above my pay grade, I only bring what limited factual knowledge I have. Again, it's why I empathize with your opinion.

Hint: I don't care if one FedEx hub can operate more aircraft in a smaller space. As one example. They can pay for their own system and pay to certify it. I can wait an extra day for my package to arrive if it means cutting the FAA spending in half. Priorities.

You are over simplifying what NEXTGEN proposes to do.

It's already been made perfectly clear that NEXGEN doesn't replace the need for the older hardware. It's not a replacement for radar. It's not a replacement for anything. It's an add-on.

If it works properly, NEXTGEN systems will replace supporting systems we use to provide air traffic services.

Transporting controllers to a backup regional facility is child's play. That really what you're going to go with in the modern era? If so, there's some mobile FEMA teams and USFS Fire teams and such that you could chat with about how that gets done. Not hard. Not that expensive.

True. Transporting controllers to a backup regional facility is child's play. That was part of the contingency plan that was implemented this past week. If I understand you correctly, you mentioned creating a duplicate facility, which is not practicable.

In addition, confusing FEMA's and the USFS's mission with the FAA's mission doesn't work. You are attempting to draw a parallel between the other two agencies' mission priorities when operating at full capacity with the FAA's priorities when mitigating failure within a major facility. Of course it's not an issue to transport controllers. That's why our facility sent half a dozen when the failure occurred last week. Even with the controllers at a backup facility, air traffic services will remain degraded.

ATC-Zero doesn't go away. It's still a tool for a catastrophic outage. Loss of a single facility/building in modern business is not a catastrophic outage. There's always a final "all stop" plan at the bottom of the decision tree in life-safety services. Nothing I said would remove that. Just put it another line lower on the checklist.

Here's what I wonder, what if there had been a fire that consumed the TRACON. What then. Of course, now we are getting into the weeds of the hypotheticals.

Leadership and prioritization are the missing elements. Not money. Not staff. Motivation to save money instead of spending it with anyone who could pull it off, would instantly find leaders coming out of the woodwork to do it, too.

I agree on this point, but for different reasons than you.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. If you feel, after my lame attempt to introduce facts, that your proposal is the way to go, by all means you should submit your proposal to 800 Independence Avenue, Washington DC.

 

[steingar]

If it works properly, NEXTGEN systems will replace supporting systems we use to provide air traffic services.

Keep in mind that NEXTGEN, which relies on satellites that can be easily damaged but not repaired, are replacing terrestrial radio sources that can be easily repaired when broken. This is to ostensibly increase efficiency in air traffic when the lack of efficiency is created nearly entirely from conflicts on the ground at runways due to the overuse of a few key airports by air carriers.

For this non solution that could easily create more problems than it solves (like when the satellite break, and they will) we all have to shell out through the nose. The airlines can pass the costs onto their suckers, er customers, but we get to take it on the nose. All for an imaginary increase in efficiency that we will likely never see.

I'm a bit down on this today. I just had an old fashioned transponder put in my airplane. I couldn't equip it with an ADSB solution for less than its hull value. Six years out and there isn't a box to buy. Wonderful way to run the NAS.

 

[MarkZ]

Keep in mind that NEXTGEN, which relies on satellites that can be easily damaged but not repaired, are replacing terrestrial radio sources that can be easily repaired when broken. This is to ostensibly increase efficiency in air traffic when the lack of efficiency is created nearly entirely from conflicts on the ground at runways due to the overuse of a few key airports by air carriers.

For this non solution that could easily create more problems than it solves (like when the satellite break, and they will) we all have to shell out through the nose. The airlines can pass the costs onto their suckers, er customers, but we get to take it on the nose. All for an imaginary increase in efficiency that we will likely never see.

I'm a bit down on this today. I just had an old fashioned transponder put in my airplane. I couldn't equip it with an ADSB solution for less than its hull value. Six years out and there isn't a box to buy. Wonderful way to run the NAS.

Prof, I agree, and it's been said for decades, if you want to increase efficiency, it needs to be done with concrete, not satellites. My guess is that a satellite based method of ATC services (including navigation services) is cheaper to maintain than the old school method of ground based navigation aids. That much I can see being true, but given the propensity of satellites being fragile to solar activity, how much stock can we place in their reliability day in, day out?

 

[steingar]

Prof, I agree, and it's been said for decades, if you want to increase efficiency, it needs to be done with concrete, not satellites. My guess is that a satellite based method of ATC services (including navigation services) is cheaper to maintain than the old school method of ground based navigation aids. That much I can see being true, but given the propensity of satellites being fragile to solar activity, how much stock can we place in their reliability day in, day out?

There was a time not long ago when GPS satellites were breaking faster than we could put them up. Sorry, I suspect you could replace every VOR in the country for the same money as building and launching a satellite. And they have to be monitored by folks on the ground, which VORs don't. And they're susceptible to solar phenomenon like sunspots and magnetic storms.

Seems like a really poorly thought out solution. Shutting down LORAN was the dumbest move I ever heard of. A ground-based backup that's nearly as accurate? What were they thinking?

The Chinese and Russians can knock out a satellite in orbit. They get rowdy and there goes our NAS with no back up. Just doesn't sound very bright to me.

 

[N801BH]

There was a time not long ago when GPS satellites were breaking faster than we could put them up. Sorry, I suspect you could replace every VOR in the country for the same money as building and launching a satellite. And they have to be monitored by folks on the ground, which VORs don't. And they're susceptible to solar phenomenon like sunspots and magnetic storms.

Seems like a really poorly thought out solution. Shutting down LORAN was the dumbest move I ever heard of. A ground-based backup that's nearly as accurate? What were they thinking?

The Chinese and Russians can knock out a satellite in orbit. They get rowdy and there goes our NAS with no back up. Just doesn't sound very bright to me.

Agreed 1000%.......

And if the bad guys want to disable the NEXGEN /ADS-B system,,, all they need to do is buy 1000 or so high powered GPS jammers for a measly couple hundred grand and place them all over the country... Then a simple, remote command to fire up 50 of them can start havoc... Give the FCC a few days to find and kick the doors in on where they are located and then fire up 50 more, and on.... and on.... and on... A VERY cheap way to drag us to our knees.......

 

[denverpilot]

I didn't mean any insult by what I said. Fact is, you are a private aircraft owner who has said ADSB is a useless budget item. I can empathize with you. To implement NEXTGEN, the FAA requires new equipment that every operator must purchase, and I can understand the consternation. My opinion is that your assertion about FAA budgetary usefulness stems from the fact that any aircraft owner and operator will have to buy equipment by 2020 if they wish to participate in the NAS.



Providing cost benefits is above my pay grade, I only bring what limited factual knowledge I have. Again, it's why I empathize with your opinion.





You are over simplifying what NEXTGEN proposes to do.





If it works properly, NEXTGEN systems will replace supporting systems we use to provide air traffic services.







True. Transporting controllers to a backup regional facility is child's play. That was part of the contingency plan that was implemented this past week. If I understand you correctly, you mentioned creating a duplicate facility, which is not practicable.



In addition, confusing FEMA's and the USFS's mission with the FAA's mission doesn't work. You are attempting to draw a parallel between the other two agencies' mission priorities when operating at full capacity with the FAA's priorities when mitigating failure within a major facility. Of course it's not an issue to transport controllers. That's why our facility sent half a dozen when the failure occurred last week. Even with the controllers at a backup facility, air traffic services will remain degraded.





Here's what I wonder, what if there had been a fire that consumed the TRACON. What then. Of course, now we are getting into the weeds of the hypotheticals.





I agree on this point, but for different reasons than you.



Of course you are entitled to your opinion. If you feel, after my lame attempt to introduce facts, that your proposal is the way to go, by all means you should submit your proposal to 800 Independence Avenue, Washington DC.

The above reads like a marketing slick and has very little meat to its bones. This isn't really your fault, it's that NEXGEN provides very very little benefit to the NAS overall and lots of downsides. The piece you like is the equipment refresh and upgrade part at facilities, which I can see why. That stuff is always ancient.

Last project I worked on for FAA was a wonderful system for coordinating outages via conference calls. It was outrageously priced, and the only reason was because we were the only vendor at the time who'd integrate a touch screen before touch screens were even commonplace. It had to have a touch screen and what we jokingly called "Fisher-Price" engineering. The colors on the screen had to match the level of urgency. Red was "world coming to an end", Yellow was "bad but the world will be here tomorrow", Green... You get the idea.

Drop the touch screen and colors and they could have bought the same system for about half what we charged to sell it through GTE as a sub-contractor.

I'm certain this happy horsepuckey is what we are mostly paying for in NEXGEN.

Those two things combined, bad engineering and high cost, are what will lead to whatever they nickname the system after NEXGEN. Maybe NEXNEXGEN. LOL. Then the marketing will say NEXNEXGEN will "save the NAS", too.

It's a spending cycle. It has very little to do with objective measurable goals.