Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The fragile cobweb of BA's computer network is nothing to be concerned about.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The fragile cobweb of BA's computer network is nothing to be concerned about.

    Nothing to see here. Nothing needs to be done. Definitely not some sort of regulatory requirement for the cash cow major airlines to invest in modern REDUNDANT networks. Definitely not that.

    British Airways canceled all Saturday flights from London’s two biggest airports after a major IT failure disrupted operations worldwide, the airline said.

  • #2
    Unless you have a deep distrust that this somehow leads to bypassing of safety procedures...

    I concur that the fragility of the system and lack of backup are significant for the customer service and stock price departments.

    As we have established, the former is not a priority... the latter; however, definitely deserves a thread in an obscure discussion forum somewhere!
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Nothing to see here. Nothing needs to be done. Definitely not some sort of regulatory requirement for the cash cow major airlines to invest in modern REDUNDANT networks. Definitely not that.

      http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/27/wo...ure/index.html
      No one regulates the efficacy of running a business. To do so, MIGHT eliminate instances such as this, but at the huge expense of efficiency. This is not a safety issue, it is a business issue. It is no different than accounting forgetting to pay the fuel bill and suddenly someone stops the taps and the planes are all grounded for 5 hours while they sort it out.

      It also has nothing to do with Cobwebs or Network. Like the Delta incident, the information so far indicates it is a hardware failure which points to the opposite of a cobweb (i.e. it is very centralized and not decentralized like a web). Frankly, it just points to very poor risk management and fault tolerance to hardware failure at some key part of the system.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
        No one regulates the efficacy of running a business. To do so, MIGHT eliminate instances such as this, but at the huge expense of efficiency. This is not a safety issue, it is a business issue. It is no different than accounting forgetting to pay the fuel bill and suddenly someone stops the taps and the planes are all grounded for 5 hours while they sort it out.
        Except that instead of five hours, it is two days of chaos affecting thousands of people who depend on BA as a public transportation service. Governments must do what they can to prevent such epic fails as part of the social contract.

        It also has nothing to do with Cobwebs or Network. Like the Delta incident, the information so far indicates it is a hardware failure which points to the opposite of a cobweb (i.e. it is very centralized and not decentralized like a web). Frankly, it just points to very poor risk management and fault tolerance to hardware failure at some key part of the system.
        Exactly. A single point of failure that (perhaps through a cascade of subsequent failures) brings the entire thing crashing down. Imagine an A380 designed with a single engine. That's what we have here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          A single point of failure that (perhaps through a cascade of subsequent failures) brings the entire thing crashing down. Imagine an A380 designed with a single engine. That's what we have here.
          Or rather, imagine a twin engine airplane capable of carrying 300+ pax across the Pacific ocean designed with a single point of catastrophic failure, in such a way that a catastrophic failure in one engine could induce a catastrophic failure in the only other engine.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Except that instead of five hours, it is two days of chaos affecting thousands of people who depend on BA as a public transportation service. Governments must do what they can to prevent such epic fails as part of the social contract.
            Your trust in a benevolent (and presumably competent) government remains endearing as ever.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Except that instead of five hours, it is two days of chaos affecting thousands of people who depend on BA as a public transportation service. Governments must do what they can to prevent such epic fails as part of the social contract.



              Exactly. A single point of failure that (perhaps through a cascade of subsequent failures) brings the entire thing crashing down. Imagine an A380 designed with a single engine. That's what we have here.
              Except it isn't the same as a 380 flying with one engine. No one dies when the plane doesn't take off from the ground. People only get inconvenienced, and that makes all the difference. Same way they get inconvenienced when a volcano erupts, or a hurricane raps the east coast. Five hours of no flights from lack of fuel would cause an equally damaging cascade effect on schedules for days.

              They have decided the cost of the extra redundancy wasn't worth the damage from an incident like this. Calling for regulation of this is ridiculous. You will end up with computer systems like the ones on the space shuttle.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                Except it isn't the same as a 380 flying with one engine. No one dies when the plane doesn't take off from the ground. People only get inconvenienced, and that makes all the difference. Same way they get inconvenienced when a volcano erupts, or a hurricane raps the east coast. Five hours of no flights from lack of fuel would cause an equally damaging cascade effect on schedules for days.
                I object to the words 'only' and 'inconvenienced' there. If you had to sleep on the floor of an airport for two days because an airline can't provide fault tolerance in their networks, you might object to them as well. And let's not confuse a manmade clusterfuck for a natural disaster. This disaster was entriely preventable. As the next one will be. And the next one and then next one...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  I object to the words 'only' and 'inconvenienced' there. If you had to sleep on the floor of an airport for two days because an airline can't provide fault tolerance in their networks, you might object to them as well. And let's not confuse a manmade clusterfuck for a natural disaster. This disaster was entriely preventable. As the next one will be. And the next one and then next one...
                  Seriously? I suppose I should object to a comparison of a plane crashing killing all aboard to a couple days sleeping in an airport instead? Please. People can always choose to go to a hotel or home. I remember getting caught at airports in NYC and making a quick decision that I was going to leave and find somewhere to sleep. They don't have to stay there for 2 days. These things are always a risk when flying.

                  As for preventable? Many problems and even deaths (automobile comes to mind) are preventable in life. Life most other things, it is purely a matter of cost and ROI. Again, these are business decisions, nothing more.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                    Please. People can always choose to go to a hotel or home.
                    I want to live in your world.

                    Meanwhile, day three of clusterfuck. IT guys still trying to make sense of the cobweb. Not only do we still have zero fault tolerance, we also have fix intolerance. What a lovely mess waiting to happen this was.

                    Airlines can always choose to build robust networks.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      I want to live in your world.

                      Meanwhile, day three of clusterfuck. IT guys still trying to make sense of the cobweb. Not only do we still have zero fault tolerance, we also have fix intolerance. What a lovely mess waiting to happen this was.

                      Airlines can always choose to build robust networks.
                      Last time I checked we lived in the same world, where corporations trade off customer service with cost ALL THE TIME.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                        Last time I checked we lived in the same world, where corporations trade off customer service with cost ALL THE TIME.
                        I only side with Evan that its amazing when this happens... it has to be expensive and one would think 'worth' avoiding with some pretty robust efforts and back ups.

                        A whole days profit and expensive rectifications...
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          I only side with Evan that its amazing when this happens... it has to be expensive and one would think 'worth' avoiding with some pretty robust efforts and back ups.

                          A whole days profit and expensive rectifications...
                          Well, I also think it's a matter of ethics and responsibility to your society (the one that makes it possible for you to prosper in the first place). It's just not cricket to leave people in a state of chaos that could have been prevented by a little less bottom-line and a little more high-mindedness. But all that is so quaint in an age where the word "business" is some sort of ubiquitously acceptable excuse for not having a shred of foresight or concern for the poor weary traveler who—no—does not often have the option of a hotel or home, but must rather wait around stranded in an absurd state of limbo for days in everyone's least favorite place to lay one's head, the modern airport.

                          But you are certainly right 3WE, the expense of this debarcle will outstrip the cost of having prevented it. The problem is, this is not the result of practical and visionary cost/benefit thinking. This is push-it-down-the-road-cross-that-bridge-when-we-come-to-it-careening-headlong-into-quarterly-performance-stock-valuation-because-the-largesse-of-my-compensation-is-determined-by-share-price-valuation thinking.

                          All of which could be avoided by sensible regulatory standards for the network fault tolerance of airline operations that societies entirely depend on to function.

                          And lastly, I feel I'll need to repeat this until the tragic day I'm proven right: any element of chaos which imposes stress and pressure on commercial aviation IS, through an unpredictable chain of events, A SAFETY RISK.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            ...And lastly, I feel I'll need to repeat this until the tragic day I'm proven right: any element of chaos which imposes stress and pressure on commercial aviation IS, through an unpredictable chain of events, A SAFETY RISK.
                            Of course, the pilot getting out of bed and going to work may have an even higher correlation to crashes than the link you keep pushing... just a thought.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              All of which could be avoided by sensible regulatory standards for the network fault tolerance of airline operations that societies entirely depend on to function.
                              Not a chance. You have absolutely no idea about how impractical what you are suggesting is. Also, you are very quick to jump to conclusions without having any real facts to work with. What would others say if you stated the cause of the crash before you even had a single fact about the events leading to the crash? Apparently, that's OK in this case? I am guessing, but I think there is a good chance making a system like this far more fault tolerant would require a complete overhaul of all of their systems. That is extremely expensive. I am sure that if we look at this single failure, there is a cheaper solution for it. However, I'll also bet there are 100 other similar vulnerabilities lying there which is something only a complete overhaul and re-architecture could address. I'll even go further to suggest, they should not make the system resilient to single points of failure. Instead, they should accept the failure and allow the system to recover quickly when it does fail.

                              Well, I also think it's a matter of ethics and responsibility to your society (the one that makes it possible for you to prosper in the first place). It's just not cricket to leave people in a state of chaos that could have been prevented by a little less bottom-line and a little more high-mindedness. But all that is so quaint in an age where the word "business" is some sort of ubiquitously acceptable excuse for not having a shred of foresight or concern for the poor weary traveler who—no—does not often have the option of a hotel or home, but must rather wait around stranded in an absurd state of limbo for days in everyone's least favorite place to lay one's head, the modern airport.
                              I think the real problem is the lack of competition which is driven by cost saving through consolidation, and enabled by lack of competition watchdogs by government. If your airline is leaving you stranded, go use a different one. They will invest more heavily in their systems really quick if their monopoly was really at risk.

                              And lastly, I feel I'll need to repeat this until the tragic day I'm proven right: any element of chaos which imposes stress and pressure on commercial aviation IS, through an unpredictable chain of events, A SAFETY RISK.
                              You can always claim to be proven right on this because it is flawed logic at the core. If Commercial Aviation is not resilient to schedule pressure, then that safety problem was caused by the system, not the source of the stress.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X