Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The fragile cobweb of BA's computer network is nothing to be concerned about.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostWith the possible exception of healthcare (which is in its own endless clusterbleep), I don't know of an industry more regulated than commercial aviation. Nevertheless, these sorts of things continue to happen. Is it at all possible that more regulation is not the answer?
The next best answer is market forces, competition, the threat of lost revenue from downtime driving preventative investment. But, thanks to corrupted regulatory bodies, we now have virtual monopolies. So you can forget about that as well.
The only option I see left is to impose the rule of law. Impose a set standard of provable resiliency and contingency for failure to the computer networks that have become so essential to safe, functional air travel. Pay to play, basically. And yes, they would pay, because they have the money and they want to play.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Schwartz View PostNot a chance. You have absolutely no idea about how impractical what you are suggesting is.
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.
But you can't have that when you cobble together networks from a jumble of third-party legacy components and outsourced IT. Until you get rid of that and build something modern and manageable, all you can do is patch and pray...
If Commercial Aviation is not resilient to schedule pressure, then that safety problem was caused by the system, not the source of the stress.
There is only one word to categorize what has happen to BA these past days: neglect.
If your airline is leaving you stranded, go use a different one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWell, the best answer is ethics, but that ship has sailed.
The next best answer is market forces, competition, the threat of lost revenue from downtime driving preventative investment. But, thanks to corrupted regulatory bodies, we now have virtual monopolies. So you can forget about that as well.
The only option I see left is to impose the rule of law. Impose a set standard of provable resiliency and contingency for failure to the computer networks that have become so essential to safe, functional air travel. Pay to play, basically. And yes, they would pay, because they have the money and they want to play.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post...Your trust in a benevolent (and presumably competent) government remains endearing as ever....Is it at all possible that more regulation is not the answer?...
In the real world, I have to renew my License plates periodically.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostWith the possible exception of healthcare (which is in its own endless clusterbleep), I don't know of an industry more regulated than commercial aviation. Nevertheless, these sorts of things continue to happen. Is it at all possible that more regulation is not the answer?
But it's a good and productive question. Do you know the concept of 'regulatory capture' ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postso the number of pax who would be receiving the euro damages award ranging from 200-600 uk pounds is what? 75,000? one would think that it would be the shareholders looking to take of some nutsacks after that payout is made
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostYou've got to be kidding me. What could be more impractical than running your airline operations on a wing-and-a-prayer network and incurring 3+ days of chaos at any given moment?
Yes, but an inevitable expense that will only become more expensive the longer you push it down the road.
Cheaper in the short term or cheaper overall? Certainly you can keep sticking cheap patches on the thing, like an aging bicycle innertube. But what about the cost of ongoing disruptions and damage to your brand? Isn't it better to spend more on a new, more robust, less-puncture-prone innertube? Isn't it cheaper to spend your time generating revenue rather than patching and apologizing?
Agreed! The issue isn't about making something fail-proof, it is about making it fail-passive (or fail-operational). That's all I'm getting at. If the booking system goes down for 30 mins, that's manageable. But to do this, you have to plan it out architecturally and have control and supervision of every mission-critical aspect. You have to have contingencies in place and a means to avoid failure cascades. Instead of a house of cards you need to have a house where any card is able to fall without causing the entire thing to come crashing down.
But you can't have that when you cobble together networks from a jumble of third-party legacy components and outsourced IT. Until you get rid of that and build something modern and manageable, all you can do is patch and pray...
Unless you've had your head in the sand all these years, you are aware of the many accidents caused by schedule pressures, manifested in get-there-itis and fatigue-inducing duty rosters. The industry is indeed resilient to these pressures but with notable exceptions which are quite notable for their mass fatalities and impact craters. Yes, the source of the stress IS the system because the system creates and tolerates such pressures, either deliberately through profit seeking or unintentionally through neglect.
There is only one word to categorize what has happen to BA these past days: neglect.
Again, I want to live in this world of yours. I'm sure all the stranded passengers from the past three days would as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Schwartz View PostThe schedule problem doesn't cause a crash. Get-there-itis and fatigue inducing duty rosters are the cause...
People are cheap. People will take risks to save money all the time.
And so we have one catastrophic network failure after another (how many in the past year?) disrupting tens of thousands of lives and opening the door for potential disaster and it only seems to be getting worse. And then we have sheeple picking themselves off the floor and carrying on with the blind assumption that nothing can be done about it. Well, something CAN be done about it but it will require the force of law to get it done. We suffer though so much corporate abuse in the 21st century simply because we lack social responsibility, initiative and political will.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostYou asked:
I answered: more regulation is the only answer we have left.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post...you seem to have a good handle on how systems work, except for this one. Get-there-itis and fatigue-inducing duty rosters are the EFFECT, not the cause. The cause is pressure, either stated or implied...
But with many flaws.
Schwartz himself listed situations that cause a lot more stress than mass grounding- and which exist every day. (including the much beloved get-there-it is.) EVERY DAY...an approaching squall line, a maintenance delay, an arrival slot generate tons of situations where there is pressure.
Pilots are instructed to fly the same- regardless of pressure...and (despite your conviction otherwise) they do a damn good job of not being pressured.
Cutting corners on maintenance happens at slow times too.
Operating an aircraft causes risks...By your logic, we should simply ban all flights as the day to day act of operating the aircraft places plenty of stress on systems, pilots, and maintenance.
You are fixated on pointy sharp needle falling towards you while discounting the 10 tons of 8" rip rap falling alongside.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostSchwartz himself listed situations that cause a lot more stress than mass grounding- and which exist every day. (including the much beloved get-there-it is.) EVERY DAY...an approaching squall line, a maintenance delay, an arrival slot generate tons of situations where there is pressure.
Comment
Comment