US FAA says it will phase out floppy disks from air traffic control by 2028
Posted by ChrisArchitect 14 hours ago
Comments
Comment by bargl 2 hours ago
I would urge you not to consider this modernization from the perspective you may be familiar, as someone who may work on the bleeding edge and sometimes sees a lack of caution from engineers pushing for change.
The FAAs safety risk management is built around a rigorous process, but that is also a massive slowdown to reasonable progress.
One of the eng I worked with was 80+ years old and just didnt want to retire. He did not understand modern systems at all and the risks we were looking at were not (imo) realistically balanced.
I get the idea that the current administration is pushing safety to the side, but there is another risk where safety becomes a blocker to reasonable change.
When I left that work (more than 15 years ago) it was clearly a blocker.
Comment by lp92 1 hour ago
If this is the case, why was an airport knocked offline due to a cut fiber optic? A safety focused system would have a backup system say satellite or mobile 4G/5G. But they didn't have such.
This isn't about safety. Its about bureaucracy wrapped up as safety.
Comment by bargl 1 hour ago
There were two independent systems.
Comment by jessa0 1 hour ago
Comment by addaon 6 minutes ago
Not really. Triplex redundancy is based on a failure model where failures can produce arbitrary output. Three systems allows majority voting (often, median select) to provide correct output in the presence of a single arbitrary failure. It allows detection of double-fail-silent failures and uncorrelated double failures, but that's not really the point, since continued operation under these conditions is at risk, and failing nonoperational isn't often acceptable for these systems. (You'll also see quadruplex systems that use the same voting mechanism to detect and disable failed channels, allowing handling two arbitrary non-simultaneous failures, for systems that need a longer window of continued operation after failure.)
If you change the failure modes, you change the architecture. These days you often see dual-dual systems where each pair of systems cross-checks and disables itself on mismatch, converting a single arbitrary failure to a single silent failure; which then allows downstream systems to accept inputs from two such fail-silent systems and trust either that is providing output, removing the need for a median select.
Comment by bargl 48 minutes ago
You can argue thats not a sufficient third redundancy, I don't have enough context to throw an opinion out there on the safety of this particular infrastructure project.
I am confident that the fallback process was considered and kept in place as the tertiary backup.
Excellent point though. It took me some thinking to put myself back in SRM mindset and what they'd have considered here.
Comment by LastTrain 27 minutes ago
Comment by consensus1 1 hour ago
Comment by GuB-42 44 minutes ago
In a perfect world, we would move at a steady pace, as to keep up with the world but without rushing, and people would be accountable without a heavy bureaucratic processes.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works in practice, at least not for long, so between the two, we usually favor the slow and bureaucratic process when safety and reliability matter.
Comment by cogman10 1 hour ago
I can understand not changing a system for change sake, but the floppy disk has been obsolete for nearly 20 years now. It's been hard to find a floppy disk reader for the last 10 years. Going so slow that you can't respond to that change is far FAR too slow.
Comment by burningChrome 33 minutes ago
As you pointed out, you can't find floppy discs or disc manufacturers any more. I do remember one of the VP's of this company saying as long as they keep teaching Fortran to college engineers, they have no reason to upgrade yet. That got a few raised eyebrows from our team. We relented and upgraded what they were comfortable with - but man oh man it was quite the eye opener for me as a young dev how the thought processes of the people running these companies really are.
Comment by SoftTalker 16 minutes ago
As long as those manufacturing systems were air-gapped and working, I can understand being conservative with changes. Of course at some point you're at risk of hardware failures too, for things that are likely NLA.
Comment by cogman10 2 minutes ago
Yeah, that's really the biggest issue with these systems. Were I one of these manufacturers I'd invest in getting the current software running in a VM specifically to make it easier to transition to new hardware. The last thing they'll want to deal with is that their software was written for Sun Spark and that no longer exists.
That said, hard to go wrong porting over the x86 at this point.
Comment by stevekemp 20 minutes ago
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
Comment by SoftTalker 19 minutes ago
Comment by ourmandave 41 minutes ago
Comment by rcxdude 1 hour ago
Comment by kube-system 45 minutes ago
But creating a bureaucracy doesn't mean you've created a rigorous process to ensure safety.
Comment by MomsAVoxell 59 minutes ago
Comment by markus_zhang 36 minutes ago
Comment by idiotsecant 55 minutes ago
'Move fast and break things' is fine when the result of failure is someone failing to make a billion dollars at their IPO. It's not acceptable in the world where failure means dams break, reactors go supercritical, planes collide, or other similarly apocalyptic scenarios.
Comment by Spooky23 22 minutes ago
Backhoes can disrupt connections, but so can failures to pay bills.
Systems like the radar in question often cannot work with broadband and satellite links.
Engineering will not save you from incompetent governance.
Comment by HoldOnAMinute 13 minutes ago
Comment by vkaku 7 minutes ago
Comment by inetknght 1 hour ago
In one role, I worked on writing software for drones.
That very rigorous process was very reassurring to me. Reasonable progress was absolutely occurring.
> One of the eng I worked with was 80+ years old and just didnt want to retire. He did not understand modern systems at all and the risks we were looking at were not (imo) realistically balanced.
What kind of risks were you looking at with what kinds of balances, if you're able to share?
Comment by bargl 1 hour ago
The SRM board knew the legacy system but much less the modern one. Its hard to compare safety when you only clearly understand one systems safeguards.
I appreciate the process being there but at the time it felt much more like (some) people protecting their jobs than the public.
The risks I felt were overblown (iirc) were around likelihood of catastrophic failure in the system.
I actually loved the overall process and it informed how I look at software, it was the application of the process that bothered me.
Comment by inetknght 57 minutes ago
Insomuch as people protecting their jobs: that's always a thing. But I honestly felt that people wanted to protect their jobs because they wanted to protect the public. Some people definitely wanted to keep their work and personal life separate with solid 9-to-5 boundaries. That's perfectly OK too. It was helpful to be inclusive of them even if their time was already filled.
I worked with numerous people who didn't understand all of the components or systems. We took it upon ourselves to be very open to questions and to thoroughly explain how each thing works. I've found if someone had good understanding of one component but didn't understand another component, it was very useful to schedule time with them to walk through the components they didn't understand to try to alleviate their concerns. They might not know what questions to ask, so I would instead ask questions about their well-known components to try to understand and correlate to newer components. Perhaps their concerns were even justified but they didn't know how to articulate them!
Comment by bargl 26 minutes ago
Iirc there were 1 or 2 people who could hold the process up and were not open to persuasion.
I was also young and less equipped to handle that.
I worked in a few other spaces and liked a slightly more balanced approach.
Silicon Valley style approach is not what id strive for at the FAA. I dont think that is the extreme they have swung to either.
Comment by HoldOnAMinute 14 minutes ago
Comment by nashashmi 1 hour ago
But this kind of precaution is quite necessary in the development of AI systems. Current regulations have turned a blind eye to accelerate software and AI progress. Now we have security bugs and misalignments, and we will have AI misalignments as well.
Knowing how computing landscape has changed in SV, I can't imagine modern day SV helping fix FAA systems. Alternatively we could go with multiple incarnations of the same system, being battle tested and proven with independent concurrences, alongside current FAA system. Yeah, it is a boatload of money, and probably wasting 90 percent of it in redundancy.
Comment by kube-system 38 minutes ago
Version control was always something that was adopted more by process-heavy organizations until the popularization of GitHub. Before that, it was common for the move-fast type of developers to eschew version control.
Earlier in my career, people didn't bother with the chore of using version control unless they were working on an important project that demanded it.
Comment by consensus1 1 hour ago
Comment by idiotsecant 52 minutes ago
Comment by weaksauce 1 hour ago
Comment by ericmay 1 hour ago
Can you provide any examples you've come across where the current administration has pushed safety to the side with respect to the FAA? I'm curious to read about those. I know there have been some changes to regulations and there are sometimes disagreements around those but I'm not sure if the ones I've seen (which aren't comprehensive) would be considered pushing safety to the side.
Comment by metiscus 1 hour ago
Basically when accident rates are already very low, even a small amount of transitional risk can add up to offset years of marginal improvements. So the burden of proof rests heavily on the proposer of change to a system that already is working reliably.
Comment by baldursdev 57 minutes ago
Comment by doctorpangloss 1 hour ago
we can look at this more holistically than a specific IT project. like in china, which is not a place i want to live, it is still valid to say, their process of steamrolling past local interests means that airport expansion and transit to new airports can be built quickly, which helps meet demand for air travel better than working at the absolute limits of safety and efficiency tradeoffs.
local control in the US infests everything. it causes airports to be too small, guilds to grow too slowly, it opposes infrastructure, it makes politicians too vulnerable and too weak to make changes that upset minor but powerful real estate interests.
so in one POV, safety is a blocker to reasonable change, but everywhere else in the world, they just increase capacity, and the huge stresses on safety limits are reduced.
Comment by jonhohle 3 hours ago
If the last one is true, devs take note. If FAA can rely on slow, small storage for safety critical applications, you probably can reduce the resource requirements for your app and improve your customers’ experience and extend the life of their hardware.
Comment by shermantanktop 2 hours ago
There’s been an incredible expansion of computer hardware and networking in every dimension since the heyday of the floppy. And the floppy itself was a huge step up from technology of even a few years prior.
Your comment could have been made in any year since 1950, and it would have been both correct and irrelevant outside the areas most resistant to hardware upgrades. FAA is conservative, and should be, but the rest of us have supercomputers in our pockets.
Have software developers abused the hardware capabilities they have been granted? Of course they have. I’d love to see some care put into that. But beyond the basics, hand-twiddled hyperoptimizations are now an exercise for craftspeople. Or…AI?
Comment by wat10000 2 hours ago
Comment by SoftTalker 10 minutes ago
Comment by techmunky 2 hours ago
Comment by driverdan 1 hour ago
Unfortunately web search has gotten so bad that it's hard to find past information about it.
Comment by skissane 12 hours ago
Another article with some more details: https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-faa-is-still-using-floppy-dis...
I know they are saying IDS-4 is a "1980s" system, but it appears IDS-4 was actually developed in the early 1990s; it uses MS-DOS and 3.5 inch floppies: https://sysatl.com/systems-atlanta-inc-awarded-faa-ids4-sust...
Comment by lp92 2 hours ago
Comment by hocusPokeUs 1 hour ago
Workers of the day were used to paper first routines; PCs on every desk were not common until the 90s when home computers, like phones in 2026, hit a fast enough for most tasks in an office constant upgrades are not necessary.
There was a lot of ducks to align back then.
Comment by Loughla 32 minutes ago
While we see improvements in hardware and software today, it's NOTHING like the late 80's and 90's. Our first home pc was out of date in less than a year (thank you for that recommendation, Tiger Direct). As a child, I couldn't run games that came out more than about 10-12 months after we upgraded our machine. It really was stunning to be a part of.
And now my home pc is about 4 years old, and replaced a machine that was 9. I plan to run this one for at least another 6 or 7 years unless something amazing happens that nobody sees coming.
Comment by ahartmetz 1 minute ago
Comment by Dwedit 2 hours ago
Comment by genxy 1 hour ago
I can't find information about how the disks are used specifically, how often they are read, written, what data they are used for, if they can be replaced by floppy emulators, etc.
12 billion for a new system that might not actually be an improvement is a lot of money.
Comment by charlieyu1 33 minutes ago
Comment by addaon 4 minutes ago
Comment by drivers99 1 hour ago
I never had a bad sector on 5.25-inch Double-sided, Double-Density (360K) diskettes, but I did all the time with 3.5-inch HD ones (1.44MB). I'm seeing some references to 8-inch and some to 3.5-inch disks used in the FAA, but I'm not sure what source has reliable information about that.
Comment by Dwedit 58 minutes ago
Comment by charlieyu1 31 minutes ago
Comment by jdelman 17 minutes ago
Comment by alex_suzuki 3 hours ago
What does this even… mean?
Comment by mmmlinux 2 hours ago
Comment by ProllyInfamous 1 hour ago
¡much confidence. fly yes!
Comment by philipwhiuk 3 hours ago
Comment by js2 2 hours ago
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/library-items/FA...
Comment by alex_suzuki 3 hours ago
Comment by whynotmaybe 3 hours ago
Comment by greenavocado 3 hours ago
Comment by boguscoder 1 hour ago
Comment by lp92 2 hours ago
Do they seriously not have a backup connection? I would have expected them to have a backup stelite or maybe even a 4G/5G mobile data system in place.
If I can use my phone as a Hotspot when Comcast is doing some service so I can work, I don't understand what idiot designed an airport without backup connections.
Comment by Jtsummers 1 hour ago
That was the backup connection. The primary failed, and concurrently the backup had been severed by a construction crew.
Comment by vvilliamperez 29 minutes ago
Comment by Jtsummers 3 minutes ago
A more useful comment might have been to say something about the depth of the backup, having only one backup connection not being enough.
Comment by metiscus 1 hour ago
Comment by ErroneousBosh 59 minutes ago
I have literally spraypainted the pavement and wall - "One fibre goes here, and down on the corner there, the other fibre goes there" - just to ensure a good separation of routes. I want the pinch point to be within the rack that the routers sit in.
I don't get why an airport can't do similar.
Comment by 80fj0348i 53 minutes ago
Comment by alt227 21 minutes ago
So they didnt have a redundant connection. They had 1 live one that was severed.
Comment by swiftcoder 24 minutes ago
Comment by Jtsummers 1 minute ago
Comment by sjia 29 minutes ago
Comment by ethin 3 hours ago
Comment by charcircuit 2 hours ago
Comment by 10111001 2 hours ago
Engineers of today aren't better than engineers of yesterday, they just have access to new technology (and new footguns).
I'd rather have a well-designed legacy system that does the job well, than an incompetently designed "modernized" system that doesn't.
Comment by genxy 1 hour ago
Our ability to wield technology has gone up, while our ability to engineer and understand that technology (as a whole) has gone down.
Age should be the most suspect of arguments against the design of a system. Enumerate specifically its flaws and not just that it is old. System design doesn't wear out, it is abstract, like mathematics.
Comment by wat10000 2 hours ago
Comment by whimsicalism 37 minutes ago
Comment by readthenotes1 2 hours ago
Instead, the United States government should have continued the policies and values that led to Next Gen, ERAM, STARS, and AAS.
Comment by iberator 2 hours ago
Comment by MadrasTh0rn 53 minutes ago
Comment by tencentshill 3 hours ago
Comment by p-e-w 3 hours ago
Comment by 1970-01-01 3 hours ago
Comment by Jtsummers 2 hours ago
If it was just two modern computers and transferring data between them, the floppy disk would have been dropped in a heartbeat. But it's the old computers still in the critical path that are holding everything back. And those are really hard to maintain. Last year we phased out a system that was dependent on computers from the mid-1990s, getting replacement parts was practically impossible, they mostly just don't exist. You'd buy old systems off ebay and hope that they had enough working parts to scavenge, and the right working parts.
EDIT: Light editing because I had some extra words.
Comment by 6SixTy 2 hours ago
It's better to test a replacement while you still have the time, than to risk rushing something else.
Comment by david422 1 hour ago
Comment by ale42 3 hours ago
Comment by Jtsummers 2 hours ago
Comment by creatonez 3 hours ago
Comment by adrian_b 3 hours ago
Comment by PeterStuer 28 minutes ago
Comment by YVoyiatzis 2 minutes ago
Comment by idcrook 1 hour ago
This one, where the tour stops are ATC data buildings, where they only stop in to swap out floppy disks for USB drives.
Comment by jp57 58 minutes ago
Comment by whalesalad 1 hour ago
Comment by bvan 1 hour ago
Comment by alt227 2 hours ago
They are signalling Trumps involvement so I will assume it must be another vanity project he wants to stamp his name on. I look forward to hundreds of grounded planes due to cloud based weather reporting not being available because of a borked server update or misconfigured wifi adapter.
Comment by stevep98 2 hours ago
Another trump tell… Lame acronym.
Comment by 1-more 2 hours ago
Comment by creaturemachine 2 hours ago
Comment by InsidiousWombat 3 hours ago
Comment by fhdkweig 2 hours ago
Comment by superxpro12 3 hours ago
Just... modernize the thing already. thats your job. It's not impressive that you did this. You're supposed to do this. You dont get extra kudos for doing the thing you signed up to do...
and dont forget to put Trump's name at the beginning. Or he might get cranky
Comment by njovin 3 hours ago
1. The party leader is a fragile, dying narcissist who is desperate for his name to be attached to anything other than the misery he's inflicted upon the world.
2. Their _actual_ historic achievements are all war crimes, human rights violations, and policy changes that would terrify their average supporter if they actually understood the long-term consequences.
Comment by TedDoesntTalk 3 hours ago
Comment by readthenotes1 2 hours ago
The inability to keep the air traffic control system effective and maintainable is far more embarrassing than the inability to update the IRS software or build a high-speed rail.
Comment by tokai 3 hours ago
Comment by ChrisArchitect 14 hours ago
Comment by theturtle 2 hours ago
Comment by Bluestein 3 hours ago