Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage News Technology

Database Glitch Grounds American/US Airways 274

An anonymous reader writes "According to numerous news sources, all American Airlines and US Airways flights were grounded for two or three hours this morning. Both problems were caused by a computer glitch in the systems hosted by EDS. Quote: The operating system that drives the airline's flight plans went down."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Database Glitch Grounds American/US Airways

Comments Filter:
  • EDS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) * on Sunday August 01, 2004 @01:40PM (#9858374)
    My experience with EDS is that problem is most likely to have actually been operator error. These people, and CSC are the absolute bottom of the barrel as far as outsourced data centres go. Yes IBM GS costs more, but there's a good reason for that! I'd sooner use Accenture than EDS, and that's saying something.
  • by leathered ( 780018 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @01:40PM (#9858376)
    Sorry, have to rant where I see EDS mentioned.

    EDS, in cahoots with the UK govenment, have wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers money on failed IT projects. Notable ones include the Inland Revenue (UK IRS), Child Support Agency (£50M over budget and still not working) and an email and directory service for the NHS (withdrew at last minute allowing C&W to steal at a much inflated price).

    Though the blame cannot completely be laid at the door of EDS, the government has been guilty of sloppy auditing and the worst being the willingness to hand over extra money when EDS has come around with the begging bowl.
  • My guess ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tim Ward ( 514198 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @01:42PM (#9858393) Homepage
    ... would be a hand-crafted real time kernel, written in assembler, running on an IBM 360 mainframe - isn't that still what drives critical aviation systems?
  • Not Smart Enough (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PingPongBoy ( 303994 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:00PM (#9858495)
    It seems that computer failures are not very graceful. In a large business if an employee or even the chairman of the board is sick, the business still runs. However, failure of the central computer means no one knows how to make anything run.

    Perhaps the efficiencies of a computerized business offset the cost of short downtimes, and the business is able to grow to the complexity that it isn't worth running without the computer. A 2 or 3 hour stoppage once in a blue moon (that was last month, and it looked big) might not be worth working around.

    All the same I'm hesitant to let computer failures stand in the way of normality. Major infrastructure may be interrupted by nature but it can be scary for it to be stopped by computer problems. Who knows how long the system will be down? Who knows how much damage to information went unnoticed? Who knows what errors still exist?

    Increasing computerization causes increasing paranoia. Guard yourself prophylactically? Ask hard questions before entering relationships with big business? Insist on financial compensation against computer delays?

    Computer systems need to be built with more safeguards (redundancy, logging, checkpoints, backups), isolation of failure, data accessibility during failure (example: Windows safe mode) even for end users, etc.
  • Re:Windows (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:04PM (#9858521)

    The system in question is most likely "AirFlite",
    a Unix based system hosted by a joint
    venture between Sabre and EDS.
  • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:05PM (#9858525)
    Here around we studied it, for one major airline in EU. We wanted a "backup system" in case the main system went down. Total Cost, without maintenance, about *3 whole day* of traffic "benefits"... Yes, that much. Right now the project is still discussed but most of us thinks it is dead in the egg. Instead the "older" and "less powerfull" developpement system will be used in case of break down.

    Redundancy is OK, as long as it is not bleeding you dry.
  • by acidrain ( 35064 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:14PM (#9858561)
    Sorry, I think this is happening to a number of Airlines:
    href=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/C TVNews/1091237095342_4/?hub=TopStories [www.ctv.ca]

    Probably just the CIA moving them all onto some big CIA super-computer.
  • Re:Great News! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:17PM (#9858586)
    Ho hum.

    After I submitted the grandfather post, I saw something I'd missed first time around:

    The operating system that drives the airline's flight plans went down. It might even be a Windows problem. A 'Flight Planning' application is a low volume application where you work out the optimum route for a plane based on the weather. That bit about the weather involves serious number crunching and the PC world has more of that kind of power to spare than the mainframe world. I helped write one of these apps 20-18 years ago and the central part has since been converted to run on PCs.

    Sorry about that :-)
  • by xenophrak ( 457095 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:19PM (#9858601)

    Even though this sounds dire, I have a feeling that this does nothing to compromise airline safety.

    From the sounds of it, the flight planning system went down. This is a ground-system only, often a terminal next to the ticket checking counter. The purpose is to file flight plans, check weather airport conditions, etc. It is not an onboard system. This would not have likely decreased passenger safety.

    The reason that the FAA got involved was because AA decided to ground the planes because the pilots most likely couldn't file flight plans electronically. If left to the filing flight plans the old way, it would have delayed things more and caused more headaches to just wait out the system outage.

    However, when any business runs and depends on a particular piece of software to generate revenue and to provide a service, I would be more inclined to host such a system on something like a mainframe or at least a big Unix server.

  • Re:Not Windows, Unix (Score:3, Interesting)

    by justins ( 80659 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:34PM (#9858680) Homepage Journal
    This is undoubtedly a problem with Sabre, which EDS runs on behalf of Sabre Holdings. Both American Airlines and US Airways use Sabre for much of their operations.

    They use the same system for flight operations and for reservations? I've seen Sabre in use at the travel agent's office, somehow I would have thought this problem involved a different system...
  • by Markus Registrada ( 642224 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @03:12PM (#9858871)
    First, they didn't "complete a migration". They're still deep in the middle of it, and will be for years to come.

    Second, this failure isn't in the Sabre reservations system, it's in some ancillary product, so who knows? Maybe they have no intention of switching it to Unix.

    Third, he didn't say so, but the migration isn't just to Unix. It's also migration to MySQL! (Hahahahahahahaha. Then again, coming from TPF, coded in assembly language for 4Kword pages, and a hierarchical database, that might seem pretty advanced.) Sabre had to fund a MySQL port to 64 bits, and a new "stored procedures" feature.

  • Re:Not Windows, Unix (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stinking Pig ( 45860 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @03:16PM (#9858895) Homepage
    I concur, though there are a number of middleware apps around Sabre that could have conceivably had an issue. However, those apps that I've been made aware of are almost universally Java on Solaris.
  • by iantri ( 687643 ) <iantri&gmx,net> on Sunday August 01, 2004 @03:29PM (#9858952) Homepage
    Air Canada experienced numerous delays [www.ctv.ca] yesterday, too...

    Hmm... what's going on here?

  • Re:Wild speculation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Archibald Buttle ( 536586 ) <`steve_sims7' `at' `yahoo.co.uk'> on Sunday August 01, 2004 @03:30PM (#9858961)
    Blaming MS is the easy way out.

    I just read all the stories that were linked to this article.

    None of them blamed Microsoft. In fact the only blame pushed in their direction was your comment...

    The articles did say that there was a problem with the operating system. Now we don't know who exactly said this, or what they said precisely, so it is quite possible that this isn't entirely accurate reporting.

    I find it very difficult to believe that they would have any single points of failure in a system of that importance.

    I agree it's unlikely, but it is possible that there is a single point of failure in their system. There are a great deal of shoddily engineered systems in use today.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @04:57PM (#9859367) Journal
    Actually, my father is a retired captain from American, and I used to go into crew schedule. It used to be that flight plans were done on a mainframe. I doubt that it is still that way, but it was one computer back then.
  • by Salis ( 52373 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @05:46PM (#9859599) Journal
    Their computer system went down for at least *3* hours in Minneapolis, shutting down the entire terminal. They couldn't check flight plans, ticket information, scheduling, logistics, etc. No planes in, no planes out.

    You'd think they'd have redundancy and backups, but they probably don't. That requires some planning beyond the immediate need of the company and, even if it's more profitable to invest in backups, long term planning simply isn't considered as much.

    This happens to my University all the time. The power goes out in one building for a few hours and services across the entire University are disrupted completely. This building happens to house most of the license servers for important software, but no one would _ever_ think of putting a backup license server in another building _just in case_. No, that'd be thinking ahead.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...