For your information: Date: Sunday, September 17, 1995 SNAFUS PUT NEW FEARS IN FLYING COMPUTER FAILURE ONLY TIP OF ICEBERG Air traffic controllers working in the large, darkened room were handling 150 planes over a vast stretch of sky last month when, without warning, their green radar screens went black. "It was like reaching up and turning off your TV set," said Mike Connor, director of safety and technology for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "Zip." The Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center in Aurora has been the scene of an alarming series of computer failures, the most recent on Tuesday. But when the screens went blank Aug. 9 and controllers also lost vital radio contact with planes, it was because of a power outage at a regional control center near Oakland, Calif. The California incident was the most harrowing one caused by malfunctions-mostly computer problems but also power outages and telephone-line failures resulting from equipment breakdowns and human error-that have hit air traffic facilities from coast to coast in recent months. Here is a sampling: - On May 19, a 2 1/2-hour outage in a telecommunications line delayed 83 flights being handled by a control center in suburban New York City. - Six days later, in the same center, a power outage caused by human error resulted in 485 flight delays over nearly six hours. - On June 6, at a center near Washington, D.C., a computer that processes radar data went down for two days, complicating the work of controllers. - And on July 19, computer problems interrupted work at a regional control facility in Dallas-Ft. Worth for 31 minutes. Many of the system failures nationally, including most of the six recorded in the last year at Chicago Center, have stemmed from problems with equipment that is nearly three decades old. Like several other big control facilities-near Washington, Cleveland, Dallas-Ft. Worth and New York-Chicago Center's primary radar system depends on an aging IBM 9020E computer. By the Federal Aviation Administration's own count, these five facilities have experienced 20 interruptions of varying length and severity over the last four months. All of the old 9020Es would have been on the scrap heap by now were it not for the shortcomings of an overly ambitious, over-budget and behind-schedule plan for a "Buck Rogers" makeover of the nation's air traffic control system begun in the 1980s. That effort was scrapped in favor of a more manageable program adopted last year by FAA Administrator David Hinson. Under the revamped strategy, new equipment is scheduled to arrive at Chicago Center in 1999. But an increasing number of failures this summer prompted Hinson to order interim computers here and at the other four facilities with 9020Es. Even the interim computers, however, won't arrive until 1997. There is no way to speed delivery, Hinson said in an interview last week. Obtaining the hardware is not the problem, he said. "The machine is ready to go," according to Hinson. It's the software. "We want to continue to use the existing software," Hinson said. "But it is in a very old language. The new computer doesn't speak this language, so we have to write a program to interface with the old software." That effort already is underway. But once it is completed, "we have to be absolutely certain we don't create a hazard with this new software," Hinson said. "So it will be strenuously tested, and that takes time. There is no shortcut." Officials of the union that represents the air traffic controllers say it may be possible to do the testing at the five control facilities instead of at the FAA's Technical Center in Atlantic City, running the new computers in tandem with the old to check their reliability. But that would shave no more than six months off the timetable for the new machines. "Both the General Accounting Office and the National Transportation Safety Board have concluded that the FAA's plan for the interim computers is a sound plan and that the timetable is realistic," said David Carle, an aide to U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), a leading proponent of air traffic control improvements. "I don't believe anybody believes the development of the equipment can be rushed much before 1997." But the alarming spate of equipment failures around the country clearly has gotten the attention of Congress, and the FAA's efforts are expected to be monitored closely. "There is tremendous concern about this on the Hill," said Jeff Nelligan, a spokesman for the House Aviation Subcommittee. "Congress must act, and, in fact, we are." The subcommittee announced last week that it will hold a hearing Sept. 26 at Chicago Center, part of an effort that the panel's vice chairman, U.S. Rep Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), said is meant to hold the FAA's feet to the fire. "My greatest frustration is that the multiple shutdowns that have occurred . . . were not caused by bad weather but by outdated, antiquated equipment," he said. Until the new computer arrives, union officials here contend that more veteran controllers must be recruited to Chicago Center to help with the increased workload that results when serious computer failures hit. The FAA plans to seek up to 50 people from other facilities to help augment the 400-controller staff at the center. So far, Hinson said, 40 candidates have agreed to transfer here. "They may be able to get 50 inexperienced people, which does us no good," said Mark Scholl, the top union official at Chicago Center. "I am willing to bet all my presents that there won't be 50 experienced controllers here by Christmas unless the FAA introduces incentives." As it is, a program offering 20 percent pay bonuses to attract controllers and repair technicians to busy, hard-to-staff facilities nationally such as Chicago Center nearly has been phased out. On another front, FAA critics contend that the agency's new plan to hire 116 additional technicians nationwide falls short of what is needed, especially at Chicago Center, which has not been promised any of the reinforcements. "We need help desperately," asserted Wanda Geist, the local head of the union that represents the workers at Aurora. "We have 70 items waiting to be fixed on the bench, and we're not covering the mid-shift. "I don't know about the controllers, but the techs' morale is as low as I've ever seen it, and people who've been here 30 years are saying it, too. We're in a situation where our workload has doubled, we're losing (incentive) pay, and there's constant talk we're going to lose benefits-retirement, health, the whole bit." Weller said: "Not only is there a technology failure, but there is a personnel failure as well." Nationwide, FAA officials take pride in statistics that critics contend are damning: The agency since 1993 has reduced its annual budget by $600 million and has trimmed its workforce to fewer than 47,000 from 53,000, even as the number of flights and FAA oversight responsibilities have increased. As Chicago Center and the other facilities with old equipment wait for new computers, debate over the air traffic control system's level of safety continues. As it is, "the 9020E is still available way over 95 percent of the time," Hinson said. "If (that) would stay where it is today, it would be acceptable." The interim equipment is being brought in only because "we're concerned that in the next three years or so we might see increasing frequency of outages, and we just don't want that." The backup system to the 9020E, and the backup to the backup, ensure that the air traffic control system is "fail safe," according to FAA officials. The agency simply slows the flow of planes when equipment problems hit to ensure proper separation. "You don't have full capabilities when you're on the backup system," countered Bill Seay, a Chicago Center controller who is a regional training coordinator for the union. "The possibility of making an error is more prevalent. If you don't do something on an everyday basis and there is a change to your normal routine, it creates more workload and more risk."