Ask HN: Is there a post mortem for the UK flight control failure on 28th Aug? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is there a post mortem for the UK flight control failure on 28th Aug?

27 pointsrexfuzzle15 comments

All that I've seen so far is that is was a dodgy flight plan. Does anybody know any more?

Sounds like it’s still pending: https://www.nats.aero/statement/air-traffic-control-system-u...

> We have well established procedures, overseen by the CAA, to investigate incidents. We are already working closely with them to provide a preliminary report to the Secretary of State for Transport on Monday. The conclusions of this report will be made public.

> Initial investigations into the problem show it relates to some of the flight data we received. Our systems, both primary and the back-ups, responded by suspending automatic processing to ensure that no incorrect safety-related information could be presented to an air traffic controller or impact the rest of the air traffic system. There are no indications that this was a cyber-attack.

This is the dodgy flight plan referenced by OP. A post mortem would explain in detail why there were problems with the data and exactly what they were

based on this statement it sounds like the UK's system is just a copy of ERAM as used in the US for flight planning. Enter one flight that is outside of the understood parameters and all flights need to be grounded.

Not a cyber attack, but the way it's described makes it seem like an attack vector. (Inject bad safety data, let the cascade take it all down?)

"It was a dodgy flight plan" is a way to deflect, and not only that but it was "a dodgy French flight plan"... It's likely more accurate to say that potentially incorrect data in a flight plan triggered a dodgy response by the system.

My bet is improper input validation or the French flight plan set some field that is specified but normally never used, so the code path handling it was never actually tested out in the real world?

There will probably be one in a few months. They're generally pretty thorough. Here's a previous example (pdf): https://www.caa.co.uk/media/r42hircd/nats-system-failure-12-... (93 pages)

We need to see the dodgy dossier, not the Iraq one, but the one filed by the French aircraft that supposedly bought a £multi million air traffic control system down. Je n'est ce pas?

I see some airports were handing out camp beds for the stranded, although it certainly wasnt any AirBnB by any means, at least it was in keeping with the spirit of the law, even if it was only a little will-o'-the-wisp from a bog.

Why didnt the UN declare a state of emergency because they could have set up refugee camps which appear to have better facilities, than anything the airlines or airports have laid on, or is the law really that inconsistent, it would have its own schizophrenia definition in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition aka the DSM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp#Facilities

The airports did what they did out of good faith - as far as I know, it's the airlines' responsibility to provide accommodation.

The problem is that there are no penalties for breaching the regulation, so the normal operating procedure for airlines is to ignore everyone and then selectively refund hotels only for the most persistent complainers.

This of course leaves those who either can't afford to front the cost of the hotel or can't stand their ground legally to get their hotels refunded, but the UK is probably the last government I would expect to actually do anything about it (although EU isn't any better in this case).

Good faith is an imperceptible standard.

Your flight being delayed does not make you a refugee.

First World Refugee Problems?

No of course not, I dont make the definitions up, but it still feels like a refugee and hostage situation imposed by business and govt failings.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37320322

Reply on news.ycombinator.com