On Wednesday at about 2 p.m., according to sources, a U-2 spy plane, the same type of aircraft that flew high-altitude spy missions over Russia 50 years ago, passed through the airspace monitored by the L.A. Air Route Traffic Control Center in Palmdale, Calif. The L.A. Center handles landings and departures at the region’s major airports, including Los Angeles International (LAX), San Diego and Las Vegas.
The computers at the L.A. Center are programmed to keep commercial airliners and other aircraft from colliding with each other. The U-2 was flying at 60,000 feet, but the computers were attempting to keep it from colliding with planes that were actually miles beneath it.
Though the exact technical causes are not known, the spy plane’s altitude and route apparently overloaded a computer system called ERAM, which generates display data for air-traffic controllers. Back-up computer systems also failed.
Wow. A plane flying as far above the other planes as the other planes are above the ground and their systems are freaking out because they might be on a collision course. That is some good stuff right there!
Except... air traffic, by it's nature, is three dimensional. Airplanes normally cross paths, separated only vertically. FAA has rules for horizontal AND vertical separation. How could a system designed to accommodate both horizontal and vertical separation completely lose it over one damn airplane flying through its airspace?
Except... air traffic, by it's nature, is three dimensional. Airplanes normally cross paths, separated only vertically. FAA has rules for horizontal AND vertical separation. How could a system designed to accommodate both horizontal and vertical separation completely lose it over one damn airplane flying through its airspace?
Sounds like the program wasn't written to cover Aircraft flying at 60,000 feet, and it just freaked out when it found it.
[This message has been edited by California Kid (edited 05-04-2014).]
I could have explained what might be the reason behind this. But,as usual with these things, as it was being explained to me at work, my eyes glazed over and I started thinking to myself....... "This controller makes 3X more than me. And, actually works about half as much as I do. And can't figure out how to correct their time card, make changes to their shifts, and can barely figure out how to operate the security door or remember their computer password. Why am I listing to this jackass?"
I could have explained what might be the reason behind this. But,as usual with these things, as it was being explained to me at work, my eyes glazed over and I started thinking to myself....... "This controller makes 3X more than me. And, actually works about half as much as I do. And can't figure out how to correct their time card, make changes to their shifts, and can barely figure out how to operate the security door or remember their computer password. Why am I listing to this jackass?"
Welcome to my world!
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
This incident is strange. It's not like no aircraft has ever flown in Los Angeles ARTCC (ZLA) airspace above FL600 before ... including the U-2 and SR-71. There is a huge amount of special-use, restricted, and prohibited airspace within the ZLA boundaries ... including the USAF/NASA flight test center at Edwards AFB (Mojave, CA), Nellis AFB (Las Vegas, NV) and the associated Nellis Test Range, the Nevada Test Site, the Tonopah Test Range (NV), and the legendary Area 51 complex at Groom Lake (NV).
Assuming that the story is accurate ... not necessarily a good assumption ... all I can speculate is that somebody may have operationally installed new software that hadn't been adequately tested and validated first. The bigger questions then become, "Who?", "How?", and "Why?"
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-05-2014).]
Could it not have been a test run of some sort of "jamming" system, you know, just confuse the computer system into chaos instead of just bypassing it.
I dont remember for sure...its been a long time and none of the planes I fly are capable (so no interest to me), but I believe controlled airspace for commercial use (airlines and private) ends at 35,000 feet. If I remembered that correctly anything flying above that is of no concern to commercial traffic. If Im right, that traffic is under NORAD or military control.
OK, didnt know airliners could cruise that high. I didnt remember since its been 35 years,lol. I seldom go over 10,000 feet myself. I thought airlines generally were around 30,000.
Assuming that the story is accurate ... not necessarily a good assumption ... all I can speculate is that somebody may have operationally installed new software that hadn't been adequately tested and validated first. The bigger questions then become, "Who?", "How?", and "Why?"
That's just it, Marvin. The story just doesn't add up. If indeed theU2 triggered the fault, it must've been doing something very unusual. Or transmitting something very unusual, as Brad suggests.
But this story just "dropped off the radar" really quickly.
I was a little surprised, too, so I actually did some research. The newer Boeing 737s are certificated for flight up to 43,000 feet, limited by maximum cabin pressure differential rather than by aerodynamic performance. I believe that 43,000 feet is also the limit for use of ambient-pressure supplemental oxygen (100%) by the flight crew. I've recently seen an instrument panel photo of a Lear in level flight at FL500, but I don't know any of the details.
The Chief Pilot for Proctor&Gamble told me they fly their Gulfstream G-V's to Europe above 50,000' VFR On Top. It's way above RVSM airspace and way above any commercial airliner. This is unusual to me because twin-engine commercial aircraft have to fly under ETOPS which means we have to stay within so many hours of a suitable airport (1, 2, or 3 hours depending on aircraft). These guys go GPS straight line point-to-point way above the rest of us. Now lose an engine and they are in deep doggy poo.
