Business Week article: Fear & Loathing At The Airport

[Steve A]

Another article on the state of US air travel.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_37/b4049001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+stor y

[Jon]

On Aug 31, 1:23 pm, Steve A > wrote:
> Another article on the state of US air travel.
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_37/b4049001.htm?chan=...

Good article.

"The entire network runs on software known as Jovial, so old there are
only six programmers in the country who know how to write it."

Ironic name for the language in this context....


Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

Martin writes:

> >"The entire network runs on software known as Jovial, so old there are
> >only six programmers in the country who know how to write it."
>
> Seems improbable.
> http://www.jovial.hill.af.mil/

Highly improbable, in fact. And the age isn't important. JOVIAL was
specifically designed for military aircraft applications, which is how it got
used by the FAA. It is still used even in very recent military aircraft.

Some languages are better adapted to certain applications than others, and age
has no effect on their suitability for a given purpose. FORTRAN is still a
fine language for mathematics, and most of the heavy-duty business data
processing in the world still runs in COBOL.

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 12:46:23p, Jon
> wrote:

> Good article.
>
> "The entire network runs on software known as Jovial, so old there are
> only six programmers in the country who know how to write it."
>
> Ironic name for the language in this context....

I'm not sure that saying that it runs on software known as Jovial is
correct. It might be written in the Jovial computer language, but Jovial
is not the software per se.

Regardless, I know a couple of programmers who previously worked DoD
contracts on projects that were written in Jovial.

But, it's not like this would be the first time that the media was wrong
about something.

[Carl Orton]

Wow. I feel special, having written in both Jovial J3B *and* Jovial J73....

"Really-Old-Fart" > wrote in message
.. .
> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 12:46:23p, Jon
> > wrote:
>
>> Good article.
>>
>> "The entire network runs on software known as Jovial, so old there are
>> only six programmers in the country who know how to write it."
>>
>> Ironic name for the language in this context....
>
> I'm not sure that saying that it runs on software known as Jovial is
> correct. It might be written in the Jovial computer language, but Jovial
> is not the software per se.
>
> Regardless, I know a couple of programmers who previously worked DoD
> contracts on projects that were written in Jovial.
>
> But, it's not like this would be the first time that the media was wrong
> about something.

[Jon]

On Aug 31, 6:07 pm, "Really-Old-Fart" >
wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Fri 31 Aug 2007 12:46:23p, Jon
>
> > wrote:
> > Good article.
>
> > "The entire network runs on software known as Jovial, so old there are
> > only six programmers in the country who know how to write it."
>
> > Ironic name for the language in this context....
>
> I'm not sure that saying that it runs on software known as Jovial is
> correct. It might be written in the Jovial computer language, but Jovial
> is not the software per se.

Agreed. Being a programmer, I'm aware of the difference and figure
most in the media aren't, so errors like the above are to be expected.

I just found the statement ironic, given it's not funny how outdated
some of the systems have become. Some of the systems in the NAS have
been and continue to be sorely in need of being upgraded to using
modern hardware. Many were at or beyond capacity in the mid-late 90's.
USNS immediately comes to mind.

Even in the late 90's, USNS was still running on an IBM Series/1
(circa mid-70's technology). I know most of the programmers that
maintained it, and they did a phenomenal job keeping a 20+ year old
system running. It became underpowered as the growth in demand
continued to swell. Analysis was performed and reports produced
indicating by 199x (can't recall exact dates), it would be at 80%
capacity, and by 199x, it would start to affect safety.

It actually got to the point where NOTAMs were being 'dropped on the
floor' as traffic coming in became greater than it could handle. Input
buffers would basically disable until it could process what it already
had. During this time, NOTAM Specialists were unable to enter any
NOTAMs.

Right after 9/11, capacity was down of course so there was a small
reprieve, but it didn't last long. In the last couple of years, growth
has exceeded the highest levels it was ever at during the late 90's.
Luckily, there's been a fair amount of re-hosting down, using 21st
century hardware.

Where I work, ETMS was, up until the late 90's, running mostly on
Apollo/Domain. The message passing code was completely non-portable
(Domain mailboxes). It had served out it useful life, but it was
becoming harder to maintain and the hardware was at end-of-life. Thank
HP for supporting it and providing a migration path to give the system
a few more years while an upgrade was planned. A complete rewrite of
much of the code was done using Open Systems standards, POSIX
compliance, etc.

> Regardless, I know a couple of programmers who previously worked DoD
> contracts on projects that were written in Jovial.

I've not worked with the language personally. It may still be a viable
language and that's cool. I just know from personal experience, that
many of the systems are still in serious need of a tech refresh. And
soon..

The GPS Control Segment is in the process of being upgraded as well,
as it has also fallen behind the times and cannot support the newer
generation of birds planned for launch over the next decade or so.

> But, it's not like this would be the first time that the media was wrong
> about something.

I take most media with a grain of salt. Heck, they're lucky if they
get the weather forecast right half the time ;)

Some references to JOVIAL in the NAS:

I found the following statement at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
JOVIAL>

"The National Airspace System (NAS) the flight data processing program
at the heart of the US and UK Air Traffic Control System uses JOVIAL."

Also found the following (dated) reference to the Host computer at
<http://spectrum.ieee.org/archive/5493>:

"It contains half a million lines of Jovial code and assembly language
that was first installed in 1972 and ported from IBM 9020 onto IBM
3083 computers, starting in 1985."

The article is 10 years old, but it underscores the point of how much
needed to be done. Much of that still holds true today and I'm sure
some of the controllers on this forum have some rather interesting
stories to tell regarding outdated technology.


Regards,
Jon

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sat 01 Sep 2007 12:06:15a, Jon
> wrote:


> I take most media with a grain of salt. Heck, they're lucky if they
> get the weather forecast right half the time ;)


"Grain" of salt? More like an entire salt lick that you use for cattle.

[Jon]

On Sep 1, 2:50 am, "Really-Old-Fart" >
wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting, on Sat 01 Sep 2007 12:06:15a, Jon
>
> > wrote:
> > I take most media with a grain of salt. Heck, they're lucky if they
> > get the weather forecast right half the time ;)
>
> "Grain" of salt? More like an entire salt lick that you use for cattle.

:)

Yeah, Fox is the worst, with the news desk has been replaced by
extravagant looking, multi-level, theatrically lit, stage that
probably costs more than a house. Guess they ran out of money to pay
for journalistic integrity.

One of the few shows on the bube tube that I respect and consistently
watch is "Frontline." One hour of commercially uninterrupted content.
Of course, they can't bang it out every night due to the time it takes
to do the little things, like actual research.

Regards,
Jon

[Jay Honeck]

> Yeah, Fox is the worst, with the news desk has been replaced by
> extravagant looking, multi-level, theatrically lit, stage that
> probably costs more than a house. Guess they ran out of money to pay
> for journalistic integrity.

Face it -- they all suck. I can't stand watching any of them
anymore.

Why? Remember, prior to the Viet Nam War, network news consisted of
15 minutes per day. FIFTEEN MINUTES, and they covered all the world's
news at the height of the Cold War.

Then, when the media turned on (and tuned in) to the War, they
expanded it to a whopping THIRTY MINUTES. And, by God, they filled
it, night after night.

Now, here we are 40 years later, in a world with MUCH less going on
(take a look at your history books), and we've got several networks
competing to fill 24 HOURS per day with "news"? There is no way they
can keep *any* kind of journalistic integrity with so much time to
fill and little editing required.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"