Seems to me that one of the Big Questions about Y2K is the vulnerability of modern automobiles. We discussed this in our book, and noted that it was difficult to get any answers ... more recently, I surfed through the Web sites of a dozen different auto companies (U.S., European, and Japaense), and found not a SINGLE reference to Y2000. Nada. Zip. Zero. It's not as if these people have never heard about Y2000 -- and it seems to me that if they were confident their cars ARE y2k-compliant, they would use that fact as an opportunity to brag about their superiority. The pervasive wall of silence strongly suggests to me that there IS a problem -- though, of course, I don't know its nature or severity. Has anyone been able to obtain any specific information about Y2K-related issues within automobiles?

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), December 24, 1997

Answers

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

Note the response from Roleigh Martin among the answers posted to this question. I've recommended Roleigh's site (along with Rick Cowles' site) in the discussion of Chapter 3 of the book. But for those of you who want to go there directly (in order to see the link that he has posted to the auto group's Y2K page), here it is: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin/

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), December 24, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

Marc,

The USA Today article re FAA was probably excerpted from the OMB Y2K status report, which discussed FAA in detail. You can see the entire OMB report at www.cio.fed.gov/Y2Knov97.htm and I recommend you read it. I'm surprised that it hasn't moved the entire government apparatus into a state of near-emergency, but such is the state of denial today...

Anyway, re your question: keep in mind that there are LOTS of systems that could fail in this area. The first concern is the hardware/software complex that tracks planes and presents a display to the controllers on their radar screens; I believe that's the area everyone is most concerned about. But as the OMB report emphasizes, FAA has lots of other mission-critical systems, too. If the lights go out, the controllers won't be able to see anything; if the payroll systems fail, the controllers won't get paid; etc, etc. Remember also that there are air-traffic control systems in Canada, Europe, and other parts of the world that may contribute to the problem.

Bottom line, of course, is that we don't KNOW today, with 100% certainty, whether the situation will be resolved by 12/31/99. The OMB report certainly offers good reason to be pessimistic -- but maybe a miracle will occur, and all the FAA programmers will work 24 hours a day in a state of extreme productivity ... I would love to see such a miracle occur.

But if it doesn't happen -- well, I suspect that we're going to know about it at least a few months in advance. It's highly unlikely that on New Year's Eve, the FAA director (assuming there is such a person) will make an announcement that says, "Surprise! No flights tomorrow! Have a happy New Year on the ground!"

If the OMB reports continue coming out every three months, then we should continue to see status reports -- or reports of lack of progress. By early 1999, this will start attracting attention throughout Congress. And if the problems continue through the spring, summer, and fall of 1999 -- well, Congress and/or the President will treat it as if it were a completely new and mysterious problem, like the outbreak of a new kind of Hong Kong flu. "Omygosh," they'll say, "where did this problem come from? Well, we'll have to institute emergency measures!"

This suggests to me that some form of rationing might be imposed after 1/1/2000 -- if the FAA's computers don't work, then they'll require manual scheduling, control, etc. So an airport that could accommodate one incoming flight every minute under normal circumstances might have to change operations to allow only one flight ever ten minutes, or every fifteen minutes. So instead of accommodating 1440 flights per day (assuming 24-hour operation), they might only be able to accommodate 144 flights per day. As for the economic consequences of such a decision... well, let your imagination run wild.

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), December 25, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

Sorry about the mistake I made re numbering the chapters; as Steve points out, Chapter 3 in the TimeBomb book was about utilities, whereas this particular thread is about transportation issues, and thus should have been labeled as Chapter 4.

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), December 27, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

As a project manager responsible for infrastructure areas I am very interested in automotive Y2K issues. To date, I have only come across rumor and innuendo. I am currently following up with a source who has indicated that the diagnostic computer at the repair shop was used to advance the date of a vehicle. The story ends with the embedded computer (either the newer on board diagnostics "OBDII" or the "trip computer" on higher end vehicles) being replaced in order to get the car started again. I will post after I get an update on this. This story does bring up another potential failure point, the diagnostic computers used in car repair and dealerships across the world. The only other areas to be looked at are the computers that are installed in leased or fleet situations used to determine use of the vehicles. I look forward to replies to this post.

Mark Rozner Y2K Project Management Office Mercantile Bancorporation Inc. St. Louis, MO

-- Mark Rozner (mark.a.rozner@mbi.mercantile.com), December 24, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

Over at the SIM Y2k conference (link given at my web site, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin/discuss.htm) they've talked about this and the consensus is that most of the Y2k problems will be in the shop with diagnostic gear, etc., and for people to get their cars tuned up in 10/99, 11/99, or 12/99 so that the Y2k headaches can be avoided until summer/2000. There is some speculation that some minor Yuppie car devices might fail but nothing critical. I agree, the automotive manufacturers should address this problem. I have a link to the automotive group's Y2k page at my y2klinks.htm page by the way.

I won't be able to reply for a week now, so Merry Christmas. I've already gotten my 50 copies of your book, Ed. Great job! And thanks for the plug to my web site! Best of luck in getting this book to the top of the non-fiction list!

-- Roleigh Martin

-- Roleigh Martin (marti124@tc.umn.edu), December 24, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

I should elaborate a little more on my earlier reply. The talk over at the SIM conference was not after any elaborate testing, so your original question as far as I know has not been answered definitively which is why I said that the automotive manufacturers should seriously investigate this issue to validate all of the hypotheses given so far -- which was what I was basically talking about when I mention consensus -- it was basically a consensus of hypotheses that has been covered over at the Y2k SIM conference. -- Roleigh

-- Roleigh Martin (marti124@tc.umn.edu), December 24, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

Hi:

I don't really have an answer for the automotive question,but i would like to know how the airline industry will be affected since USA today reported recently the the DOT which covers the FAA is only 7% compliant...What will this mean for the airlines/US economy??This scares the HELL out of me.

-- Marc Cloutier (maarc@worldnet.att.net), December 25, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

I know for a fact my car is compliant. It's a 73 Volkswagon Bug. No chips whatsoever. Lots of other potential failure points though...

As for the FAA, I read recently that they have to special-order outdated Unisys machines because their software is too big, complex, and undocumnented to update. (Reported in summer issue of Science and Technology, I believe.) Doesn't bode well for Y2K.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), December 25, 1997.

Response to CH03 (Transportation) question from author

Ref CH03 vs CH04. (utilities or transportation?) Forum is showing Chap 3 as Chap on Transportation. The book, TIMEBOMB 2000 shows chapter 3 as Utilities. Response to CH03 Utilities (?)....If we are offered a 10-year scenario for a lifestyle starting in 2,000 then it means no electricity, but then again it didn't exist in the 19th century. If one is dependant on city sewer and water,then it is time to move - drill a well and put in outhouse or septic. If one is unable to survive or provide under his/her present circumstances and believes y2k could be life threatening...there is only one answer and that is to Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

-- Steve Alley (alley@uninets.net), December 27, 1997.

Did some checking on our '88 and '89 Hondas.

The Service manual states: The ECU on the '88 Civic, fuel injected, lights the Check Engine warning light, stores the failure code in erasable memory and indicates the the code with the LED... When an abnormality occurs in a signal from a sensor, the ECU ignores that signal and assumes a pre-programmed value that allows the engine to continue to run. When an abnormality occcurs in the ECU itself, the injectors are controlled by a back-up circuit independent of the system in order to permit minimal driving. Conversation with Service manager confirms no computer readout. Also asked about Onboard Diagnostics 2, OBD2, on later models. Service manager states no date sensitive information. Local Honda dealer doesn't have a printer attached so he couldn't provide a sample printout.

-- Art Scott (Art.Scott@marist.edu), January 16, 1998.

I have a friend who works in Chrysler's General Counsel's office. So I calledcalled and asked about where they were on y2kinternally and if there was any embedded chip problem with their cars. First, my friend had no knowledge of the y2k issue from either a legal, management, or technical perspective. Second, four days later(today) we talked. " I am told that there are no date sensitive chips in any Chrysler product." I responded, "Are you sure?" Answer: "Well I certainly hope so. Do you have any specific date sensitive chips in mind that other manufacturers have in theirs?" So I said, "Well, I'll see if I can identify any known specific automotive functions that might use such a chip. I have heard, that depending on how hi-tech a car is,that the new ones can have 15 to 80 chips. How many might have potential y2k problems, I don't know." Response: "If you get any specifics, I''ll check further. Obviously, I'd want to know about any possible grounds for litigation as far in advance as possible, but I think you have been mislead as far as Chrysler is concered. On the other hand, I'm not an engineer."

So, any concrete suggestions as to how I could probe this further, without becoming just another nudge with only rumor, speculation, and guesses?

-- Victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), January 16, 1998.

If this doesn't wake up the slumbering giants, nothing will: New York Times summary article entitled, Geeks Wanted Short Supply, dated 1/18/98: "...I.B.M. says the old 3083 mainframes handling some crucial air traffic control tasks won't be safe to use after Dec. 31, 1999."

-- Art Scott (Art.Scott@marist.edu), January 19, 1998.

My brother is an air traffic controller and he said that some of their computer hardware still uses TUBES! ! Do we think the software that uses this hardware can even be upgraded????

-- Rebecca Kutcher (kutcher@pionet.net), January 19, 1998.

I found this link on another forum and is a good article on the age of the FAA's main computers. Scary stuff. I won't be flying near the end of 1999.

http://www2.computerworld.com/home/print9497.nsf/All/SL3fly179F6

-- Rebecca Kutcher (kutcher@pionet.net), January 21, 1998.

On the subject of embedded chips in transportation, what about all of the high tec machines used in agriculture, eg tractors. If there is a problem here then we have no food production.

-- Neil Campbell (ardfern@glinx.com), January 22, 1998.

Here's some excerpts from "Lawmakers doubt FAA can fix 2000 glitch in time" by Tim Dobbyn listedd in InfoBeat 2/4/98: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration is far behind schedule in fixing year 2000 problems in computers that include those used to control air traffic, a congressional panel heard Wednesday. ..."FAA Administrator Jane Garvey vowed to fix the problem in time,... "``FAA's progress in making its systems ready for the year 2000 has been too slow. At its current pace, it will not make it in time.''... "The GAO, Congress' investigative arm, said the consequences could include degraded safety, grounded or delayed flights, increased airline costs and passenger inconvenience.... "The FAA's authority stretches from the western Atlantic to within 500 miles of Tokyo -- 55 percent of the world's air traffic.... "She said the air traffic computers alone have more than 23 million lines of code -- the programming that tells computers what to do -- in 50 computer languages, distributed among 250 different systems... "The FAA's date of November 1999 for implementing a solution to the 2000 problem was too close for comfort, and the date should be be no later than June 1999, Mead said...

The complete report is at: http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2552741699-e75

-- Art Scott (Art.Scott@marist.edu), February 05, 1998.

Can someone help me out with this quandry: If I disconnect my car battery, the power to all systems is eliminated and the vehicle "forgets" anything about the date that may have been originally programmed. If I can restart the vehicle after reattaching the battery, then Y2K should not be a problem, right?

The only way this would not be the case, as I see it, would be if some of the chips are independently powered, but are there any independently powered chips?

-- William Wegert (wegert@juno.com), February 10, 1998.

Inside knowledge from a Manager of Tax IS - GM

An analysis of their computer software has alerted the Tax department of approx. 32 software packages that must be revamped for Y2K. Of the 32, only 3 have been completed to this day. Work on the remaining 29 is only in their initial stages. Programmers are still in the process of being hired to do the work. GM has said that existing programmers can not be reallocated to Y2k projects. They may have no choice.

I pose the question of what may happen to an industry where there is much tension between management and unions, when the tax systems fail and employees do get their checks?

I can think of one possibility. Employees, management or union (we are all human), don't get paid, much unrest is raised, no work is done until payment arrangements are made, auto dealers don't get their new cars to sell to market. How large is the auto industry, that this scenario would play a crippling effect on it?

-- Ken Mazur (mazurinc@misi.net), February 28, 1998.

I'm a bit concerned with the way Chapter 4 reads -- it encourages folks to not be driving car, in airplane, etc at midnight 31 Dec 1999. But....look at your watch now. What time is it? Is it the same time in Boston as it is in LA? How are the clocks set on an airplane -- in the city it's leaving? Do they update in flight, or could it be "midnight" on a plane well before it's "midnight" on the ground?

What about embedded chips? Say a chip has the date set in a plant in California but it's used in a Boston car. You might start the car just after midnight and think it's OK -- but to the car it's not midnight yet, and 3 hours later it fails.....

Right now I'm figuring a 3 hour window each side of the big moment. I'm open to suggestions that this is too pessimstic/optimstic, though.

--Susan (using a work account -- that's why no email address)

-- Susan (foo@bar.com), March 09, 1998.

Saturn's web page claims that all of their cars are y2k compliant. The address of the FAQ is

www.saturn.com/communication/index.html

Another case of "breaking the silence," but the implications remain the same... why isn't anyone else confident enough to make similar claims?

-- Patrick Vitarius (vitarp@rpi.edu), April 01, 1998.