R
rmelly
Guest
Well at least the website is not potentially putting lives at risk - unlike the IAA's incompetence.
Can we have the old Ryanair website back?
- Thread starter BOXtheFOX
- Start date
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
As I understand it, the decision to shut down the airport was chosen specifically because it did NOT put lives at risk, but don't let the facts get in the way of another round of unfounded public sector bashing.
Let's not forget that the radar system was designed, supplied and supported by (shock horror) a private sector company.
I am trying to have a look at a few flights on the Ryanair site, you can not see a week together all that comes up is one day even though I click "flexible dates" you then go through the next day and click next day etc which is very tedious! Is there some problem or has it been like this for a while?
R
rmelly
Guest
So you have complete faith in the IAA? They had system failures while planes were in the air (radar blackouts for over an hour etc) - they did put lives at risk. They should have been able to switch to a backup system within minutes or even seconds if they were properly prepared.
As for the 80%, clearly they don't have full faith in the system otherwise they'd be running at normal capacity. If they don't have full faith in the system, then I believe they were taking chances with passengers lives by using it at all. Of course there is alternative - switch to the backup.
To the required specifications of the IAA, who saw no need for a backup system etc. The system worked as expected for 4 or 5 years, so I wouldn't blame the supplier without specific information - do you have specific information?
Do we know anything about the service history? Were any recommendations from the supplier ignored e.g. backup system, parts replacement, length between servicing, diagnostics equipment etc.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Lots of unanswered questions there. It is interesting to note that you didn't feel the need to get answers to those questions before you attributed blame solely to the IAA, but you seem to expect anyone who challenges your unfounded rant to have all the answers? Note quite a balanced, analytical approach there.
I know SFA about radar systems (similar to yourself, I guess). Here's what I do know. IAA declined a backup system on grounds of cost, which were in the order of €115 million. No doubt, if they had proceeded with this, they'd have been slammed as wasting public money. And if they don't, they get slammed for not having a backup. Damned if you do and damned if you dont.
R
rmelly
Guest
I'm getting a bit tired of these personal attacks, but regardless...
My response is just as balanced as your own. I saw no mention of the backup issue in your initial response, but you seem to be aware that the IAA turned it down. In that case they must accept a significant share of the responsibility, regardless of the actual problem, and you chose to ignore that little nugget which I believe to be core to the issue.
So they ARE responsible...they made the decision.
They made a decision, they were wrong. Maybe others would have slammed them for wasting money, I wouldn't have.
I stand by my original comment - not having a backup by choice was incompetent, using a system that could potentially fail even at reduced capacity potentially put lives at risk.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
If you've a problem with any post, click on the red triangle on the top right to report it to the moderators. If you read my post carefully, you'll find that it attacks your views and positions, but not your person.
Your lack of knowledge demonstrates that your position is not based on solid ground. If (for example) they declined the backup system because it exceeded their budget allocation from Government, then perhaps you would redirect your ire elsewhere.
It is clear from your posts that you don't know enough about radar systems to come to this conclusion. It may well be that the nature of the fault was directly related to capacity, and that the system was entirely safe at reduced capacity levels. It may well be that other manual services were available to ensure safety. I'm first to confess (again) that I know SFA about radar systems. I'm not saying that IAA are blameless. But I know enough to when unfounded criticisms are made.
R
rmelly
Guest
2 posts and you've managed to muddy the issue by attempting to deflect the responsibility to 2 completely different parties (supplier then government) without any facts to back either up, and little or no more information than I have. Good job.
R
rmelly
Guest
Do you not believe there was a potential safety issue when the system went down unexpected on a number occasions? I don't know much about radars, but without it I would have thought that for those periods there was an increased chance of planes crashing into each other, given that pilots rely on the controllers for directions once they are within a certain distance of the airport or while 'stacked'.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
You're quite correct insofar as I have little or no more information that you have. That's why I have refrained from attributing blame anywhere. I'm simply trying to point out that you have no grounding in fact for your rush to judgement on who should be blamed. You might get some more information from this news article;
R
rmelly
Guest
You're missing the point - systems fail, it is to be expected, efforts are made to incorporate reduncancy in the hardware & software infrastucture e.g. RAID, multiple power supplies, multiple NIC's, clustering, load balancing, hot failover etc.
In this case, the lack of a backup system was a fundamental mistake on the part of IAA. You can be 100% certain that Thales recommended it, but for some reason IAA chose not to avail of this.
Lets give the IAA the benefit of the doubt and assume that cost was the issue. Basically it boils down to the IAA failing to make a sufficiently compelling business case to the government to get the funding. These guys are supposed to be the experts, if they couldn't come up with a disaster scenario like last week then there is something seriously wrong in there.
From the incidents last week, and the fact that they now plan to source a backup solution, it is obvious that it should have been there to start with.
Someone has to accept responsibility, in my opinion it is the responsibility of the IAA.
In this case, the lack of a backup system was a fundamental mistake on the part of IAA. You can be 100% certain that Thales recommended it, but for some reason IAA chose not to avail of this.
Lets give the IAA the benefit of the doubt and assume that cost was the issue. Basically it boils down to the IAA failing to make a sufficiently compelling business case to the government to get the funding. These guys are supposed to be the experts, if they couldn't come up with a disaster scenario like last week then there is something seriously wrong in there.
From the incidents last week, and the fact that they now plan to source a backup solution, it is obvious that it should have been there to start with.
Someone has to accept responsibility, in my opinion it is the responsibility of the IAA.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Yes indeed - efforts were made to incorporate reduncancy in the hardware & software infrastucture. The news article did state that "the root cause of the hardware system malfunction as an intermittent malfunctioning network card which consequently overcame the built-in system redundancy". I'd guess that Thales probably did recommend the backup system - wouldn't you if you were selling €100m of kit?
It is clear that you've never negotiated with Government to get funding. It takes a little bit more to justify €100m spend than 'come up with a disaster scenario'. With that type of spend, the Government has choices between spending the €100m on a backup radar system to cover the one in a million chance of failure, or building a new hospital for example.
What happened in Dublin Airport last week was not a 'disaster'. No-one died. There is no evidence (despite your wild claims) that lives were at risk. It was a bit problem, and lots of people were seriously inconveniced, but it was not a disaster.
You can (and presumably will) sit as the hurler on the ditch with little knowledge of the actual facts and hurl blame around at will. It is clear to any balanced reader that your claims are not based on evidence.
It is clear that you've never negotiated with Government to get funding. It takes a little bit more to justify €100m spend than 'come up with a disaster scenario'. With that type of spend, the Government has choices between spending the €100m on a backup radar system to cover the one in a million chance of failure, or building a new hospital for example.
What happened in Dublin Airport last week was not a 'disaster'. No-one died. There is no evidence (despite your wild claims) that lives were at risk. It was a bit problem, and lots of people were seriously inconveniced, but it was not a disaster.
You can (and presumably will) sit as the hurler on the ditch with little knowledge of the actual facts and hurl blame around at will. It is clear to any balanced reader that your claims are not based on evidence.
R
rmelly
Guest
I just lost my response, and am not inclined to retype it, so a couple of points:
1. In computing terms what happened - a failure of a key system is considered a disaster, hence disaster recovery procedures etc.
2. They now plan to implement a backup system - strange that there is now a justification for it when there appears not to have been a month ago.
3. In your opinion who is actually responsible for what happened, in light of the fact that had a backup system been in place the disruptions wouldn't have occured.
And finally, I leave you with a quote from the Transport Minister:
[broken link removed]
1. In computing terms what happened - a failure of a key system is considered a disaster, hence disaster recovery procedures etc.
2. They now plan to implement a backup system - strange that there is now a justification for it when there appears not to have been a month ago.
3. In your opinion who is actually responsible for what happened, in light of the fact that had a backup system been in place the disruptions wouldn't have occured.
And finally, I leave you with a quote from the Transport Minister:
[broken link removed]
A
Arion
Guest
I know I've started late into this converstation, but I had to laugh when I saw this. For starters their new booking site isn't PHP based - it looks to be ASP.NET. Maybe that would explain the performance issues, as well as the various WAI / localisation issues you mention.
Just out of curiosity what localisation issues have you come across?
R
rmelly
Guest
Try doing a search for .php in the source - there are hundreds of occurances.
Hardly - what difference would it make? Do you understand what WAI issues are? If not try running it through WebKing or similar.
Have you switched to the French or German version? Half of the text that should be localised is in English, and is not consistently localised.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Did you not keep a backup? What a disaster! What kind of incompetence is this? Were any lives put at risk in missing out on your response?
No, they don't. You really should dig a bit deeper before posting. The ' enhancement to the failure recovery system' [broken link removed]is not a €115 million backup system. It is an ' enhancement to the failure recovery system'.
But regardless, this is typical of the kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario I outlined above. If they did nothing in response, you'd be complaining that they had done nothing. If they do implement improvements, you complain about why they couldn't see into the future and implement improvements.
I don't know enough about the true facts of the situation to attribute blame. To do so based on a few press reports would be completely inappropriate. It's a pity that ignorance of the facts hasn't deterred others from attributing blame.
Perhaps you should have read the full sentence in that quote from the Times before you quoted it, given that it takes the opposing view to yourself, i.e.
R
rmelly
Guest
Yet you attempted to deflect the blame to the supplier and the government...
I did read the quote, I quoted in reference to the initial intermittent failures (rather than the 80% capacity) where I stated there was a potential safety issue from the system being unexpected unavailable. Read it again as follows. Intermittent failures...'affects [sic] the country’s air transport system and can put passengers’ safety at risk'.