R
rmelly
Guest
Well at least the website is not potentially putting lives at risk - unlike the IAA's incompetence.
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.Well at least the website is not potentially putting lives at risk - unlike the IAA's incompetence.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.I'm getting a bit tired of these personal attacks, but regardless...
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.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.
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.using a system that could potentially fail even at reduced capacity potentially put lives at risk.
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.
But I know enough to when unfounded criticisms are made.
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.
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;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'.
Anything that affects the country’s air transport system can put passengers’ safety at risk so the IAA must be certain the software is fully functioning before the airport is allowed to return to full capacity
I thought they might improve the UI of the site as part of the upgrade but it is as tacky as ever. Have to say I'd be ashamed to have any responsibility/input into that site.
And let's not start on it being php based, it's poor JavaScript, it's WAI compliance issues and it's poor localisation to name a few flaws.
Someone should tell then that they can have a decent looking site that is still performant.
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?
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?I just lost my 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'.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.
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.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]
Anything that affects the country’s air transport system can put passengers’ safety at risk so the IAA must be certain the software is fully functioning before the airport is allowed to return to full capacity
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.