Paris Orly disruption caused by "Windows 3.1" error

[peekay4]

Planes were grounded at a Paris airport last weekend, after a comedy of errors emanating from software underpinned by the ancient operating system, Windows 3.1.

Paris Orly airport closed its runway on the morning of 7 November, with flights diverted to Paris Charles de Gaulle and Lyon airports, following a critical infrastructure failure caused by a system called DECOR.

DECOR links air traffic control systems directly with Meteo France and is vital for taking off and landing in low-visibility situations like mist and fog.

It also runs on Windows 3.1, which was released in 1992 and retired on 31 December 2001.


More from: Planes grounded at Paris Orly airport thanks to Windows 3.1 error | IT PRO (http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/25597/planes-grounded-at-paris-orly-airport-thanks-to-windows-31-error)

[DirtyProp]

DECOR links air traffic control systems directly with Meteo France and is vital for taking off and landing in low-visibility situations like mist and fog.

It also runs on Windows 3.1,
Whaaatt???
No upgrades whatsoever? Seriously?

"Saturday morning, air traffic was not that busy but think about it, if during COP21 (http://www.cop21paris.org/) [a sustainable development forum in Paris held the week of 7 December], the coming and going of heads of state gets disrupted by a prehistoric piece of software, what are we going to look like?"So many words, so little time...

[Squawk7777]

While it sounds terrible, I really don't see the benefit from upgrading your OS if it is running just fine (other then security issues etc.). The OS is not running the airport system, specially designed program(me)s do. As long as they are upgraded and maintained well, that's the big issue?

I recently talked to a ATM repairman who I saw switching a BoA ATM machine. It turns out that the replaced unit was running on OS/2 V3 which is not much younger than W3.1. Other ATMs I have seen in the US and EU seem to still run on MS-DOS.

[fc101]

It is likely that the software could only run on Windows 3.1 and while it works it probably isn't a good idea to touch it. Software doesn't "age" per se and some software just will not run on a later operating system.

Further we don't know what kind of hardware and network connections there are - these would certainly complicate any virtualisation which would have allowed it to be somewhat ported to a more modern computer.

The article states that this was a critical system, in which case to replace it would have probably cost a fortune without any real gain. What would running a modern operating system give over Windows 3.1 in this instance?

fc101

[richt_ret]

I am a bit more worried about the age of the hardware that the software's running on and its reliability.

[G-CPTN]

What was the cause of the breakdown?

Was it a previously undetected software 'glitch'? (despite having run satisfactorily for many years)

Or was it a hardware failure?

It is said that replacement hardware is hard to source.

[Gargleblaster]

Nonono, you don't base any mission critical systems on Windows 3.1. Not the year it was released, never in a lifetime, and definetely not today.

BTW, is it true that the OS running some vital systems on Airbuses is based on, the the real time version of Windows NT 3.51 or 4.0 ? Prof system, but ancient apparently devised by VAX / VMS (remember DEC?) veterans, the grandfather of latest versions of Windows.

[StuntPilot]

Windows 3.1 is not an operating system. It is a graphical program starter. The OS under the hood is MS-DOS, a single tasking operating system. Windows 3.1 has a big weakness: it can do so-called 'cooperative multitasking' where a program runs for a short while, then stops by itself and gives control to the next program in the ring. This means that one program can crash the whole system. But if you do not use multi tasking, MS-DOS can be really neat because it can run programs 'real time' without any interrupts if that is necessary. Nowadays you do not get that kind of control anymore on a PC.

I used it until 2000 or so for real time control. Then I switched to microcontrollers for time critical tasks. Nowadays I use FPGA's.

[twistedenginestarter]

Just had a quick surf and I can't find any more information than the ITPRO article. Despite its melodramatic headline, there is nothing in it which suggest Windows 3.1 had any bearing on the event ie there is nothing supporting the assertion it was a Windows 3.1 error rather than an error in some software that happened to run on Windows 3.1.

[Ian W]

Having worked in an ATCC environment where we ended up supporting our antediluvian version of the operating system we were using, I have sympathy. It is most probable that this failure in old software was caused by a timing fault caused by preemption, which will be close to impossible to replicate, rather than a normal program 'bug'. Interesting days :8

[er340790]

NORADs missiles are controlled by hardware that uses floppy-disks...

And not even the 5 1/4" ones - but the huge old things!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Still, CTRL ALT DEL might cancel a launch-sequence! :rolleyes:

[FlightlessParrot]

The worry is not that it's an old OS, but that it's Windows 3.1, which is a monstrous bodge-up, and was known to be at the time. OS/2 in the ATMs and Windows NT and its successors all over the place are fine, if they're working ok, because they're proper operating systems, whereas Windows 3.1 was a palace (including pre-emptive multitasking) built on the foundations of a timber out-house.

[DirtyProp]

Nonono, you don't base any mission critical systems on Windows 3.1. Not the year it was released, never in a lifetime, and definetely not today.
Thank you!
My point exactly. If someone wants to run his shop/business on MS-Dos, by all means go ahead. Many still do, and there's nothing wrong with it (your tax accountant might disagree).
But a mission-critical system for handling hundreds of aircraft? That's almost criminal in my book.

[belfrybat]

If that's the first glitch since release it's pretty good going. The cause seems to be undetermined.

Porting it to a newer OS is a huge job. Much of it needs rewriting, and the certification can be an even bigger and costlier job. Essentially you end up with V2.x.

[HEMS driver]

http://aviationhumor.net/wp-content/main/2010_06/AviationHumor-0029.jpg

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Whaaatt???
No upgrades whatsoever? Seriously?
To what? WFWG 3.11? Why would you want to if you didn't need the new networking features?

(95 and NT were essentially completely different systems, not "upgrades", and would almost certainly have needed work on the application to keep it running.)

[MarcK]

Why would you want to if you didn't need the new networking features?
Because the old software won't run on the newest hardware, and you need to expect a hardware upgrade, when the old machine dies.

[evansb]

NORAD's 8-in. floppy disks may old but they are pretty well virus resistant and hack proof..;)
http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/nuclear-floppies-hea-590x330%201.jpg

[MarcK]

virus resistant and hack proof..
That's the system where the password is "00000000", isn't it?

[DirtyProp]

To what? WFWG 3.11? Why would you want to if you didn't need the new networking features?


Right, who needs better systems if you're not going to use it for watching porn and the like?
It's not like this system is very critical, is it?