Paris Orly disruption caused by "Windows 3.1" error
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paris Orly disruption caused by "Windows 3.1" error
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.
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.
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,
It also runs on Windows 3.1,
No upgrades whatsoever? Seriously?
"Saturday morning, air traffic was not that busy but think about it, if during COP21 [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...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NORADs missiles are controlled by hardware that uses floppy-disks...
And not even the 5 1/4" ones - but the huge old things!!!
Still, CTRL ALT DEL might cancel a launch-sequence!
And not even the 5 1/4" ones - but the huge old things!!!
Still, CTRL ALT DEL might cancel a launch-sequence!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whaaatt???
No upgrades whatsoever? Seriously?
No upgrades whatsoever? Seriously?
(95 and NT were essentially completely different systems, not "upgrades", and would almost certainly have needed work on the application to keep it running.)
Why would you want to if you didn't need the new networking features?
To what? WFWG 3.11? Why would you want to if you didn't need the new networking features?
It's not like this system is very critical, is it?
