Paris Orly disruption caused by "Windows 3.1" error
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Canada
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.
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 138
Likes: 119
From: Off the map
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...
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 966
Likes: 0
From: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
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.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: Scandinavia
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
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,878
Likes: 1
From: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
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.
Joined: May 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 394
Likes: 159
From: Denmark
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.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 44
Likes: 13
From: EHAM
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
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
From: The 60s
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.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
From: Florida and wherever my laptop is
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 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 741
Likes: 7
From: Auckland, NZ
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.
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 138
Likes: 119
From: Off the map
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.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: Brazil
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.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
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.)
Joined: Oct 2004
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 419
Likes: 39
From: California
Why would you want to if you didn't need the new networking features?
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 138
Likes: 119
From: Off the map
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?
