U-2 Scrambles LAX ATC System
 

U-2 spy plane caused widespread shutdown of U.S. flights: report | Reuters

Another source mentions a software problem with ERAM (ERAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Can this system not handle aircraft at FL600 and up*? Any ideas of what went wrong?

*That would surprise me what with all the exotic equipment coming/going from Edwards.

The problem was a software issue... The problem was known and a fix prepared, it just wasn't installed yet from I understand.

The problem occurred when the controller put in "OTP" as the assigned altitude, without anything else. It should have been "OTP/600." Without the "600", the system ran conflict calculations at ALL altitudes, and from what I understand, the sheer number of calculations it had to do is what crashed the system.

But what do I know...

The basics of the FAA's ATC computer system is that it's used to aircraft being on recognised routes, reflected in the computer 'brain'. When an aircraft flies a direct route, i.e. made up of point to point/non airway routeings, this can cause processing problems unless input correctly. The problem was therefore caused by incorrect input, not the 'spy plane' actually 'frying' anything.

Once again another piece of poor journalism, and actually not worth placing on here...in the nicest possible way! The fact that the jet was at FL600 in LA Centre's airspace meant it was probably a Beale-based bird, which you would've already spotted has been poorly researched in the same article (he mentioned Edwards and what was NASA Dryden, despite actually being the same place, and made no mention of the L-M U-2 'depot' at Palmdale, which is ten yards from the LA ARTCC's front door!).

This is an issue between changing from the HOST system to the ERAM system. It involved LA ENROUTE CENTER NOT LAX. The U2 was VFR. However, putting OTP (on top) in the data tag in the HOST system was very common. However, putting the same input using the ERAM system caused it to go down. We actually just recently received a R&I (read and initial) about not putting OTP in the altitude field.

From what I heard from one of the ATCo/safety guys here is that ERAM has fewer core functions but more bells and whistles. Controllers prefer the core functions of HOST. When told to ERAM salesmen/supporters, when addressed about lack of core functions, their response was "but it can do this and this."

Pretty much sums just about any new system introduced in ATC

'Normal' inbound level over the London area was FL660 when they were operating from Alconbury.

That damn Bono gets everywhere. :}

Eastbound from the UK they switched the transponder off passing FL430 (IIRC) in the climb. Several hours later they reappeared, westbound, passing 430 in the descent.