A response to http://www.equipped.com/y2kbug.htm
on Doug Ritter's Equipped to Survive™ site

Hi Doug,

I've learned a great deal from your website and consider it one of theweb's best. I'm not a pilot but I am an avid hiker and rock climber.I consider your site mandatory reading for anyone who wants to beprepared for the unexpected.

I am also a process control systems engineer. I design, purchase,program, install, start up and troubleshoot the type of automatedsystems that run in virtually every industrial plant in the world:utilities, chemicals, manufacturing, you name it. I'm well versed inboth the PC and Unix arenas.

I won't call myself a Y2K expert (especially since that would open meup to attack from your friend Mike Busch) but I do know more aboutthese systems than the average bear. My feeling about the Y2Kmaterial at your site is that you and your friends, while properlyadvising against hysteria, have swung to the opposite extreme andsmugly offered the now-classic "it won't be too bad" assurance.

Of course, no one can say with certainty how the whole Y2K thing willturn out. But I feel you are doing your readers a disservice on thisissue. Time and again in your Y2K editorials you and Mr. Busch accuse"doomsayers" of acting blindly, ignoring facts, and not being"rational". In response I must say that I see much of those behaviorsin your own writings.

One could write endless pages arguing about Y2K. I would simply liketo focus on Mike Busch's editorial and offer some comments.

Mr. Busch writes:

It's one thing when a handful of self-appointed Y2K consultants and gurus hang out their shingles and their web sites to take advantage of the gullible and panic-prone.

And when prophet-of-doom Dr. Edward Yardeni, chief economist of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, estimates the probability of a deep global recession in 2000-2001 as a result of Y2K problems at 70%, I start to worry that such high-profile doomsday predictions may freak out investors enough to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause a whole lot more damage than anything that the so-called "millenium bug" itself could wreak.

...snip... (Mr. Busch describes his extensive computing background) ...

The high prophets of Y2K and their bamboozled dupes in the mass media

The biggest flaw in this millenium apocalypse scenario is the fact that dates in the year 2000 are nothing new to our computer systems. They've been dealing with such dates for years.

Pe ople like Mr. Busch point to localized disasters such as hurricanes and smugly say, "See, we got through it." But how smug could you be if the hurricane hit the whole nation at once, everywhere? Where do the rescuers come from when they themselves are loaded with problems? Mr. Busch misses the forest for the trees.

Most of these problems have already shown their ugly faces, and been fixed or worked around.

• exploding Y2K budgets, none fully spent yet:
  AT&T: from $300 million to $900 million?
  Chase-Manhattan: from $300 million to $363 million?
  Aetna: from $139 million to $195 million?
  (source: Business Week at   http://www.businessweek.com/1998/50/b3608068.htm)

• "...half of the country's counties lack plans to deal with the Y2Kproblem, the National Association of Counties said today."(source: Seattle Times at   http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/comp_120898.html)

• "Watchdog groups say U.S. plants are lagging behind schedule for Y2Kfixes despite a nationwide effort, and question their safety."(source:   http://www.msnbc.com/news/216779.asp)

• dismal progress by the federal agencies, who were recently gradedbased on fixing critical systems in time:
  
  Dept of Health and Human Services (Medicare) grade: F
  Dept of Energy grade: F
  and the biggie: Dept of Defense: D-
  Social Security is supposed to be compliant in March 1999, notincluding testing... but it took 8 years!
  (source:   http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/981123.htm)

But, "the world as we know it" will hardly notice.

But your coffee maker, microwave, dishwasher, television and automobile simply don't care what day it is, much less what year it is.

The only common household appliance that cares about dates is your VCR.

Hardly any industrial microcontrollers care about the date, either.

Timing functions are critical in industrial controllers. Guess how they figure out that 10 seconds have passed? Many use an off-the-shelf clock chip and subtract a starting day/date/time value from the current day/date/time value. The result of the subtraction is a number of seconds (or whatever units are required). When such a chip subtracts a time from Dec. 31 99 from Jan. 1 00, the result is a negative time value. Such chips freeze up solid or cause unpredictable outputs. Bad things happen in industrial plants when computer outputs become unpredictable. Want to see all the gory details with full footnotes and references? Check out   http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html by Mark A. Frautschi, Ph.D.

While you're at it, peruse the paper "Social Psychology of y2k: Tryingto Understand the Denial" at   http://www.tmn.com/~doug/dcnote1.htm.

but a spokesman for Otis Elevator says this is absolute hogwash.

Most software systems in current use -- including virtually all PCs and workstations, network servers, and the machines that route and switch data over the backbone of the global Internet -- won't be affected by Y2K because they handle times and dates in a fashion that simply doesn't care what year it is.

Take Unix, for example, which is the operating system that runs most Internet servers and routers as well as most engineering workstations.

...snip... (detailed explanation of how the Unix operating system can handle early 2000 dates) ...

While the Unix operating system can certainly handle early 2000 dates, the antiquated applications on which our infrastructure depends (usually COBOL or other languages that are effectively forgotten) usually cannot handle 4 digit dates. Mr. Busch is ignoring the drunk driver and points instead to the perfectly good car the drunk man drives.

If you're running DOS, Windows 3.1, or Windows 95, the operating system date encoding will work fine

until the year 2018 (at which point hopefully nobody will still be running these operating systems).

Windows 98 and Windows NT can deal with 21st century dates without heartburn.

If you're running an old 68000-based Macintosh, your dates won't roll over until the year 2040. New PowerPC-based Macs have dates valid through the year 29,940 AD, which should certainly be ample for anything you have in mind (unless perhaps you're a cosmologist).

...snip... (explanation of the satellite-based Global Positioning System rollover on Aug 22 1999) ...

Some older GPS receivers may have difficulty displaying the date properly after that, but they should continue to navigate fine.

Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000Technology Problem, 31 July 1998, Testimony of Ramu Potarazu, Vice President and ChiefInformation Officer, INTELSAT:

"Perhaps I can use an illustration to demonstrate INTELSAT's concerns about Year 2000 issues affecting international satellite communications. A significant part of INTELSAT's international system is a two-way communication that uses an INTELSAT satellite between country A and country B. Suppose country A's ground network is Year 2000 compliant. INTELSAT, being the supply chain in the middle, is also compliant. And suppose, further, that country B's ground network is not Year 2000 compliant. The result: you will have a failure of the complete chain. This is why INTELSAT has some concerns about the Year 2000 compliance of all international communications."
(source:   http://www.intelsat.com/cmc/policy/98-44tes.htm)

The military, original developer o f the GPS, is declining any responsibility:

"Once the rollover has occured, it is the responsibility of the user (i.e., user equipment or software) to account for the previous 1024 weeks. Depending upon the manufacturer of your GPS receiver, you may or may not be affected by the GPS Week Number Rollover on 22 August 1999. Some receivers may display inaccurate date information, some may also calculate incorrect navigation solutions."
(source:   http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_week.html)

Why are the satellite and GPS systems important?

"INTELSAT serves customers around the globe. These customers are the major telecommunications operators throughout the world. They include: the world's major broadcasters, providers of basic long distance telephone services, airlines, international banks, multinational manufacturers, international newspaper distributors, and disaster relief and health care agencies and organizations."
(source:   http://www.intelsat.com/cmc/info/intelsat.htm)

"GPS dates also are used to synchronize some electrical power plants and large international transfers of funds. Jones worries that the rollover might cause some plants to quit working, and interest payments on the transfers could be thrown off. For instance, if it takes a second to transfer $1 billion between two banks in different countries, the interest could be a few hundred dollars. But if one of the banks, relying on the GPS satellites, hasn't planned for the date rollover, its computers could think the transfer took 20 years. The interest could be off by trillions of dollars in that case. Because the rollover's timing, computer systems handling large financial systems will need to be checked for euro, GPS date and Y2K compliance all at the same time."
(source:   http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/1008/n_ap_1008_215.sml)

Most Vital Systems Are Fixed Already

• Based on corporations own SEC self-reports: "Only 8 companies claim that they are nearly finished, having spending-to-budget ratios of 80% or more."
  (date: 12/9/98, source:   http://www.yardeni.com/public/y_19981208.pdf)

• British Navy: "ALMOST 90 per cent of the Navy's most critical computer systems - including those controlling Trident nuclear missiles - are still not protected against the Millennium bug, the Ministry of Defence has admitted."
  (date: 12/5/98, source:   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=001254738510511&rtmo=VuuPPkmx&atmo=YYYYYxep&P4_FOLLOW_ON=/98/12/6/nbug06.html&pg=/et/98/12/6/nbug06.html)

• "The Pentagon office responsible for safety and security of U.S. nuclear stockpiles and emergency response in a nuclear incident acknowledges falsifying readiness reports on the looming Year 2000 computer problem."
  (source: USA Today at   http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctd907.htm)

• "We don't even know yet what we don't know about how Y2K will affect defense systems," said Edmonds, former director of the Defense Information Systems Agency. "The latest estimates say only twenty-nine percent of our mission-critical systems are now Y2K-compliant."
  (date: 11/2/98, source:   http://www.startext.net/news/doc/1047/1:COMP23/1:COMP23110298.html)

In testimony before Congress on October 29, 1998, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey stated that the FAA had completed Y2K-related >assessment of all computer systems and renovation of 99% of all "required" systems.

". . . while FAA projects that 99 percent (157 systems) of the 159 systems will meet OMB's renovation deadline of September 30, 1998, it expects only 79 percent (126 systems) to meet the January 1999 validation deadline, and just 61 percent (97 systems) to meet the March 1999 implementation deadline. FAA plans to complete implementation by June 30, 1999.

"Moreover, these projections are based on very optimistic schedules that may not prove to be realistic. One reason is that officials are counting on a steep rise in the pace of completion activity. For example, currently 106 of the 159 systems have been renovated, 9 more are set to be renovated by the end of this month, and a total of 157 by September of this year; this means that 42 systems will have to complete renovation within 1 month.

"Validation and implementation also show ambitious schedules. As of July 31, sixteen systems had been validated; by November, that number is set to be 67; by December, 118; and by next January, 126. Finally, as of July 31, just 4 systems out of 159 had been implemented. FAA projects that this number will climb to 46 by next February and, 1 month later -- in March 1999 -- reach 97."
(source:   http://www.house.gov/science/willemssen_08-06.htm)

Most other government agencies appear to be in equally good shape.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, identified seven mission-critical computer systems with potential Y2K problems. Four have been repaired or replaced already, and the other three are on-schedule to be fixed by March, 1999.

The Pentagon has identified more than 2,500 mission-critical systems. (They take themselves sooo seriously!) But Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre has testified that 95% of them will be fixed by the end of 1998, and that the remaining 5% will be fixed or replaced in the first half of 1999.

What about Wall Street?

"I was intrigued by a statement Federal Reserve Chairman AlanGreenspan made a couple of weeks ago. He pointed out that 99 percentreadiness for the Year 2000 will not be enough. It must be 100percent. Thus, the message seems clear: all financial institutionsmust be ready; federal and state regulatory agencies must be ready;dataprocessing service providers and other bank vendors must be ready;bank customers and borrowers must be ready; and internationalcounterparties must be ready."
(source:   http://www.house.gov/banking/11497lea.htm)

Most Remaining Y2K Bugs Won't Matter

A classic example is your old roll-fed fax machine that doesn't know how to deal with the date rollover properly

What about the often-cited claim that the computers controlling the nation's electric power grid will go nuts on January 1, 2000? Doesn't pass the smell test, says the Y2K guru for Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the largest electric utilities in the country. According to PG&E, any unresolved Y2K problems might affect billing systems, regulatory compliance and maintenance, but no impact is expected on the actual distribution of power. Most power is routed manually, they explain, and automatic controls operate on the basis of load, not dates.

Every power station has the same y2k exposures as any other industrial plant: computerized control systems, millions of embedded chips, and surprising dependence on suppliers. Every argument for general industrial y2k concerns applies here.

Consider the following facts from the power industry:

• Carolina Power & Light won't even test any embedded systems (source:   http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Audit/Y2K50324.html#_1_1)

• Fossil fuel power plants are completely dependent on fuel delivered by railroad (source:   http://www.accsyst.com/writers/fossil.htm)

• But the railroads are completely computerized and cannot be routed or switched manually:
  "There is a computer in Washington, DC that tracks freight cars; the application is a 1970's TCAM system program. The manual switching yard in Arlington/Alexandria has been closed down for years, and the switching is done on the fly, distributed and managed by software. It is no longer possible to manually switch freight cars."
  (Cory Hamasaki, HHR Inc.)

"Executive Summary

"The Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem recently completed a survey of ten of the largest oil, gas, and electric utilities in the United States. The purpose of this survey was to determine the status of the utility industry in terms of its year 2000 (Y2K) preparedness.

"Based on the survey results, we conclude that while these utilities are proceeding in the right direction, the pace of remedial efforts is too slow and the associated milestone dates are so distant that there is significant cause for concern.

"It is also clear from the survey responses that despite substantial completion of initial assessments, firms are not confident that they have a complete and accurate picture of their present Y2K compliance, making assurances of timely Y2K compliance little more than a hope.

"Experts contend that the most difficult aspects of remediation are in the renovation and testing phases; most of the firms surveyed have not begun these critical phases of remediation.

"Utilities' ignorance of the Y2K compliance of critical suppliers, vendors, and servicers and their lack of assurances from same create additional uncertainty for utility consumers.

"Since the firms tested are among the largest utilities in their fields with the most available resources, we are pessimistic about the implications for the rest of the utility sector." (source:   http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/pr0612c98.html)

Most Y2K problems can be worked around easily until they're properly fixed. For instance, date fields that accommodate only two-digit years will ultimately have to be expanded to four-digit representation. But in the meantime, a popular quick work-around is simply to establish a "pivot year" to properly calculate the century part of a two-digit year. For example if 40 were used as the pivot year, then a number less than 40 would be interpreted to mean a year in the 2000s, while a number of 40 or greater would be interpreted to mean a year in the 1900s. For the majority of date-sensitive applications in which valid dates can be assumed to fall within some 100-year range, this "hack" works fine until a more elegant solution can be implemented.

Even if some crippling Y2K glitch were to make it through compliance testing somehow, and then suddenly show up on millenium morn, so what? We deal with computer failures all the time.

Every critical computer system has backups and fallback procedures in place to ensure that life goes on even if the computer goes down.

So long as these failures are isolated exceptions rather than the general rule, they'll be nothing that can't be handled.

The backup for my skeptical position is the hard data showing what's at risk, what's fixed, and what remains to be done before the deadline. Mr. Busch's backup comes from the PR hacks whose job it is to soothe public concern and keep share prices up.

And if you've read this far and still believe that a massive computer meltdown will occur at the stroke of midnight, then I guess maybe you better pack up your cash, food and ammo and head for the hills.

Aviation Will Be Affected Only Minimally

More importantly, lift is what keeps planes aloft, not computers.

Check it out: "The Aviation Insurance Officers Association and Lloyds'Aviation Underwriters have jointly drafted an exclusion clause, to beagreed by members of the London aviation market by the end ofFebruary. "Year 2000 is an entirely foreseeable problem, so it doesn'tconform to the requirement of a valid claim; that an event must befortuitous," said association chairman Keith Selby. ...
Air traffic controllers at an emergency meeting of the International Federation of Airline Controllers last week simulated the date change. Their screens went blank."
(source:   http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/news/22_01_98/08598503239/C21.html)

I suppose one could argue that certain embedded computers (notably FADECs and fly-by-wire control systems) do keep planes up, but those computers could care less about dates,

not to mention that they've been stress-tested up the wazoo.

Computers don't keep planes from colliding, either. Pilots do. Just ask any pilot who was flying in Northern California on Wednesday morning, August 9, 1995, when Oakland Center experienced a total blackout that took out all radar and radio communications for 45 minutes. There were no midairs or even NMACs.

..snip... (closing statements)...

Many thanks,
Mike Adams

Back to Grrr's main Y2K page 

 
version 1.00       16dec1998       chris@grrr.net