| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to air traffic control disruptions due to a glitch in a 1960s computer at the Washington Center in 2000 is an example of a failure that happened within the same organization or system. This incident led to delays and disruptions in air traffic control operations in the Northeast [3].
(b) The article mentions that earlier in the same first week of 2000, a similar kind of computer problem shut down air traffic control in New England, indicating that such incidents have occurred at different locations or organizations within the air traffic control system [3]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is related to the design phase. The glitch in the 1960s software at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C., which led to the shutdown of airlines in the Northeast, was caused by a failure in the system's design. The article mentions that the computer was not deleting flight plans as it should have been, causing an overload and subsequent shutdown of the system when new flight plans came in. This design flaw in the software led to the need for air traffic controllers to resort to manual, paper-based methods to handle flight information transfer [3].
(b) The software failure incident is not related to the operation phase or misuse of the system. The article does not mention any issues arising from the operation or misuse of the system contributing to the software failure incident. Instead, the focus is on the design flaw in the 1960s software that caused the system to slow down and eventually shut down, leading to delays in air traffic control operations [3]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is within_system. The glitch in the 1960s computer software at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C., led to the system being overloaded and shutting down. This glitch prevented the deletion of flight plans, causing a virtual shutdown of air traffic on the East Coast [3]. The issue originated from within the system itself, specifically from the outdated software that was unable to handle the incoming flight plans properly. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article was due to a non-human action, specifically a glitch in a 1960s computer software at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C. This glitch caused the system to be overloaded and shut down, leading to significant delays in air traffic operations [3].
(b) The software failure incident was not attributed to human actions but rather to a glitch in the 1960s computer software that led to the system overload and shutdown [3]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article was primarily due to a glitch in a 1960s computer system at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C. This glitch in the hardware caused the computer to stop deleting flight plans as it normally should, leading to an overload and subsequent shutdown of the system [3].
(b) The software failure incident was also attributed to a software problem. The glitch in the 1960s software caused the computer system to become overloaded and shut down when new flight plans were received, disrupting air traffic control operations in the Northeast and leading to significant delays for hundreds of flights [3]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is non-malicious. The incident was caused by a glitch in a 1960s computer at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C., which led to the system being overloaded and shutting down. This glitch prevented the computer from deleting flight plans as new ones came in, causing delays and disruptions in air traffic control operations [3]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article was not due to poor decisions but rather an accidental glitch in a 1960s computer system at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C. The glitch caused the system to be overloaded and shut down, leading to significant delays in air traffic operations [3]. This incident was not a result of deliberate poor decisions but rather an unintended consequence of a software flaw in the aging system. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article was not due to development incompetence but rather a glitch in a 1960s computer system at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C. The glitch caused the system to be overloaded and shut down, leading to delays in air traffic operations [3].
(b) The software failure incident was accidental in nature, as it was caused by a glitch in the 1960s software that was not intentionally introduced but rather occurred unexpectedly, impacting the air traffic control operations in the Northeast [3]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the article was temporary. The glitch in the 1960s software at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C., caused the system to be overloaded and shut down, leading to delays in air traffic operations [3]. This incident was not a permanent failure but rather a temporary disruption caused by specific circumstances related to the software glitch. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article can be categorized as a crash. The glitch in the 1960s computer at the air traffic control center in Washington, D.C., led to the system being overloaded and ultimately shutting down, causing a virtual shutdown of air traffic on the East Coast [3].
(b) omission: The software failure incident also involved an omission. The glitch in the 1960s software prevented the computer from deleting flight plans as it normally would, leading to an accumulation of flight plans and the system being overwhelmed [3].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident can be considered a factor in the overall impact. The incident occurred shortly after the Y2K scare, where fears were focused on the ability of air traffic control computers to handle the year 2000. However, the actual problem that caused the shutdown was related to a software glitch rather than the Y2K issue [3].
(d) value: The software failure incident did not involve a failure related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not exhibit behavior indicative of a byzantine failure.
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be described as a combination of a crash and omission, where the system lost its state and failed to perform its intended functions due to the glitch in the 1960s software at the air traffic control center [3]. |