Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Airports' Efforts to Deal with Date
Change Problem (Letter Report, 01/29/99, GAO/RCED/AIMD-99-57).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of
airports' efforts to prepare for the year 2000, focusing on: (1) the
status of airports' efforts to help ensure that their computers and
electronic equipment will function properly on and after January 1,
2000; (2) how the safety, the security, and the efficiency of the
National Airspace System will be affected if airports' year 2000
preparations are not completed in time; and (3) the factors that will
affect the progress of airports' preparations for the year 2000.
GAO noted that: (1) the nation's airports have been making progress in
preparing for the year 2000; (2) however, there is substantial variation
in the progress they have achieved and the approaches they have been
taking; (3) among the airports responding to GAO's survey, about
one-third reported that they would meet the June 30, 1999 date the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommended to complete
preparations for addressing the year 2000 date change; another one-third
did not report that they would meet this date but had begun contingency
planning to help ensure continued operations if equipment malfunctions;
and a final one-third did not meet either of these criteria; (4) the
final third are mostly small airports, but they include 9 of the
nation's 50 largest airports; (5) officials at airports and FAA agreed
that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the safety and the
security of the National Airspace System before and after the year 2000
date change; (6) however, airports that do not meet FAA's June 1999
recommended preparation date are at increased risk of experiencing some
equipment malfunctions; (7) if manual procedures must be substituted for
operations normally controlled by automated equipment, an airport's
efficiency--its ability to handle its normal number of scheduled flights
per day--would decrease and thus cause flight delays; (8) because of the
interdependence among airline flights and airport facilities, delays at
one airport could cause delays at other airports and eventually affect
the efficiency of the National Airspace System; (9) the severity of
these delays would depend to a large extent on the size of the airports
and which equipment malfunctions; (10) FAA, airport, and other aviation
industry officials cited several factors that have affected the
timeliness of year 2000 preparations, including an airport's use of
contractors, the assistance provided by aviation industry associations,
and the activities undertaken by Congress and by FAA; (11) contractors
have helped some airports prepare for the year 2000 by providing them
with the trained personnel they lack; and (12) aviation industry
associations have helped increase airports' awareness of the
implications of the year 2000 through discussions at seminars and
workshops and by identifying airport equipment that might be vulnerable
to problems caused by the date change.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED/AIMD-99-57
TITLE: Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Airports' Efforts to
Deal with Date Change Problem
DATE: 01/29/99
SUBJECT: Y2K
Airports
Air transportation operations
Information resources management
Systems conversions
Computer software
Air traffic control systems
Data integrity
IDENTIFIER: FAA National Airspace System Plan
FAA Airport Improvement Program
Y2K
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
January 1999
YEAR 2000 COMPUTING CRISIS -
STATUS OF AIRPORTS' EFFORTS TO
DEAL WITH DATE CHANGE PROBLEM
GAO/RCED/AIMD-99-57
Airports' Efforts to Prepare for the Year 2000
(348102)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AAAE - American Association of Airport Executives
ACI -
ACI-NA - Airports Council International-North America
AIP - Airport Improvement Program
ATA - Air Transport Association of America
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
GAO - General Accounting Office
NAS - National Airspace System
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-280090
January 29, 1999
The Honorable John McCain
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
The Honorable Slade Gorton
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
United States Senate
The successful operation of the National Airspace System--the network
supporting U.S. aviation operations that includes navigation
facilities, airports, equipment, services, and information and
rules--is dependent, in part, on the equipment, including computers,
that airports use to carry out their operations. This equipment
helps provide safe, secure, and efficient aircraft operations and
other services to the public; it includes controls for such functions
as lighting runways, monitoring access to secured areas, handling
baggage, and fueling aircraft. Because the software and hardware
components used to control airport equipment may not be able to
distinguish between the years 1900 and 2000, this equipment may
malfunction when the date changes from 1999 to 2000.
This report responds to your request to examine the status of
airports' efforts to prepare for the year 2000 and to help ensure
that the equipment supporting the functions needed for the safe and
efficient operation of our nation's airports will be ready.
Specifically, we agreed to address the following: (1) What is the
status of airports' efforts to help ensure that their computers and
electronic equipment will function properly on and after January 1,
2000? (2) How will the safety, the security, and the efficiency of
the National Airspace System be affected if airports' Year 2000
preparations are not completed in time? and (3) What factors affect
the progress of airports' preparations for the year 2000?
The operations we examined in this review include those under the
control, in whole or in part, of the nation's airports. They do not
include such other critical functions in the nation's air
transportation system as the air traffic control system operated by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the operations and the
maintenance of aircraft and other equipment owned or operated by the
nation's airlines. Our primary method of data collection for this
report was a questionnaire we mailed to 413 airports owned by local
municipalities, states, and regional or independent authorities.
This questionnaire focused on airports' preparations to help ensure
essential operations continue through and after the year 2000. The
questionnaire was based, in part, on a GAO publication describing a
structured approach for addressing the Year 2000 date change.\1 To
obtain the highest possible response rate, we agreed with your staff
that the responses from individual airports would remain
confidential. As of December 1998, we obtained responses from 334
airports (81 percent), which represent about 96 percent of the
passengers that were served by U.S. airports in 1996. For a full
description of our methodology, see appendix I.
--------------------
\1 Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide
(GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, Sept. 1997).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The nation's airports have been making progress in preparing for the
year 2000. However, there is substantial variation in the progress
they have achieved and the approaches they have been taking. Among
the airports responding to our survey, about one-third reported that
they would meet the June 30, 1999, date FAA recommended to complete
preparations for addressing the Year 2000 date change; another
one-third did not report that they would meet this date but had begun
contingency planning to help ensure continued operations if equipment
malfunctions; and a final one-third did not meet either of these
criteria. This final third are mostly small airports, but they
include 9 of the nation's 50 largest airports.\2 Also, many airports
were not following a comprehensive and structured approach, which is
the most effective way to prepare for the year 2000. The airports
that responded to our questionnaire have completed, on average, less
than half of their repair work.
Officials at airports and FAA agreed that adequate safeguards are in
place to ensure the safety and the security of the National Airspace
System before and after the Year 2000 date change. However, airports
that do not meet FAA's June 1999 recommended preparation date are at
increased risk of experiencing some equipment malfunctions. If
manual procedures must be substituted for operations normally
controlled by automated equipment, an airport's efficiency--its
ability to handle its normal number of scheduled flights per
day--would decrease and thus cause flight delays. Because of the
interdependence among airline flights and airport facilities, delays
at one airport could cause delays at other airports and eventually
affect the efficiency of the National Airspace System. The severity
of these delays would depend to a large extent on the size of the
airports and which equipment malfunctions.
FAA, airport, and other aviation industry officials cited several
factors that have affected the timeliness of Year 2000 preparations,
including an airport's use of contractors, the assistance provided by
aviation industry associations, and the activities undertaken by the
Congress and by FAA. Contractors have helped some airports prepare
for the year 2000 by providing them with the trained personnel they
lack. Aviation industry associations have helped increase airports'
awareness of the implications of the year 2000 through discussions at
seminars and workshops and by identifying airport equipment that
might be vulnerable to problems caused by the date change. In
October 1998, the Congress passed legislation to encourage the
sharing of information about Year 2000 equipment readiness and
testing, and FAA established criteria that airports must meet to
verify that the equipment used to support the safety and security
activities the agency regulates is ready for the year 2000.
--------------------
\2 We grouped the airports in our analysis into three categories
according to their size, which was based on the number of passengers
they served in 1996. "Large" represents the 50 airports that served
the largest number of passengers (over 83 percent of the passengers);
"medium" represents the 91 airports that served about 15 percent of
the passengers; and "small" represents the 272 airports that served
about 3 percent of the passengers. In general, large and
medium-sized airports are more dependent on automation than small
airports (see app. I).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Airports are an important component of the National Airspace System
(NAS), as they are the entry and exit points to the NAS for most
travelers. Although airports differ greatly in size and in the
services they provide, most airports provide parking services,
security and access control on their grounds, baggage-handling
services, aircraft fueling, navigational support (such as runway
lighting), and emergency communications throughout the airport and to
ground crews. Some airports also provide such additional services as
moving sidewalks and subways to connect terminals and computerized
monitoring of runway conditions. To help provide these services,
airports often rely on computer systems and other equipment with
internal microprocessors. Some of these functions--such as baggage
handling, controlling access to secured areas, and runway
lighting--can also be performed manually and often are performed
manually at small airports.
Other key NAS components include U.S. airlines and FAA's air traffic
control system, both of which provide many functions at airports.
Airlines often provide their own ticketing and check-in systems, jet
bridges (movable walkways to connect an aircraft to an airport's
gates), and X-ray screening devices. FAA provides air traffic
surveillance, navigation, and communications for aircraft. Although
FAA and the airlines both have personnel, facilities, and equipment
at airports, the responsibilities of an airport operator do not
extend to them. Additionally, such conveniences as restaurants,
automatic teller machines, and gift shops are not usually the
responsibility of the airport; they are usually operated by
contractors who lease space from the airport.
On January 1, 2000, many computers worldwide could malfunction (e.g.,
produce inaccurate information) or fail simply because the year will
change from 1999 to 2000. Such malfunctions or failures could have a
costly, widespread impact. The problem comes from how computers and
other microprocessors have recorded and computed dates for the past
several decades. Typically, they have used two digits to represent
the year--such as "98" for 1998--to save electronic storage space and
reduce operating costs. In such a format, however, 2000 is
indistinguishable from 1900. Nationwide, software and computer
experts are concerned that this could cause computers and equipment
with internal microprocessors to malfunction in unforeseen ways or to
fail completely.
To help airports prepare for the year 2000, FAA and the aviation
industry have developed of a list of 22 core functions for airports,
such as baggage handling, access control, and aircraft fueling.\3
Each core function includes specific, discrete tasks that, when
carried out together, meet an essential operational need of an
airport, such as communications, access control, or aircraft fueling.
Certain core functions having to do with safety and security are
regulated by FAA and therefore must be present at airports, such as
providing navigational aids and access control. FAA, however, does
not prescribe what equipment, if any, airports must use to perform
these regulated core functions. Other core functions, including
automated baggage handling, aircraft fueling, and ground support,\4
help airports meet other needs or enhance the passengers' convenience
and efficiency. FAA has also recommended that airports either (1)
complete the process of ensuring that all their equipment supporting
core functions regulated by FAA is Year 2000-compliant or (2) have
contingency plans to ensure the continued operation of these
functions.
To help federal agencies prepare for the year 2000, we have issued
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide, which discusses the
scope of the challenges and offers a structured, step-by-step
approach to review and assess an organization's readiness to handle
the Year 2000 problem. The guide's general principles are being
widely used by entities outside the federal government, and we
believe this approach would also help airports better prepare for the
year 2000.
However, even if an organization uses a structured approach to
prepare for the year 2000, its operations could still face major
disruptions. Many organizations will not be able to repair or
replace, fully test, and implement all of their essential equipment
in time. Furthermore, equipment that an organization considers to be
completely repaired, validated, and implemented may encounter
unanticipated Year 2000 problems because exhaustive testing of
interconnected production systems is not a practical option.
Moreover, essential services provided by the public infrastructure
(including electricity, water, transportation, and voice and data
telecommunications) are also vulnerable to Year 2000-induced
equipment failures. To mitigate the risk of equipment failures and
their potential impact, organizations must ensure that they have
established contingency plans to provide operational continuity and
to support their core functions.\5
--------------------
\3 Our questionnaire focused on 14 of these core functions. To
minimize the time respondents would need to fill out our
questionnaire, we omitted the functions that are neither required by
FAA for certification under part 139 (Airport Certification and
Operations), part 107 (Airport Security), or part 108 (Airplane
Operator Security) of the Federal Aviation Regulations nor deemed
"airfield critical." (For a detailed list of core functions, see
table I.1 in app. I).
\4 Ground support includes such services as gate assignment and snow
and ice control.
\5 For a complete discussion of continuity and contingency planning,
see GAO's Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and
Contingency Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, Aug. 1998).
SOME AIRPORTS MAY FINISH YEAR
2000 PREPARATIONS LATE AND ARE
NOT FOLLOWING A STRUCTURED
APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Airports are making progress in their efforts to prepare for the year
2000, but their efforts vary considerably. Nearly a third of the
airports that responded to our questionnaire reported that they will
not complete their preparations for the Year 2000 problem by FAA's
recommended date of June 30, 1999, and have no contingency plans in
place. Moreover, many airports lack some or all of the chief
components of a structured approach to Year 2000 repairs, which is
most likely to ensure success.
MANY AIRPORTS WILL NOT
COMPLETE PREPARATIONS BY THE
RECOMMENDED DATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
The Office Of Management and Budget (OMB) has set milestones of
September 1998, January 1999, and March 1999, respectively, for
federal agencies to complete renovating, testing, and implementing
their systems. FAA has announced it will complete its preparations
by June 30, 1999, and has recommended the same date to airports as
the deadline for either (1) completing the process of ensuring that
all their equipment supporting the core functions related to safety
is Year 2000 ready or (2) implementing contingency plans to ensure
the continuation of these functions.
Fewer than 15 percent of the responding airports indicated that they
intended to meet OMB's March date for completing preparations.
Slightly more than a third (but nearly half of the large airports)
expected to meet FAA's June 1999 recommended date. An additional 32
percent indicated they had not yet determined their completion date.
We asked the airports whether they had developed contingency plans
for each of the 14 core functions in the event that the Year 2000
date change caused equipment malfunctions. Just over half of the
airports reported contingency plans for at least one core function.
In general, large airports have contingency plans for more functions
than small airports. However, a substantial number of the airports
(about a third of the large airports, about a quarter of the
medium-sized airports, and half of the small airports) reported they
had no contingency plans, did not know of such plans for any of their
core functions, or did not respond.
Many of the airports (32 percent) indicated that they would not meet
FAA's deadline and also reported that they did not have any
contingency plans. These include 9 large airports, 19 medium-sized
airports, and 79 small airports (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Estimated Percentage
of Airports Not Prepared by
June 1999 and Having No
Contingency Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's survey of U.S. airports.
MANY AIRPORTS LACK KEY
ELEMENTS OF A STRUCTURED
APPROACH TO THE YEAR 2000
PROBLEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
We asked respondents to our questionnaire about a number of elements
considered important to developing a structured approach to managing
the Year 2000 problem. These included program oversight; program
plans; program-tracking mechanisms; inventories of systems,
equipment, and data exchanges; efforts to determine how to fix
systems; and the status of renovation efforts, testing and validation
plans, and contingency plans. We did not validate the information
the airports reported. Most airports reported that their Year 2000
programs were in place, with defined management responsibilities and
tracking mechanisms and inventories of potentially affected equipment
already complete or in process. However, most airports had not yet
determined how to renovate all their equipment. The large airports
typically reported following a more structured approach than the
small ones. As noted earlier, the large and medium-sized airports
are generally more dependent on automation than the small airports.
PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.1
A central program office with the authority to manage and coordinate
Year 2000 activities is a key element to a successful program.
Because of the interdependencies among an airport's computers,
equipment, applications, and databases, the date change problem
requires centrally developed and integrated renovation plans,
validation standards and tests, and resource allocations. Nearly all
airports reported that a specific person or group had oversight
responsibility for Year 2000 preparations. The large airports were
more likely than the medium-sized or small airports to have appointed
a Year 2000 program manager rather than adding this responsibility to
the airport administrator's other responsibilities. Only 16
airports, all of them small airports, reported having no person or
group with specific oversight responsibility in this area (see fig.
2).
Figure 2: Person or Group Who
Oversees the Airports' Year
2000 Efforts
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's survey of U.S. airports.
PROGRAM PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.2
A Year 2000 program plan should include, among other things,
schedules for all tasks and phases of the Year 2000 program, an
assessment and a selection of repair options, an assignment of
conversion or replacement projects to Year 2000 project teams, a risk
assessment of the systems' and the equipment's vulnerabilities to the
year 2000, and contingency plans. Of the airports we surveyed, only
16 percent reported completing their Year 2000 plans. A third were
in the process of completing these plans, and about half (about
two-thirds of them small airports) reported not having a written plan
at all (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Degree of Completion
of the Airports' Year 2000
Plans
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's survey of U.S. airports.
TRACKING MECHANISMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.3
Two-thirds of airports actively track the progress of their Year 2000
activities--though tracking was more common at the large airports
than at the small ones. Ninety-four percent of the large airports,
81 percent of the medium-sized airports, and 55 percent of the small
airports reported that they had tracking mechanisms.
INVENTORIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.4
A comprehensive inventory of systems and electronic equipment
provides the necessary foundation for Year 2000 program planning and
helps to ensure that all the equipment is identified. Nearly all the
airports indicated that they had already developed or were in the
process of developing an inventory of their systems and electronic
equipment (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Status of Airports'
Year 2000 Computer and
Equipment Inventories
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's survey of U.S. airports.
DATA EXCHANGES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.5
Some electronic systems that support an airport's core functions
exchange data with other systems not directly under that airport's
control. For example, according to some officials, some information
systems exchange personnel information with local government offices,
and others exchange information on gate and baggage locations with
the airlines' flight information systems. Airports must address data
exchange issues, including notifying outside entities with whom they
exchange information about any changes to their computers to address
the Year 2000 problem. They must also develop verification processes
for incoming external data and develop procedures to handle invalid
data for airports' progress in this area (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Percentage of the
Airports That Have a
Comprehensive List of Data
Exchanges
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's survey of U.S. airports.
PRIORITIZING AND
DETERMINING RENOVATION
PLANS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.6
Organizations should review their inventory to identify
mission-critical systems, determine how to best renovate them (either
through repair, replacement, or retirement), schedule renovation
activities, and test the new systems. Of 262 airports reporting on
whether they had assessed their inventories to identify
mission-critical systems, over two-thirds said they had. Of these,
fewer than 40 percent of the airports reported that they had
determined how they will renovate all of their affected systems.
STATUS OF RENOVATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.7
We asked the airports how far they had progressed in renovating the
systems associated with each of the 14 core functions. The airports
reported that, on average, they had completed more than half of the
work on about four core functions and half or less of the work on the
remaining functions. The airports reported the least progress in the
areas of environmental systems and airport services (e.g., elevators
and moving sidewalks) and the most progress in such areas as
administration and weather systems (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Status of the
Airports' Renovation Work on
Core Functions
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's survey of U.S. airports.
TESTING AND VALIDATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.8
Testing and validating all repaired systems and equipment are
important steps to help ensure that these components perform as
expected. Over half of the airports reported that, rather than
perform tests themselves, they will rely on the manufacturers'
certifications to document that the majority of their systems and
electronic equipment are ready for the year 2000. This was true for
about 36 percent of the large airports, about 60 percent of the
medium-sized airports, and slightly over half of the small airports.
Almost a third of the large and over half of the medium-sized
airports reported that they had already received such certification
for their equipment.
AIRPORT OFFICIALS STATE THAT
YEAR 2000 MALFUNCTIONS ARE
UNLIKELY TO AFFECT SAFETY AND
SECURITY BUT COULD COMPROMISE
AN AIRPORT'S EFFICIENCY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
To continue operations, FAA requires that airports meet certain
safety and security standards. Airport officials do not expect core
functions to be compromised by Year 2000 problems because they can
resort to manual backup procedures. However, manual procedures could
seriously reduce an airport's efficiency, thus causing delays that
could ripple through the NAS. Given the short time remaining for
airports to complete their Year 2000 preparations, it appears likely
that some critical equipment will fail or malfunction, the efficiency
of some airports will be degraded, and delays resulting from less
efficient backup procedures or the closures of some airports for
safety and security reasons could reduce the efficiency of the NAS.
SAFETY AND SECURITY ARE NOT
EXPECTED TO BE COMPROMISED,
BUT RELIABLE BACKUP
PROCEDURES MUST BE AVAILABLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Under Federal Aviation Regulations, airports are required to provide
a number of safety- and security-related functions, such as access
control, fuel services, runway lighting and monitoring, and emergency
communications. FAA does not specify how these functions are to be
provided; an airport may use any method, system, or procedure to
provide them. If an airport is unable to provide any of these safety
and security functions, FAA requires it to suspend or restrict
operations. (For a complete list of FAA's required safety and
security functions, see app. I.)
Airport officials reported that their airport's safety and security
functions are unlikely to be affected by year 2000-induced systems
malfunctions because their airport could resort to manual backup
procedures. For example, if an access control system were to
malfunction, FAA officials said an airport would be permitted to post
guards to control key access points. Similarly, if runway lighting
systems were to malfunction, airport officials reported that they
could operate the runway lights manually or restrict landings to
daylight hours and divert any aircraft arriving after dark to other
airports.
Such contingency plans, however, will need to be fully developed and
tested to help ensure that safety or security is not degraded. For
example, some airport officials indicated that their contingency
plans for Year 2000 malfunctions with their baggage-handling and
access control equipment involve substituting manual procedures.
Such contingency plans could require hiring additional airport
personnel and performing background checks. In addition, employees
performing unfamiliar tasks to compensate for the malfunction of
automated equipment would have to be trained to minimize the
possibility of human errors affecting airport safety or security.
Some airport officials were concerned about having the human
resources they might need to respond to equipment malfunctions.
Citing the "tight local labor market," they expressed concerns about
their ability to obtain qualified personnel and adequately train them
in time to manually perform procedures to replace any automated
equipment that might malfunction.
EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS COULD
DISRUPT THE NAS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Airport officials we interviewed stated that substituting manual
backup procedures for automated equipment could slow down their
airport's operations. For example, according to officials at one
large airport, if the computer that controls their runways' lights
malfunctioned, turning the lights on manually would be a time- and
labor-intensive process because the manual controls are located on
the airfield and are quite far apart. Additionally, because so much
of the non-safety-related equipment at large airports facilitates
moving people quickly, malfunctions of key systems (including
baggage- handling systems, interterminal subways and moving
sidewalks, and automated fuel distribution systems)--while not likely
to affect safety--could dramatically delay an airport's operations.
Furthermore, delays at one airport could disrupt schedules at
connecting airports as well, eventually reducing the efficiency of
the entire NAS. To the extent that these delays are confined to
small airports, the effect on the NAS may not be severe. However,
Year 2000 problems at just a small number of the nation's largest
airports could prove very disruptive.
Given the significant number of airports in our survey that reported
they did not expect to meet FAA's recommended June 30, 1999,
preparation date and had not completed contingency plans, it is
possible that critical equipment at some airports will malfunction
and disrupt the performance of some core functions. Should this
situation occur, FAA and airport officials agree that they will
suspend or restrict operations rather than potentially compromise an
airport's safety or security. However, significant delays at some
airports could reduce the efficiency of the entire NAS.
ASSISTANCE TO AIRPORTS' YEAR
2000 PROGRAMS IS AVAILABLE FROM
EXTERNAL SOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Airport managers and other members of the aviation industry
identified a number of potential sources of assistance to airports
confronting the Year 2000 challenge. First, contractors with
appropriate expertise can provide the trained personnel that an
airport might lack and might be able to repair equipment faster than
that airport's staff. Second, aviation industry associations have
helped to inform airports about Year 2000 issues. Third, legislation
recently passed by the Congress can be expected to encourage
information sharing. Finally, FAA has helped airports by providing
procedures for documenting their Year 2000 readiness.
THE USE OF CONTRACTORS CAN
IMPROVE AIRPORTS' READINESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Many airport officials commented that the use of contractors had
significantly assisted their progress in completing Year 2000
preparations. Officials at large airports, in particular,
acknowledged the importance of contractors. Because most airports
routinely contract out certain services and maintenance rather than
have their own staff perform that work, they lack the trained
personnel in-house to conduct Year 2000 repairs, particularly those
that require special expertise, such as testing internal
microprocessors and replacing those that are date-dependent. Some
aviation consulting firms that specialize in Year 2000 problems have
developed databases that provide information on the Year 2000 status
of equipment that is used at many airports. Additionally, some
airports are working to develop global Year 2000 solutions that could
be tested at a single airport, allowing subsequent airports with the
same equipment to then install and implement that equipment without
repeating the testing procedures. In responding to our survey, about
a fifth of the small airports, almost two-fifths of the medium-sized
airports, and three-fourths of the large airports indicated that they
have either hired or intend to hire contractors.
AVIATION INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATIONS HAVE BEEN
ASSISTING AIRPORTS' YEAR
2000 EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
Aviation industry associations have been working to help ensure
airports will be prepared to operate through and beyond the year
2000. Officials at some of these associations say that while their
organizations do not have the technical expertise to assist airports
in actual Year 2000 testing or repairs, they have helped keep their
members informed. The Airports Council International--North America
(ACI-NA) and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE),
both of which represent domestic airport operators, regularly include
information on the Year 2000 problem in their newsletters and
correspondence with members, discuss Year 2000 issues at workshops
and conferences, and have been involved in seminars focused on the
year 2000. ACI-NA recently sponsored a workshop to give airport
officials a forum for sharing best practices on how to prepare for
the year 2000 and plans to hold additional workshops to encourage
information sharing.
The Air Transport Association of America (ATA), a group representing
domestic air carriers, has taken a more active role in its efforts to
help ensure airports are prepared to operate through and beyond the
year 2000. In addition to such awareness activities as those just
mentioned, ATA has contracted with a management consulting firm to
inventory equipment at 158 domestic airports. ATA is interested in
gathering information on the status of the equipment that could
affect air carriers' ability to operate and in raising awareness
among airport officials about the extent to which the Year 2000
problem could affect their operations. Additionally, ATA has
provided materials to airports to help them conduct their
inventories.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS
ASSISTED AIRPORTS IN
PREPARING FOR THE YEAR 2000
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
Officials from airports, an aviation trade group, and FAA all
expressed concerns that a reluctance to share information about
equipment and its components was impeding progress toward Year 2000
readiness. They said many parties involved in preparations for the
year 2000 feared being held liable for equipment malfunctions if
information they provided about the problem--including the status of
equipment and its components, or tests and repair procedures
involving such equipment--turned out to be inaccurate. In response
to these and other similar concerns expressed in many business
sectors, in October 1998 the Congress passed legislation to encourage
the sharing of Year 2000-readiness information and to address the
potential for legal liability associated with the disclosure and the
exchange of this information.\6 The law also states that sharing Year
2000 information does not violate antitrust laws. Airport officials
we spoke with when this legislation was pending before the Congress
said sharing information on manufacturers' certification and Year
2000 status would eliminate much repetitive testing by airports.
Some airport officials, however, were less optimistic about the
usefulness of this law. They speculated that such a law might foster
carelessness and increase the amount of inaccurate information in
circulation, thereby impeding airports' Year 2000 efforts.
In addition, the Congress, at FAA's request, has authorized Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funds to be used in fiscal year 1999 for
Year 2000 assessment and related testing. A provision in the Fiscal
Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act\7 permits these funds to be used
to assess and test all equipment owned by an airport regardless of
the equipment's eligibility under this program. FAA expects that up
to $100 million in such funds could be used under this provision.
--------------------
\6 The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act (P.L.
105-271) was enacted on October 19, 1998.
\7 P.L. 105-277.
FAA IS HELPING AIRPORTS
PREPARE FOR THE YEAR 2000
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4
To maintain the continued operation of the NAS, several offices
within FAA are collaborating to help ensure airports are adequately
prepared for the year 2000. In FAA's Office of the Administrator,
the Year 2000 program staff is focusing primarily on FAA itself,
preparing air traffic control equipment and FAA's internal computer
systems for the date change. The Year 2000 program office intends to
plan for any disruptions that could occur if the nation's airports
are not prepared for potential delays caused by Year 2000-related
equipment malfunctions.
Two other offices--Airport Safety and Standards and Civil Aviation
Security--are working specifically with airports. FAA's Office of
Airport Safety and Standards, which oversees airports' federally
mandated safety-related operations, has provided airports with a
framework for renovating their equipment. Additionally, the
Associate Administrator for Airports distributed to the nation's
public airports a list of commonly used airport equipment that may be
vulnerable to Year 2000 problems. The list is partly based in part
on ATA's and ACI-NA's assessments of airports and categorizes the
equipment by functional area, such as communications, financial
systems, and passenger services (see app. I).
The Associate Administrator for Airports has also set criteria for
verifying the Year 2000 readiness of airports' equipment that is used
to meet FAA's safety and security requirements and has established a
national team to monitor the airports' progress in preparing this
equipment for the date change. According to this office, team
members will monitor the airports' progress through site visits,
telephone calls, and correspondence. For all equipment used to meet
FAA's requirements, airports must demonstrate they have at least one
of the following:
-- a manufacturer's certification that the equipment does not
contain any computers or microprocessors,
-- a written description of the testing performed to determine that
the equipment is Year 2000 ready,
-- documentation that replacement hardware or software is Year 2000
ready, or
-- a written description of contingency plans for the equipment in
question.
Last spring, the Office of Airports also formed a Year 2000 Airfield
Working Group to help ensure airports will be prepared to operate
into the next century. Members of this group include representatives
from FAA's offices of the Administrator, Airport Safety and
Standards, and Civil Aviation Security; the Airport Consultants
Council; ACI-NA; ATA; AAAE; the National Association of State
Aviation Officials; the National Business Aviation Association; and
the Regional Airline Association. This working group meets regularly
and is focusing on providing airports with such information as
manufacturers' certifications, lessons learned, and testing methods
and is considering the possibility of building a database containing
data on manufacturers' certifications. Such a database could reduce
the amount of work airports have to do, because instead of contacting
each individual manufacturer, airport officials could consult a
single source.
FAA has also formed an Aviation Industry Year 2000 Steering Committee
to (1) serve as the focal point to promote the exchange of
information on the status of Year 2000 preparations with industry
representatives and (2) identify and facilitate the effective
resolution of Year 2000 issues that could affect the safety, the
security, and the efficiency of the NAS. Industry members of this
steering committee include AAAE, ACI-NA, the Regional Airlines
Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, and the General
Aviation Manufacturers' Association.
FAA's Office of Civil Aviation Security, which regulates airports'
federally mandated security-related functions, surveyed the nation's
81 largest airports to determine the Year 2000 status of their
security equipment.\8 According to agency officials, the airports
reported no significant problems. Although not all airports reported
that their security equipment is currently Year 2000 ready, they said
that it would be ready on or before January 1, 2000. Officials at
the Office of Civil Aviation Security have also contacted the
manufacturers of the security equipment that is frequently used by
many airports to inquire about that equipment's Year 2000 status. An
official in this office told us that the manufacturers they contacted
reported that most of the equipment in question would not have
date-related problems. Facilities and equipment eligible for
purchase with AIP funds may be repaired, if needed, with AIP funds.
These include safety and security facilities, as well as lighting
systems and other airport systems. Funds from passenger facility
charges may be used for all AIP-eligible repairs, as well as an
expanded range of airport terminal facilities, such as
baggage-handling systems.
--------------------
\8 The airports themselves are responsible for relatively few
security-related functions; most security functions are carried out
by the airlines.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Because the problems confronting airports as they prepare for the
year 2000 are complex and airports' preparations are still in
process, it is not clear at this time (1) which airports could suffer
equipment malfunctions on and after January 1, 2000, and (2) whether
any malfunctions could decrease airports' efficiency or create
escalating delays throughout the NAS. But some airports have
reported that they are using an ad hoc approach to prepare their
equipment for the year 2000, and some have reported that they will
not complete their Year 2000 preparations by FAA's recommended date
of June 30, 1999, and that they currently lack contingency plans.
These airports are at higher risk of suffering equipment malfunctions
related to the year 2000 date change, which could lead to decreased
efficiency of their operations. Because of the interdependence among
airline flights and airport facilities, decreased efficiency and
delays at one airport could cause delays at other airports and
eventually impede the flow of air traffic throughout the nation,
especially if those delays occur at airports that serve as hubs.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided FAA with a draft of this report for review and comment.
We met with FAA officials, including the Director of the Year 2000
Program Office in the Office of the Administrator and representatives
of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and the Office of Civil
Aviation Security Operations, and received their comments on a draft
of this report. They did not dispute the report's findings, but they
pointed out that the status of airports' preparations for the year
2000 is rapidly evolving and that data collected in the fall of 1998
may, therefore, not fully portray their current situation. FAA also
suggested that we more explicitly indicate that not all of the
systems supporting the functions included in our survey of airports,
such as heating and ventilation and moving sidewalks, are regulated
by FAA. We have incorporated this comment and others from FAA as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We performed our work between July 1998 and December 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I contains details of the scope and methodology or our
review.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
provide copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation; the
Administrator, FAA; appropriate congressional committees; and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Gerald L. Dillingham
Associate Director,
Transportation Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
We surveyed by mail the 413 airports in the United States and
territories that FAA considers primary commercial service airports,
that is, those with annual enplanements (the number of passengers
boarding commercial aircraft) totalling 10,000 or more. As of
December 1998 we obtained responses from 334 airports (81 percent),
which represents about 96 percent of the passengers served by all 413
airports. The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce unwanted variability in the results. These include
differences in how questions are interpreted, errors in entering
data, and the types of airports that did not respond. We included
steps in both data collection and data analysis to minimize this
unwanted variability. We pretested questionnaires with airport
officials, reviewed answers during follow-up visits and telephone
interviews, double-keyed and verified all data during entry, and
validated all analyses with a second analyst.
FAA subdivides commercial service airports into four categories on
the basis of annual enplanements: large hubs, medium hubs, small
hubs, and nonhubs. The numbers of airports in these categories are
29, 42, 70, and 272, respectively (see fig. I.1). To facilitate
comparisons among airports responding to our survey, we modified
FAA's categories by assigning airports to one of three
classes--large, medium, or small--based on the number of enplanements
in 1996. We split FAA's medium hub category by designating 21 of its
airports as large and 21 as medium. Consequently, our large category
contains the 50 airports with the greatest number of enplanements in
1996; the medium category contains 91 airports; and the small
category contains the same 272 airports as FAA's nonhub category.
Figure I.1: FAA's Categories
of Primary Commerical Service
Airports Compared with Size
Categories Used in This
Analysis
(See figure in printed
edition.)
CORE FUNCTIONS AT AIRPORTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
Although FAA has designated 22 core functions for airports to
consider in preparing for the year 2000, to minimize the time
respondents would need to fill out our questionnaire, we omitted the
functions that are neither required by FAA for certification under
part 139 (Airport Operations), part 107 (Airport Security), part 108
(Airport Operator Security) of Federal Aviation Regulations, nor
deemed "airfield critical." As a result, the following functions were
not included in our questionnaire: cargo handling, information
technology, flight and baggage information display computers and
equipment, financial computers and equipment, jet bridge operations
and maintenance, noise abatement, and passenger services (see table
I.1). In addition, we combined two closely related functions, access
control and security and public safety, into one. Although FAA does
not deem parking a critical function, we included it as the
fourteenth function because airport officials told us that revenues
from parking facilities constitute their primary source of revenue.
Table I.1: FAA's List of Airports' Core Functions to Prepare for the
Year 2000 (i.e., FAA's Y2K Airfield System List)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
SURVEY OF AIRPORTS' ADMINISTRATORS
ON PREPARATION FOR THE YEAR 2000
=========================================================== Appendix I
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Colleen Phillips
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GROUP
Luann Moy
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
John Anderson, Jr.
Jean Brady
Dave Bryant, Jr.
Heather Halliwell
Richard Scott
Hank Townsend
Robert White
GAO RELATED PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Bureau of Prisons' Year 2000
Efforts (GAO/AIMD-99-23, Jan. 27, 1999).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness Improving, but Much Work
Remains to Avoid Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-99-50, Jan. 20,
1999).
Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Readiness Improving, but Critical
Risks Remain (GAO/T-AIMD-99-49).
Status Information: FAA's Year 2000 Business Continuity and
Contingency Planning Efforts Are Ongoing (GAO/AIMD-99-40R, Dec. 4,
1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, Nov.
1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness of State Automated Systems to
Support Federal Welfare Programs (GAO/AIMD-99-28, Nov. 6, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Efforts to Deal With Personnel
Issues (GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-14, Oct. 22, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Updated Status of Department of
Education's Information Systems (GAO/T-AIMD-99-8, Oct. 8, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: The District of Columbia Faces
Tremendous Challenges in Ensuring Vital Services Are Not Disrupted
(GAO/T-AIMD-99-4, Oct. 2, 1998).
Medicare Computer Systems: Year 2000 Challenges Put Benefits and
Services in Jeopardy (GAO/AIMD-98-284, Sept. 28, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Leadership Needed to Collect and
Disseminate Critical Biomedical Equipment Information
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-310, Sept. 24, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Compliance Status of Many Biomedical
Equipment Items Still Unknown (GAO/AIMD-98-240, Sept. 18, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Significant Risks Remain to Department
of Education's Student Financial Aid Systems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-302,
Sept. 17, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made at Department of Labor,
but Key Systems at Risk (GAO/T-AIMD-98-303, Sept. 17, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Depository Institution
Regulators Are Making Progress, but Challenges Remain
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-305, Sept. 17, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Reserve Is Acting to Ensure
Financial Institutions Are Fixing Systems, but Challenges Remain
(GAO/AIMD-98-248, Sept. 17, 1998).
Responses to Questions on FAA's Computer Security and Year 2000
Program (GAO/AIMD-98-301R, Sept. 14, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Severity of Problem Calls for Strong
Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-278, Sept. 3,
1998 in Palatine, IL).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective
Partnerships Needed to Reduce Likelihood of Adverse Impact
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-277, Sept. 2, 1998 in Indianapolis, IN).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective
Partnerships Needed to Mitigate Risks (GAO/T-AIMD-98-276, Sept. 1,
1998 in Lakewood, OH).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: State Department Needs to Make
Fundamental Improvements to Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-162,
Aug. 28, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing: EFT 99 Is Not Expected to Affect Year 2000
Remediation Efforts (GAO/AIMD-98-272R, Aug. 28, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made in Compliance of VA
Systems, but Concerns Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-237, Aug. 21, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Avoiding Major Disruptions Will Require
Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-267, Aug.
19, 1998 in New Orleans, LA).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships
Needed to Address Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-266, Aug.
17, 1998 in Mesquite, TX).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships
Needed to Mitigate Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-262, Aug.
13, 1998 in New York, NY).
FAA Systems: Serious Challenges Remain in Resolving Year 2000 and
Computer Security Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-251, Aug. 6, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency
Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, Aug. 1998).
Internal Revenue Service: Impact of the IRS Restructuring and Reform
Act on Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/GGD-98-158R, Aug. 4, 1998).
Social Security Administration: Subcommittee Questions Concerning
Information Technology Challenges Facing the Commissioner
(GAO/AIMD-98-235R, July 10, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed on Electronic Data
Exchanges (GAO/AIMD-98-124, July 1, 1998).
Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Put Navy Operations
at Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-150, June 30, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Testing and Other Challenges Confronting
Federal Agencies (GAO/T-AIMD-98-218, June 22, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Telecommunications Readiness Critical,
Yet Overall Status Largely Unknown (GAO/T-AIMD-98-212, June 16,
1998).
GAO Views on Year 2000 Testing Metrics (GAO/AIMD-98-217R, June 16,
1998).
IRS' Year 2000 Efforts: Business Continuity Planning Needed for
Potential Year 2000 System Failures (GAO/GGD-98-138, June 15, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Must Be Taken Now to Address
Slow Pace of Federal Progress (GAO/T-AIMD-98-205, June 10, 1998).
Defense Computers: Army Needs to Greatly Strengthen Its Year 2000
Program (GAO/AIMD-98-53, May 29, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous Challenges in
Ensuring That Vital Public Services Are Not Disrupted
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-167, May 14, 1998).
Securities Pricing: Actions Needed for Conversion to Decimals
(GAO/T-GGD-98-121, May 8, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Continuing Risks of Disruption to Social
Security, Medicare, and Treasury Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-98-161, May 7,
1998).
IRS' Year 2000 Efforts: Status and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-98-123, May 7,
1998).
Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Replace Its Host Computer System
Because Future Availability Cannot Be Assured (GAO/AIMD-98-138R, May
1, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Potential for Widespread Disruption
Calls for Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, Apr.
30, 1998).
Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD
Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, Apr. 30, 1998).
Department of the Interior: Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk
of Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, Apr. 22, 1998).
Tax Administration: IRS' Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request and Fiscal
Year 1998 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-114, Mar. 31, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Needed to Avoid
Disruption of Essential Services (GAO/T-AIMD-98-117, Mar. 24, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Regulatory Efforts to Ensure
Financial Institution Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-116, Mar. 24, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Office of Thrift Supervision's Efforts
to Ensure Thrift Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-102,
Mar. 18, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective
Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, Mar. 18, 1998).
Post-Hearing Questions on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
Year 2000 (Y2K) Preparedness (AIMD-98-108R, Mar. 18, 1998).
SEC Year 2000 Report: Future Reports Could Provide More Detailed
Information (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-51, Mar. 6, 1998).
Year 2000 Readiness: NRC's Proposed Approach Regarding Nuclear
Powerplants (GAO/AIMD-98-90R, Mar. 6, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
Efforts to Ensure Bank Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-73, Feb. 10, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems
Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, Feb. 4, 1998).
FAA Computer Systems: Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases
Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, Jan. 30, 1998).
Defense Computers: Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight
(GAO/AIMD-98-35, Jan. 16, 1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed to Address Credit Union
Systems' Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-98-48, Jan. 7, 1998).
Veterans Health Administration Facility Systems: Some Progress Made
in Ensuring Year 2000 Compliance, but Challenges Remain
(GAO/AIMD-98-31R, Nov. 7, 1997).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: National Credit Union Administration's
Efforts to Ensure Credit Union Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant
(GAO/T-AIMD-98-20, Oct. 22, 1997).
Social Security Administration: Significant Progress Made in Year
2000 Effort, but Key Risks Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-6, Oct. 22, 1997).
Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year
2000 Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, Oct. 21, 1997).
Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000
Issues (GAO/AIMD-97-149, Sept. 26, 1997).
Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Action Underway Yet Much Work
Remains to Resolve Year 2000 Crisis (GAO/T-AIMD-97-174, Sept. 25,
1997).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Success Depends Upon Strong Management
and Structured Approach (GAO/T-AIMD-97-173, Sept. 25, 1997).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14,
Sept. 1997).
Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress
(GAO/AIMD-97-120R, Aug. 19, 1997).
Defense Computers: Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for
Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, Aug. 13, 1997).
Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000
Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, Aug. 12, 1997).
Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000
Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, Aug. 11, 1997).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Time Is Running Out for Federal Agencies
to Prepare for the New Millennium (GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997).
Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Uninterrupted Delivery of
Benefits Depends on Timely Correction of Year 2000 Problem
(GAO/T-AIMD-97-114, June 26, 1997).
Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risk of VBA's Year 2000 Efforts
(GAO/AIMD-97-79, May 30, 1997).
Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting
Critical Managerial and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-97-78, May 16,
1997).
Medicare Transaction System: Serious Managerial and Technical
Weaknesses Threaten Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-97-91, May 16, 1997).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Risk of Serious Disruption to Essential
Government Functions Calls for Agency Action Now (GAO/T-AIMD-97-52,
Feb. 27, 1997).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Today Needed to
Prevent Future Disruption of Government Services (GAO/T-AIMD-97-51,
Feb. 24, 1997).
High-Risk Series: Information Management and Technology
(GAO/HR-97-9, Feb. 1, 1997).
*** End of document. ***