[01:46]  * zxmpi looks at forecast
[01:46] <zxmpi> today 26c tomorrow 26c friday 26c... i can only hope the cornetto supply holds out
[06:33] <knightwise> It was toasty indeed yesterday
[15:18] <penguin42> https://www.caa.co.uk/newsroom/news/regulator-to-launch-independent-review-of-nats-technical-failure/   has the link to the report into the air traffic failure - it's actually quite interesting
[19:21] <davef> Ahh good old NATS, once charged the company I worked for at the time £10,000 for AFTN access, which turned out to be a super low end HP system and a crusty X.25 modem.
[19:50] <penguin42> heck, how long ago was that
[21:06] <davef> A while now, about 15yrs ago
[21:07] <penguin42> heck, x.25 well into this century
[21:08] <davef> We also use SITA TEXT which used to carry the AFTN traffic and fed direct into the flight planning servers, they turned around and said “welp, we’re not doing that anymore lol” .. I then ended up working for SITA when I moved to Canada 😂
[21:09] <davef> Yeah, I started working for the enemy lol
[22:39] <penguin42> but could you cope with a flight plan containing two waypoints with the same name?
[23:05] <davef> I would hope so. It's pretty much top shelf flight planning in the industry.
[23:06] <davef> If you fly planes, you know about Jeppesen.
[23:08] <penguin42> apparently that was the bug, some corner case where the single flight plan passed through two waypoints with the same name but a few thousand km apart
[23:08] <davef> It can and has happened.
[23:09] <davef> But the software that Jepp developed was smart enough to know you want the waypoint enroute, not the other side of the planet.
[23:10] <penguin42> davef: So I think in this case the flight plan validly had both waypoints with the same name in it
[23:10] <davef> The hope is somebody would catch that before the plane gets up in the air
[23:11] <penguin42> davef: No, I think they're saying it correctly had those two waypoints in it - it's just that freaked out the NATS code
[23:11] <davef> then that's just bad NATS code
[23:11] <davef> remember when NATS launched? it was a hot mess.
[23:11] <penguin42> yeh, it actually seems like a 3rd party they were using