Redundancy
I'm pretty surprised that no viable, warm state redundancy to the FAA's Chicago Center exists. Clearly, if that one wasn't backed up, none of them are. Clearly the cobbled together response with Cleveland, Indianapolis Minneapolis, etc., centers is unable to handle the load. We're now being told it will be "at least" a few weeks before things are back to normal.
The nation's ATC system - indeed, the entire aviation system - is infrastructure. The infrastructure in this country is in poor shape.
I will bet pretty much anything that we hear some platitudinous crap about why this happened. We'll hear about "enhanced security" at all ATC centers, as if, somehow, some contractor/guard could have prevented what happened. The solution isn't more guards. It is a better ATC system.
And better highways.
And better ports.
And better bridges.
And better mass transit.
Of course, we don't have the money. We can't afford to fix the infrastructure that we have ignored for decades.
But neither can we afford not to.
It will only get worse from here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
There are quite a few controllers in any ARTCC depending on traffic. As you can imagine, the Chicago ARTCC is busy enough to support a large staffing level.
You pose an interesting question because yeah, the machinery can replicated at a backup site, but the people need to get there. I've never been in one so I can't speak to what might happen if the controllers weren't on a floor together, but divided into two buildings. Since the airspace they control is divided into sectors, it might work well.
No, I can't picture a hot backup either. By warm, I mean a fully commissioned backup site, but with the lights and computers turned off.
Ship in a crew, turn stuff on, and get to work.
I'm just guessing, but what would such a facility cost? A million? Two? Whatever it is, its chump change compared to the cost of what we're doing now.
