A reasonable deployment plan considers the reality that the deployment could fail. One mitigation is to choose ideal conditions for a possible failure. You’re correctly pointing out one of the mitigations, but it doesn’t render the others unnecessary.

▲

bombcar 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You can also have reasonable updates done at reasonable times that don’t show issues until unreasonable hours - or something else fails.

But what I’m hearing is that one company “L3Harris” could take down the airfristructure anytime it wanted to. That’s not great.

▲

ExoticPearTree 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

As opposed to what alternative? Being run by the FAA itself or with contractors? Being run by the DOT?

Well, it worked so far, I think it is great. 100% availability is a dream.

That’s why for example, you have ATC Zero protocols when communications go out all of a sudden at airports. And I imagine there is something similar for airborne planes that are not near any of their destinations.

	▲	vikramkr a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah either the FAA or the DOT sounds good. Not contractors tho.