>

If one corrupted file can bring down your whole system including backups, you have bigger problems than contractors making mistakes.
Not surprised. That’s why you use a test environment before implementation. On something as big as the FAA probably roll it out in parts too. >

That's not fair. They had a test system.
They just didn't have a separate production system. >

In every company I've ever worked for I always ask if we have a clone of production for testing.
Only once have I been told "yes".
Every other time, I'm told that the QA environment is "close enough". >

Until it isn't.  But why spend money doing something useless until it costs you millions of dollars and/or customers? >

Why wouldn’t you just make a new copy of the production environment and overwrite the QA environment with it so you have a test system that is up to date to test your code? >

The biggest hurdle isn't the code, it's the volume of users that exist in Prod vs in sub-prod environments.
And just straight copying prod data down isn't a great idea, because it contains PII. >

I have worked in QA for over a decade and I fully support this answer. With more users/volume comes more edge case usage. >

Also 3rd party integrations might not work in QA environment. Ideally they should, but sometimes that requires extra setup or work with the vendors. >

And licensing is usually the issue here.
3rd party contractors aren't going to take a missed opportunity to charge for the licensing for the test environment at the same scale as the production environment. >

And most companies aren't going to want to pay, no matter what the QA team says, until a big issue happens demonstrating why it's needed. >

The system is from 1993. The same year the first internet browser became publicly available, one year before the original Playstation, and three years before HoTMaiL (get it? Do you get it?).
How old were the contract employees? Old enough to even remember 1993? Were they even born yet?
Even a dev who was experienced in 1993 has spent the last 30 years learning and adapting to the evolutions in technology. I challenge anybody to go to work and do their jobs with Office 4.0, or operate their computer with MS-DOS. Even if you're old enough to have been expert at it then, you certainly would struggle with it now. 
The issue isn't the contract employees. The issue is that our government has been trying to repair our critical infrastructure with 10,000 band-aids, and if even one of them falls off then our economy starts bleeding to death.
How many of our other critical systems are literal antiques that could break at any moment? Does anybody have the skills to repair them anymore, or are those people all in nursing homes by now?
Do I even want know the answer? >

I’m not sure that this is a huge deal like you think it is, NASA uses incredibly old hardware designs because critical infrastructure needs to be tried and tested and reliable. Granted they have the difficulties of increased radiation from space to deal with, but still even on the james webb telescope launched semi recently a processor released in 2001 was used. Granted I know almost nothing about flight infrastructure/systems >

Are you sure it's not an issue? Every single plane in the country was grounded because of this. Didn't SW just have a huge debacle because of outdated systems? And didn't the unemployment systems crash in 2019 and no one could fix them because nothing is programmed in COBOL anymore? Isn't a huge part of the increased funding for the IRS to update their systems because they're also outdated and can't handle the load?
Comparing a one-off science experiment that has a built-in life expectancy of 10 years or less to a critical infrastructure system that requires continuous functionality to enable our modern way of life is really apples to oranges here. >

To be fair all the issues you mentioned rarely happen and the systems running those programs are ancient. So they are highly reliable. >

Sure, that's a fair point. But these systems aren't going to last forever, they are going to need an upgrade, and probably should have been upgraded already, maybe even years ago by now. The can keeps getting kicked down the road, and that's only going to make things worse. >

maybe hire people full time rather than a churn of contractors who always need to ramp up when onboarding? >

Yet another argument for permanent full time employees. 
If it’s news worth mentioning their terms of employment, then that’s exactly the issue and problem. >

The FAA utilizes multiple means of communication to disseminate information to airlines. A major one is the FAA OIS page which publishes programs and other significant events occurring in the NAS. Airlines have access to a better version of this with more detailed information as well as datalinks to systems that monitor demand, loading, and throughput of airspace and airports.
ATC does national teleconferences every 2 hours and will sometimes activate that same infrastructure in times of emergency. There was a teleconference with all carriers during the night the NOTAM system went down. >

I can tell you who's not getting contracted again. >

Don't be sure. Part of contracting is taking the heat for the stupidity you encounter. >

The other part is donating to the right politicians so your company is legally the only one they can use >

What do you want to bet the "corrupted file" was a config, recently edited with vi, that had an accidental / in it?  Possibly as the first character? >

Do they not have a UAT environment to test changes? >

UAT environments only help if they test for that issue. >

Reminds me of the “contractors” who’s code spoiled an entire line of Boeing aircraft >

Not to mention the passengers that were inconvenienced by a sudden and catastrophic deceleration .  /s >

I don’t usually test my code, but when I do I test it in PRODUCTION. >

I think the world banking system mostly runs on COBAL still. You can’t change languages every decade or nothing would work. This sounds like poor management at the top and lack of funding. >

In a 4 years of stretch of ap comp sci, I saw it go from pascal to c++ to java

AP Computer Science was taught in Pascal for the 1984–1998 exams, in C++ for 1999–2003, and in Java since 2004.

Wonder why they even switched to c++.  I even remember the book was "c++ for you ++." Then in fall semester of college, intro 101 was java but intro 102 was c++ since they was just transitioning.  Advisor tried to get me to take 101, but I wasn't going to take a class I already got credit for. >

Hello fellow 40-ish year old folks. >

Don't remind me, getting old sucks :) >

I was a contractor working in the air transportation industry at SITA. Positions like this should not be held by contractors, it should be a full time employee, one of which the FAA invests in. Contractors do just enough to continue the engagement, knowing that their future development doesn't matter to anyone else.