3 ms·

> Yet, critical information is passed to these computers via a non digital communications channel involving people trying to exchange crucial bits of informatio

by CPLX 8y ago

> Yet, critical information is passed to these computers via a non digital communications channel involving people trying to exchange crucial bits of information over a badly congested, low quality radio channel with limited range. This is really arguable. People always go on about how voice radio communication on a shared channel is from the Stone Age, but what’s better, and why, and can you prove it? I feel like people drastically underestimate the degree to which the current radio system succeeds in providing situational awareness. We are wired to processs and respond to input from human voices extremely quickly and intuitively with lots of nuance, and our visual and tactile systems are pretty well saturated with information while flying. What’s your superior suggestion? Saying “computers” or “automation” is going to have to address the fact that those things have some issues as well.

jillesvangurp 8y ago
I watch quite a lot of youtube pilot footage; just a strange hobby of mine. Watch any youtube pilot doing IFR flights and note how they struggle to stay on top of the radios (depending on their currency and experience). Most pilots know from hard experience that this is a skill that goes within weeks/months if they stop practicing. They know they will start mangling their radio work and make other mistakes. That's because it is freaking hard. It's by far the hardest part of flying a plane. Actually flying them is easy. You'll be flying solo in no time at all. From there to instrument rating, takes years typically. Being an instrument rated pilot means a life of practice and training. Much of the pilot training for an instrument rating is about staying on top of the radios, dealing with the enormous task load, and planning ahead as to what is going to be required next. As soon as you loose the plot there, you are in trouble: you lose situational awareness, controllers get pissed, things get very stressful, mistakes get made, etc. Many private pilots chicken out from ever getting their instrument rating since it is so enormously challenging and intimidating and since maintaining it is such a big commitment as well. Most of this is for the perfectly valid reason that this extremely limited and unreliable medium of shouting out letters as words over congested and distorted radio channels is literally the only way to communicate with controllers. The fix is obvious: send messages over authenticated digital channels with some integrity/sanity checks using some well defined protocol. Start requiring this for all commercial aviation and ban planes from critical air space that are not able to communicate that way. Important messages should require acknowledgement from pilots. There should be zero doubt for pilots about the current status of controller provided altimeter settings, weather report, most recent instructions, etc. Likewise controllers should be able to pick up planes the second their radios and transponders are turned on. This should not be optional. There should be no need for transponder codes. There should be zero doubt about which plane is where for the controller,the entire history of that plane, it's current journey, it's pilot,all previous communications, etc. None of that should need to be communicated or verified by voice, ever. Voice channels should be reserved for emergencies. Controllers should be able to talk to any plane without delay. These channels should have stuff like caller id and other fancy stuff any decent mobile phone has been capable off for decades. There should be no need to ever yell out call signs and hope that the other side got it jotted down correctly. Etc. This is not particularly hard to design technically and hasn't been for a long time. Sure you'd want a sane design and lots of built in checks and balances and back up systems, etc. But agreeing that it needs to be designed, and then agreeing on a particular design is what the problem is here. If you doubt there is a problem, consider that essentially every major plane crash gets blamed on "pilot error" and translate that as "they accidentally crashed the plane because they got confused about what to do under the enormous task-load". When shit goes wrong, having a lot of confusion about who said what, who did what, what was the pilot, plane doing, etc. seems standard. There's no need for that, at all. E.g. Most of the stuff on a black box should be stored remotely long before the plane hits the ground.
- CPLX 8y ago
  I’m a licensed pilot. I remain skeptical of your argument. There’s no question that staying on top of a complex flight has a heavy mental load. But I’m not convinced radio is the problem. The information has to be conveyed somehow. Having humans at every step is a clear sanity check. Either you cut humans out of the job of decision making and have computers make decisions, which introduces all sorts of new issues, or you have to give humans information and context. And as long as humans are in charge, humans talking to other humans is underrated as a means of getting a lot of information across quickly and effectively.
  - jillesvangurp 8y ago
    I'd argue the current style of communication is effective (by design) but neither quick nor easy out of necessity. Basically, aviation has a long history of increasing safety by taking tedious complicated tasks away from humans (e.g. dedicated navigators, radio operators, and engineers used to be a thing). This is just the next obvious thing to tackle. I'd also argue pilot stress and task load is the biggest killer in the aviation industry and the single biggest root cause of every crash ever. Also, I'd argue this is an extra tool. Of course talking to controllers and other pilots in the area should always be an option. Especially, at uncontrolled fields. Wouldn't it be nice if you can skip the formalities of telling over and over again who you are, where you are, etc. because the other side already knows this?
- Shivatron 8y ago
  As an instrument-rated pilot, I reject your brazen assertion that radio work is "by far the hardest part of flying a plane." Are you speaking from personal experience, or do you have some data to back up this claim? From an instrument proficiency point of view, I'm much more worried about efficiently understanding the information on the approach plate, maintaining situational awareness with respect to the approach path, adhering to minimums, and so on. Missed something that a controller said? "Say again." There's a reason it's aviate, navigate, and communicate--in that order.
  - jillesvangurp 8y ago

by CPLX 8y ago

jillesvangurp 8y ago

I watch quite a lot of youtube pilot footage; just a strange hobby of mine. Watch any youtube pilot doing IFR flights and note how they struggle to stay on top of the radios (depending on their currency and experience). Most pilots know from hard experience that this is a skill that goes within weeks/months if they stop practicing. They know they will start mangling their radio work and make other mistakes. That's because it is freaking hard. It's by far the hardest part of flying a plane. Actually flying them is easy. You'll be flying solo in no time at all. From there to instrument rating, takes years typically. Being an instrument rated pilot means a life of practice and training. Much of the pilot training for an instrument rating is about staying on top of the radios, dealing with the enormous task load, and planning ahead as to what is going to be required next. As soon as you loose the plot there, you are in trouble: you lose situational awareness, controllers get pissed, things get very stressful, mistakes get made, etc. Many private pilots chicken out from ever getting their instrument rating since it is so enormously challenging and intimidating and since maintaining it is such a big commitment as well. Most of this is for the perfectly valid reason that this extremely limited and unreliable medium of shouting out letters as words over congested and distorted radio channels is literally the only way to communicate with controllers. The fix is obvious: send messages over authenticated digital channels with some integrity/sanity checks using some well defined protocol. Start requiring this for all commercial aviation and ban planes from critical air space that are not able to communicate that way. Important messages should require acknowledgement from pilots. There should be zero doubt for pilots about the current status of controller provided altimeter settings, weather report, most recent instructions, etc. Likewise controllers should be able to pick up planes the second their radios and transponders are turned on. This should not be optional. There should be no need for transponder codes. There should be zero doubt about which plane is where for the controller,the entire history of that plane, it's current journey, it's pilot,all previous communications, etc. None of that should need to be communicated or verified by voice, ever. Voice channels should be reserved for emergencies. Controllers should be able to talk to any plane without delay. These channels should have stuff like caller id and other fancy stuff any decent mobile phone has been capable off for decades. There should be no need to ever yell out call signs and hope that the other side got it jotted down correctly. Etc. This is not particularly hard to design technically and hasn't been for a long time. Sure you'd want a sane design and lots of built in checks and balances and back up systems, etc. But agreeing that it needs to be designed, and then agreeing on a particular design is what the problem is here. If you doubt there is a problem, consider that essentially every major plane crash gets blamed on "pilot error" and translate that as "they accidentally crashed the plane because they got confused about what to do under the enormous task-load". When shit goes wrong, having a lot of confusion about who said what, who did what, what was the pilot, plane doing, etc. seems standard. There's no need for that, at all. E.g. Most of the stuff on a black box should be stored remotely long before the plane hits the ground.

CPLX 8y ago
I’m a licensed pilot. I remain skeptical of your argument. There’s no question that staying on top of a complex flight has a heavy mental load. But I’m not convinced radio is the problem. The information has to be conveyed somehow. Having humans at every step is a clear sanity check. Either you cut humans out of the job of decision making and have computers make decisions, which introduces all sorts of new issues, or you have to give humans information and context. And as long as humans are in charge, humans talking to other humans is underrated as a means of getting a lot of information across quickly and effectively.
- jillesvangurp 8y ago
  I'd argue the current style of communication is effective (by design) but neither quick nor easy out of necessity. Basically, aviation has a long history of increasing safety by taking tedious complicated tasks away from humans (e.g. dedicated navigators, radio operators, and engineers used to be a thing). This is just the next obvious thing to tackle. I'd also argue pilot stress and task load is the biggest killer in the aviation industry and the single biggest root cause of every crash ever. Also, I'd argue this is an extra tool. Of course talking to controllers and other pilots in the area should always be an option. Especially, at uncontrolled fields. Wouldn't it be nice if you can skip the formalities of telling over and over again who you are, where you are, etc. because the other side already knows this?
Shivatron 8y ago
As an instrument-rated pilot, I reject your brazen assertion that radio work is "by far the hardest part of flying a plane." Are you speaking from personal experience, or do you have some data to back up this claim? From an instrument proficiency point of view, I'm much more worried about efficiently understanding the information on the approach plate, maintaining situational awareness with respect to the approach path, adhering to minimums, and so on. Missed something that a controller said? "Say again." There's a reason it's aviate, navigate, and communicate--in that order.
- jillesvangurp 8y ago