3 ms·
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 con
by 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 agoI'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?