5 ms·

It's only a matter of time. However, how will the robotic plances integrate with existing voice-based air traffic control? Would there be a new digital channe

It's only a matter of time. However, how will the robotic plances integrate with existing voice-based air traffic control? Would there be a new digital channel, or the planes would it use an on-board voice recognition and synthesizer?

gpm 6y ago
If I was doing this I would start with remotely "piloting" (sending instructions to) them and having the remote pilot communicate with ATC via the traditional radio channel.
- alfalfasprout 6y ago
  What if radio communications are lost? This is not a super infrequent occurrence
- java-man 6y ago
  Right, but that requires a fairly reliable radio link (that we don't have, e.g. MH370). Or perhaps a set of dedicated routes, with ATC actively routing other traffic around the robots?
  - alfalfasprout 6y ago
    That would require radar contact along the whole route. Otherwise if a transponder stops working you suddenly have a ghost aircraft capable of causing massive amounts of damage.
  - gpm 6y ago
    So get one. Partner with SpaceX or oneweb and plot courses only where you will have continuous connectivity. We pilot drones in warzones remotely, the technology exists to pilot then in peace time.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      > We pilot drones in warzones remotely, True but we also are ok with those drones getting destroyed.
keehun 6y ago
That would be quite a feat without updating the quality of the voice transmissions. When you listen to some recordings of ATC, it becomes clear pretty quickly that context clues is paramount to being able to communicate with ATC. Some of the transmissions are so difficult to hear it amazes me that humans can even communicate through it. Perhaps a lot of that is cabin noise, and without it, the transmissions would become a lot clearer.
- alfalfasprout 6y ago
  For what it’s worth the radio transmissions sound quite a bit more clear (usually) in the plane. LiveATC uses ground stations which don’t always have great reception and they compress the audio like crazy. I can barely make out what they say on LiveATC sometimes but in the air it’s rarely a problem.
  - keehun 6y ago
    That's what I was hoping is the case. Good to know!
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Agreed. The radio comms are also generally following a fairly predictable pattern of information. If you suddenly transmitted "and I'll have a BLT on rye, hold the mayo", you're almost certainly going to be asked "say again?"
ertemplin 6y ago
If the airplane isn't in the clouds and is below 18,000 feet MSL the pilots are still responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic. There are a lot of places in the USA that don't have ATC radar coverage, so traffic separation is based almost entirely on see-and-avoid and cloud distance laws for VFR pilots. The ATC problem is probably the easiest one to solve, and there are already some solutions in use like D-ATIS and automated pre-departure clearance (PDC).
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If that airplane isn't in clouds and is at/above FL180, pilots are still required to maintain vigilance to see-and-avoid other traffic. It's true that positive separation is also provided by IFR rules in class A airspace, but any time you're in visual conditions, you're expected to see-and-avoid. FAR 91.113.b: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113

gpm 6y ago

If I was doing this I would start with remotely "piloting" (sending instructions to) them and having the remote pilot communicate with ATC via the traditional radio channel.

alfalfasprout 6y ago
What if radio communications are lost? This is not a super infrequent occurrence
java-man 6y ago
Right, but that requires a fairly reliable radio link (that we don't have, e.g. MH370). Or perhaps a set of dedicated routes, with ATC actively routing other traffic around the robots?
- alfalfasprout 6y ago
  That would require radar contact along the whole route. Otherwise if a transponder stops working you suddenly have a ghost aircraft capable of causing massive amounts of damage.
- gpm 6y ago
  So get one. Partner with SpaceX or oneweb and plot courses only where you will have continuous connectivity. We pilot drones in warzones remotely, the technology exists to pilot then in peace time.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > We pilot drones in warzones remotely, True but we also are ok with those drones getting destroyed.

keehun 6y ago

That would be quite a feat without updating the quality of the voice transmissions. When you listen to some recordings of ATC, it becomes clear pretty quickly that context clues is paramount to being able to communicate with ATC. Some of the transmissions are so difficult to hear it amazes me that humans can even communicate through it. Perhaps a lot of that is cabin noise, and without it, the transmissions would become a lot clearer.

alfalfasprout 6y ago
For what it’s worth the radio transmissions sound quite a bit more clear (usually) in the plane. LiveATC uses ground stations which don’t always have great reception and they compress the audio like crazy. I can barely make out what they say on LiveATC sometimes but in the air it’s rarely a problem.
- keehun 6y ago
  That's what I was hoping is the case. Good to know!
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Agreed. The radio comms are also generally following a fairly predictable pattern of information. If you suddenly transmitted "and I'll have a BLT on rye, hold the mayo", you're almost certainly going to be asked "say again?"

ertemplin 6y ago

If the airplane isn't in the clouds and is below 18,000 feet MSL the pilots are still responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic. There are a lot of places in the USA that don't have ATC radar coverage, so traffic separation is based almost entirely on see-and-avoid and cloud distance laws for VFR pilots. The ATC problem is probably the easiest one to solve, and there are already some solutions in use like D-ATIS and automated pre-departure clearance (PDC).

sokoloff 6y ago
If that airplane isn't in clouds and is at/above FL180, pilots are still required to maintain vigilance to see-and-avoid other traffic. It's true that positive separation is also provided by IFR rules in class A airspace, but any time you're in visual conditions, you're expected to see-and-avoid. FAR 91.113.b: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113