5 ms·

Recently met two ATCs and got some interesting perspective: new ATCs are trained on COVID levels of air traffic. So as things ramp back up (still not at pre-COV

Recently met two ATCs and got some interesting perspective: new ATCs are trained on COVID levels of air traffic. So as things ramp back up (still not at pre-COVID levels across the board) there are a myriad of issues. The fact that flights are being cut instead of throwing new ATCs into the unknown is actually refreshing even if frustrating.

irjustin 3y ago
> The fact that flights are being cut instead of throwing new ATCs into the unknown is actually refreshing even if frustrating. I do appreciate this given the "option" to literally just let it run its course. But realistically, this is not a true option. You have to cut flights. Too many lives are at risk.
- rob74 3y ago
  It has happened before, so it can happen again: > On August 5 [1981], following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, the Reagan administration fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. In the wake of the strike and mass firings, the FAA was faced with the difficult task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired. Under normal conditions, it took three years to train new controllers. Until replacements could be trained, the vacant positions were temporarily filled with a mix of non-participating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some non-rated personnel, military controllers, and controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...) At least the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about cutting flights...
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    My understanding is that ATC performance took a nosedive for decades after that. It's possible people died because Reagan wanted to crush a union.
  - irjustin 3y ago
    > By prioritizing and cutting flights severely (about 7,000), and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available It does a bit further down.
ericpauley 3y ago
This seems especially pertinent in New York TRACON. During busy times controllers there can be sending or receiving virtually nonstop; it's difficult enough even listening for your callsign and getting a word in edgewise.
- markdown 3y ago
  Seems like a job a computer can do better. How soon before a corporation with "ai" takes over this role?
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    The AI should be assisting the human ATCs by putting useful info on screen in order.
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      They tried —- it didn’t work well. It is hard to determine what is “useful” or “important”. In case of emergency or chaos, moving info around brings confusions.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - GalenErso 3y ago
    You deserve more upvotes than you're getting, because your question is a fair one, and knowledge that may be obvious to some is going to be totally new to others. Some people would do well to remember that new people are constantly being born, and each person must learn everything from the start. I'm going to copy and paste a few answers from this 6 year old Reddit thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xqkxc/eli5_why_has_air_traffic_control_not_been/ https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xqkxc/e... > Air traffic controllers think on the fly more than you would assume. They look at their radar scopes and plan each target to work with others by working their speed, altitude, and path. Computers could probably work out these, but then how would they relay that information to pilots? > Another thing to think about is the vast number of VFR aircraft who are not on a flight plan going A to B. ATC is able to communicate with them, learn their intentions "we saw something neat and would like to orbit here for 5 minutes", and help them see and avoid other aircraft. > The fact that they are humans who you can talk to is tremendously helpful in emergencies as well. If I'm fighting a sick airplane I might not have the time or focus to find the nearest suitable airport, get weather information and important notices, and plan a descent. A controller watching over me sure can though. Humans are flexible in a way computers can't be yet. ----- > All aviation-related technology is tightly regulated and goes through an immense amount of testing and consideration before use. > All of the obstacles we have around self-driving cars-- "whose fault is it if it crashes", "how do we know it's safe enough before letting it on the road", "do you still need a licensed driver", etc-- are 10x more problematic in the sky. It isn't necessarily harder to automate, but is harder to declare "officially safe enough". It's not enough for an automated ATC to be somewhat good or decent. There is little margin for error when the consequences of such an error could be the death of hundreds of people and the loss of a multimillion dollar plane. ATC in real life is much more difficult than it appears to casual observers.

irjustin 3y ago

> The fact that flights are being cut instead of throwing new ATCs into the unknown is actually refreshing even if frustrating. I do appreciate this given the "option" to literally just let it run its course. But realistically, this is not a true option. You have to cut flights. Too many lives are at risk.

rob74 3y ago
It has happened before, so it can happen again: > On August 5 [1981], following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, the Reagan administration fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. In the wake of the strike and mass firings, the FAA was faced with the difficult task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired. Under normal conditions, it took three years to train new controllers. Until replacements could be trained, the vacant positions were temporarily filled with a mix of non-participating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some non-rated personnel, military controllers, and controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...) At least the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about cutting flights...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  My understanding is that ATC performance took a nosedive for decades after that. It's possible people died because Reagan wanted to crush a union.
- irjustin 3y ago
  > By prioritizing and cutting flights severely (about 7,000), and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available It does a bit further down.

ericpauley 3y ago

This seems especially pertinent in New York TRACON. During busy times controllers there can be sending or receiving virtually nonstop; it's difficult enough even listening for your callsign and getting a word in edgewise.

markdown 3y ago
Seems like a job a computer can do better. How soon before a corporation with "ai" takes over this role?
- hgsgm 3y ago
  The AI should be assisting the human ATCs by putting useful info on screen in order.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    They tried —- it didn’t work well. It is hard to determine what is “useful” or “important”. In case of emergency or chaos, moving info around brings confusions.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  [flagged]
- GalenErso 3y ago
  You deserve more upvotes than you're getting, because your question is a fair one, and knowledge that may be obvious to some is going to be totally new to others. Some people would do well to remember that new people are constantly being born, and each person must learn everything from the start. I'm going to copy and paste a few answers from this 6 year old Reddit thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xqkxc/eli5_why_has_air_traffic_control_not_been/ https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xqkxc/e... > Air traffic controllers think on the fly more than you would assume. They look at their radar scopes and plan each target to work with others by working their speed, altitude, and path. Computers could probably work out these, but then how would they relay that information to pilots? > Another thing to think about is the vast number of VFR aircraft who are not on a flight plan going A to B. ATC is able to communicate with them, learn their intentions "we saw something neat and would like to orbit here for 5 minutes", and help them see and avoid other aircraft. > The fact that they are humans who you can talk to is tremendously helpful in emergencies as well. If I'm fighting a sick airplane I might not have the time or focus to find the nearest suitable airport, get weather information and important notices, and plan a descent. A controller watching over me sure can though. Humans are flexible in a way computers can't be yet. ----- > All aviation-related technology is tightly regulated and goes through an immense amount of testing and consideration before use. > All of the obstacles we have around self-driving cars-- "whose fault is it if it crashes", "how do we know it's safe enough before letting it on the road", "do you still need a licensed driver", etc-- are 10x more problematic in the sky. It isn't necessarily harder to automate, but is harder to declare "officially safe enough". It's not enough for an automated ATC to be somewhat good or decent. There is little margin for error when the consequences of such an error could be the death of hundreds of people and the loss of a multimillion dollar plane. ATC in real life is much more difficult than it appears to casual observers.