4 ms·

There's an increase in incidents because ATCs are overworked and understaffed. The knee-jerk reaction is to try to automate the work away. A few problems with t

by sxyuan 3y ago

There's an increase in incidents because ATCs are overworked and understaffed. The knee-jerk reaction is to try to automate the work away. A few problems with that kind of thinking: - Automation already exists - e.g., the collision detection warning mentioned in the article. I don't know much about air traffic control but I imagine there's some element of defense in depth. ATCs dozing off or running on fumes won't cause collisions right away (these incidents are mostly close calls) but it sounds like it's only a matter of time before all the other defenses fail and a major accident happens. - There's always going to be work that's hard to automate. Plenty of software teams have on-call rotations to cover production services. You'd think that if any field would have their operations be fully automated, it's software, but nope. We need to stop thinking that the physical world is easier to deal with - it's often much harder. - Automation costs money to develop and deploy. Apparently one of the early outcomes of union action back in the 70s was faster automation rollout. [1] For an executive, why spend money on automation if you could just squeeze more out of your workers and compromise on safety instead? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Con...

amzthrow 3y ago
> Plenty of software teams have on-call rotations to cover production services. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the cloud but this is what you are really paying for. The value proposition of the cloud is infrastructure-oncall-as-a-service.
- adrianN 3y ago
  You usually still need someone oncall who determines whether it’s a cloud problem or your bug.
_cenw 3y ago
RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System), the equivalent system installed on aircraft, also needs to become standard equipment. It is for some airlines, but it is by no means mandatory.
PhobosSkunk 3y ago
Automation in ATC exists a little yes, as you said for collision detection, ground proximity warning and runway infringement. That's mostly it. We have some cool toys to make life easier like CPDLC to communicate via data-link instead of voice, multi layer radar screens with tons of functions, ATIS generation etc but those are not automation, just QOL improvement and if anything goes wrong we go back to old school ATC by voice and maths. There is a lot of automation in the data part of ATC, so flight plans processing, radar correlation, meteo data etc etc. But this is just normal IT stuff in 2023. Some cool project are getting there, like virtual towers with augmented reality by using cameras instead of looking out a window. My company did recruit an expert in big data and ML to develop new tools and automate stuff, but always data related, nothing to do with controlling and aircraft on a radar screen.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
The lack of automation is causing ATC work to be stressful. People orchestrating complex procedures over a shared vhf radio channel is inherently hard and error prone. Which is why it involves people endlessly confirming and double checking known bits of information. Automation could simplify that a lot and remove a lot of the uncertainty. Making communications easier might save some lives. A lot of accidents are caused by human pilots and typically that involves them making mistakes in stressful situations. Dealing with ATC is very stressful for pilots. Task saturation is something they all fight throughout their career. IFR pilots have to train and fly a lot to stay current; the ability to keep up with the radio communication and fly procedures safely is quickly lost when they don't. That's how hard it is. A pilot that is not current is not a safe pilot. That's why the rules are so strict for this. If you look at this space from a distance, it's kind of obvious that more automation is going to be inevitable. Airspaces are busy now and they are going to get a lot more busy in the next decades. At least part of the traffic is going to be autonomous. Those planes will likely be communicating with ATC via networked protocols that have yet to be proposed and standardized. There is no reason why those protocols could not work with other planes. And it would free up ATC staff and pilots to do more urgent things. The way ATC is currently done is not scalable or future proof.
- macNchz 3y ago
  > The lack of automation is causing ATC work to be stressful. … > And it would free up ATC staff and pilots to do more urgent things. There’s a problem that can happen with this, though, wherein the “easy” routine work is automated out and the number of humans involved is scaled down, but the work those people do then winds up being 100% the urgent/stressful stuff. I’ve heard that ER doctors have been experiencing this in recent years–not quite with automation so much as just offloading, as less serious cases are picked up by nurse practitioners/urgent care centers, staffing has been adjusted and the actual physicians wind up with a steady stream of stressful high-acuity cases back to back to back.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    I agree we might need a minimum staff level of, say, 1 air traffic controller per airport, but unless I've been grievously misinformed about the safety of flying, urgent/stressful emergencies should be very rare. I suspect the main thing limiting ATC automation is the fact ATC is all done by voice using incredibly shitty radios, and equipment upgrades take like 50 years to roll out.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pcthrowaway 3y ago
Instead of more automation, perhaps it would be good to occasionally introduce phantom traffic which is designed to require intervention on their part (e.g. fabricate two flights and put them on a collision path). The air traffic controllers would be expected to flag them, or intervene, or do whatever they would realistically do in that scenario. From that, you can determine who's asleep at the wheel so to speak, and send them home. If necessary, planes may need to be grounded until properly alert staff can be available
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Not sure how that would work. "Citation one-three-niner-delta-uniform, Denver Tower, adjust altitude to seven three hundred, bearing one zero five." "Citation one-three-niner-delta-uniform, Denver Tower, please respond." Also FYI it's not like anyone can actually be asleep because pilot is required to establish two-way ATC contact to enter the airspace.

by sxyuan 3y ago

amzthrow 3y ago

> Plenty of software teams have on-call rotations to cover production services. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the cloud but this is what you are really paying for. The value proposition of the cloud is infrastructure-oncall-as-a-service.

adrianN 3y ago
You usually still need someone oncall who determines whether it’s a cloud problem or your bug.

_cenw 3y ago

RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System), the equivalent system installed on aircraft, also needs to become standard equipment. It is for some airlines, but it is by no means mandatory.

PhobosSkunk 3y ago

Automation in ATC exists a little yes, as you said for collision detection, ground proximity warning and runway infringement. That's mostly it. We have some cool toys to make life easier like CPDLC to communicate via data-link instead of voice, multi layer radar screens with tons of functions, ATIS generation etc but those are not automation, just QOL improvement and if anything goes wrong we go back to old school ATC by voice and maths. There is a lot of automation in the data part of ATC, so flight plans processing, radar correlation, meteo data etc etc. But this is just normal IT stuff in 2023. Some cool project are getting there, like virtual towers with augmented reality by using cameras instead of looking out a window. My company did recruit an expert in big data and ML to develop new tools and automate stuff, but always data related, nothing to do with controlling and aircraft on a radar screen.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

The lack of automation is causing ATC work to be stressful. People orchestrating complex procedures over a shared vhf radio channel is inherently hard and error prone. Which is why it involves people endlessly confirming and double checking known bits of information. Automation could simplify that a lot and remove a lot of the uncertainty. Making communications easier might save some lives. A lot of accidents are caused by human pilots and typically that involves them making mistakes in stressful situations. Dealing with ATC is very stressful for pilots. Task saturation is something they all fight throughout their career. IFR pilots have to train and fly a lot to stay current; the ability to keep up with the radio communication and fly procedures safely is quickly lost when they don't. That's how hard it is. A pilot that is not current is not a safe pilot. That's why the rules are so strict for this. If you look at this space from a distance, it's kind of obvious that more automation is going to be inevitable. Airspaces are busy now and they are going to get a lot more busy in the next decades. At least part of the traffic is going to be autonomous. Those planes will likely be communicating with ATC via networked protocols that have yet to be proposed and standardized. There is no reason why those protocols could not work with other planes. And it would free up ATC staff and pilots to do more urgent things. The way ATC is currently done is not scalable or future proof.

macNchz 3y ago
> The lack of automation is causing ATC work to be stressful. … > And it would free up ATC staff and pilots to do more urgent things. There’s a problem that can happen with this, though, wherein the “easy” routine work is automated out and the number of humans involved is scaled down, but the work those people do then winds up being 100% the urgent/stressful stuff. I’ve heard that ER doctors have been experiencing this in recent years–not quite with automation so much as just offloading, as less serious cases are picked up by nurse practitioners/urgent care centers, staffing has been adjusted and the actual physicians wind up with a steady stream of stressful high-acuity cases back to back to back.
- michaelt 3y ago
  I agree we might need a minimum staff level of, say, 1 air traffic controller per airport, but unless I've been grievously misinformed about the safety of flying, urgent/stressful emergencies should be very rare. I suspect the main thing limiting ATC automation is the fact ATC is all done by voice using incredibly shitty radios, and equipment upgrades take like 50 years to roll out.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pcthrowaway 3y ago

Instead of more automation, perhaps it would be good to occasionally introduce phantom traffic which is designed to require intervention on their part (e.g. fabricate two flights and put them on a collision path). The air traffic controllers would be expected to flag them, or intervene, or do whatever they would realistically do in that scenario. From that, you can determine who's asleep at the wheel so to speak, and send them home. If necessary, planes may need to be grounded until properly alert staff can be available

paulddraper 3y ago
Not sure how that would work. "Citation one-three-niner-delta-uniform, Denver Tower, adjust altitude to seven three hundred, bearing one zero five." "Citation one-three-niner-delta-uniform, Denver Tower, please respond." Also FYI it's not like anyone can actually be asleep because pilot is required to establish two-way ATC contact to enter the airspace.