10 ms·

it is crazy to me that all of this still relies on humans giving verbal clearance over radio. Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances

it is crazy to me that all of this still relies on humans giving verbal clearance over radio. Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? And shouldn’t there be a small, well-tested core system that makes sure clearance never conflicts? How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? We got over this in other domains long ago.

bamboozled 3y ago
Maybe there is a good reason for it ? Wait for the answer before giving them judgment. You might be right, but there might be a valid answer.
tonmoy 3y ago
I doubt your “other domains” are as safe and reliable as the aviation industry. An automated system may be possible to make, but will require a huge undertaking to bring even close to the current safety standards, and would introduce its own safety issues
- konschubert 3y ago
  If I step into the elevator door, it doesn’t squash me and the elevator won’t move.
  - drtgh 3y ago
    In the past six years there was some accidents just in the EU, at least one decapitation happened in the elevator of an hospital what I know. Or in the city were I live, a fail in a badly lubricated brake when an old person was entering (open door) sent the elevator to the top, just a few weeks after passing the monthly -supposed- maintenance service of the manufacturer. The maintenance seriousness in aviation is superior to an elevator, but even like that, the last human layer decision should not be avoided. For example, bad behaving sensor feeding a fin balancing algorithm introduced by the manufacturer to avoid the need to redesign an unbalanced plane to accommodate larger motors it was designed for, and pilots unable to make the plane follow their commanding due such algorithm blind decisions priority... has crashed planes.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    Usually. Liveleak will show hundreds of exceptions however.
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      Liveleak was shut down more than 2 years ago
  - lxgr 3y ago
    An elevator is many orders of magnitude less complex than an airport, though. Total automation can be done quite safely in some domains. Between that and a completely manual/human-operated system lies the area of augmentation, which can both be a boon to safety if done correctly, or deadly if it leads to automation complacency or false expectations around the types of situations it can successfully handle.
epolanski 3y ago
I have thought the same multiple times. I think the problem might not be super simple to solve through updating vehicles. You need to update infrastructure globally (and thus you need coordination between multiple different agencies), then you need to implement the solution at both airport and vehicles level. That's a lot of work. In case of LATAM the Airbus hit a fire truck (which would've too required such a solution). In case of the Linate air disaster, such technology would've had to be implemented on a very small Cessna Citation model. Maybe the updates need to be implemented at the airport level alone, quickly signaling controllers of possible violations/conflicts, and in fact most major airports have both ground radars and clear ground signals to avoid these incidents. But it's still impossible to avoid these issues as these errors may happen in a matter of very few seconds thus not giving enough time to react to any of the involved parties.
- konschubert 3y ago
  You have to define a universal standard and then gradually upgrade into it. You make it mandatory in new vehicles and for airports above a certain size. In 20 years, you can make it mandatory for all vehicles. I understand that these things take time.
hef19898 3y ago
And yet, aviation is one of the safest industries mankind ever built. It seems those solution in place are actually pretty good. Edit: Something I try to take to heart, if I don't have domain knowledge, I assume that whatever easy solution I can think of either was already discarded for valid reasons I don't know nor understand or is already implemented without me knowing about it. Generally, people working in a particular field tend to be competent in that field, just assuke that more often than not they know what they are doing.
- konschubert 3y ago
  We got very good at doing aviation safety in a certain way. The people who work in aviation are extremely skilled at doing safety in a certain way. This is usually true for any domain. People are very experienced and extremely skilled at doing things within a certain framework. It can still be true that there is a better way. I realise it’s hard to be on par with a century of aviation safety experience, even if the new approach is better. That’s why you need a gradual transition that focuses on enhancement rather than replacement
resolutebat 3y ago
It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears them correctly but accidentally goes to the wrong runway/taxiway, etc etc. And there's usually complicating factors like terrible weather, diversions to unfamiliar airports etc in the mix as well. What remains the world's worst single aviation disaster in Tenerife checked pretty much all these boxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_involving_ground_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_an...
- konschubert 3y ago
  All of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    Airplane taxiing is manual. ATC can tell the plane to use runway A, and the plane can check that A is free, but neither will stop the pilot from accidentally steering into runway B.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      There’s nothing preventing airplanes from knowing the coordinates of every runway in the world and working out the truth using GPS though.
      - konschubert 3y ago
        Modern passenger airplanes absolutely do have runway maps.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        This would elevate the impact of GPS spoofing from a minor or major [1] nuisance to a significant terrorism threat. [1] https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-it-works/ https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-i...
YPPH 3y ago
Pilots are accustomed to the immediacy of voice communication, which any electronic system will struggle to replicate. More sophisticated radio than simplex VHF has too many variables, and agreeing on an international standard would be challenging. There have been some developments of a replacement of, or at least a supplement to, simplex radio. But none are as cheap, quick and reliable as verbal communications with readback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller%E2%80%93pilot_data_link_communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller%E2%80%93pilot_data_...
- konschubert 3y ago
  “We’ve always done it like this” will no longer be a good argument when one of the increasing number of near misses turns into an accident.
  - YPPH 3y ago
    Assuming (1) the replacement is a better solution, and (2) it is feasible to retrofit every aircraft in the world and switch everyone over to it. Just in relation to (2), I can't really think of anything worse than having two communication systems on operation at the one airport - everyone must be using the same system.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      You can make it an incremental upgrade that adds an additional safety layer, at least until all vehicles are updated in 30 years.
      - hindsightbias 3y ago
        The average age of general aviation aircraft is well over 30 years old.
        konschubert 3y ago
        Well, then let’s start
pm3003 3y ago
I worked in software in a domain vaguely related to ATC, and I've heard a few years ago that even sampling the voice commands (and routing them as VoIP) is problematic , as altering the signal through sampling and encoding can go against regulations. I don't remember the details though. It was in a project related to ATC and area control / FIR services backup systems.
bronco21016 3y ago
I can’t speak to international ops because I’m just not sure. In the US though, we have runway status lights. At all the runway intersections there are lights embedded in the runway that will tell you if the runway is safe or not. A radar based system is constantly monitoring the runway and will light it up red if there is a potential for collision. The system works independent of any input from ATC. I think it’s actually quite effective. Unfortunately it’s expensive and so only runways at the busiest airports have it so far.
- epolanski 3y ago
  And yet in US it's also standard practice to have airplanes takeoff on the same runway at the same time if the preceding airplane is small enough to not create vortices. Note how no one did anything wrong really in this case: https://simpleflying.com/march-2020-air-canada-incident/ https://simpleflying.com/march-2020-air-canada-incident/
  - konschubert 3y ago
    You can build a system that accounts for this.
    - snypher 3y ago
      >runway incursion monitoring and alert system had failed to detect the danger as it had detected that both aircraft were in the air despite still being on the ground.
      - konschubert 3y ago
        Yea, seems like the system isn’t very good since it’s not actually connected to the vehicles.
- koyote 3y ago
  Not all Airports do, this incident at JFK happened not long ago and could have been a massive disaster: https://onemileatatime.com/news/american-777-delta-737-nearly-collide-jfk-runway/ https://onemileatatime.com/news/american-777-delta-737-nearl...
throw0101d 3y ago
> Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? And shouldn’t there be a small, well-tested core system that makes sure clearance never conflicts? ATC entering instructions into a computer, then pilots reading and interpreting from their computer, and then operating their plane, probably is slower and the context switches between the computer screen and what's outside the window may lead to errors. There are over 100,000 commercial flights each day (worldwide): * https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics * https://news.paxeditions.com/news/airline/radar-shows-record-breaking-number-flights-one-day https://news.paxeditions.com/news/airline/radar-shows-record... * https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/9/visualising-the-global-air-travel-industry-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/9/visualising-the-... What is the error rate of runway incursions and such? > How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? Flying aircraft in general depends on "skilled individuals not making a mistake". Unless you think we should get rid of pilots completely? Other things that "depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake": driving cars, cooking food properly (to avoid poisoning), surgery, etc.
- konschubert 3y ago
  I didn’t say that anyone should enter anything manually into a computer, nor did I claim that a human reading a computer screen is how an automated runway system would ensure safety. As an aside, humans are not doing a good job at driving cars and should leave that to the computers.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    Is there a car autopilot system that good on the market that only you know about? And that can replace the driver completely?
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Waymo is safer than a human driver already. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/googles-waymo-safety-study-on-driverless-cars/3311188/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/googles-waymo-safe... Of course there will be locations where humans are required, but we can already start using computers in those locations where they perform better.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. It might make sense at some point in the future where an autopilot system knows how to taxi, take off, troubleshoot issues by itself during the critical phases of flight and so on. And like others said, aviation is one of the safest industries on the planet.
- konschubert 3y ago
  > Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. What makes you think so?
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    Because computers don’t have instincts. And don’t get nuances of communication or instructions.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      I don’t need nuances I need to know if the runway is clear or not.
      - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
        You are nitpicking at this point. A runway may be clear when given the clearance to land. And that happens about 4NM from the RWY threshold. In the meantime a incursion might happen. Given low visibility you may not see it as you land a big airplane whose nose is a bit high up because of the flare. And even if you see it, it takes a few seconds for engines to spool up to full power in order to do a go-around.
- sammy2255 3y ago
  >Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. Why? Human to human leaves room for error and misinterpretation.
gureddio 3y ago
I'm just a hobbyist, but my understanding is that there are supporting systems in-place, such as RIMCAS (Runway Incursion Monitoring and Conflict Alert System) https://test1.skybrary.aero/articles/runway-incursion-monitoring-and-conflict-alert-system-rimcas https://test1.skybrary.aero/articles/runway-incursion-monito...
rainsford 3y ago
It's largely a solved problem in aviation as well. Serious accidents get a lot of attention specifically because they are so rare and those based on clearance miscommunication or other radio misunderstanding are rarer still. So you'd be introducing a lot of additional system complexity trying to chase after ever decreasing gains. I'm not sure the end result is a net positive for safety.
jt2190 3y ago
> Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? “Communicating clearances” would actually be the easy part. The hard part is making sure that there actually is clearance. The system would need to be able to “see” the runway and to “know” about the flights that are permitted to use it in real-time. It would involve many computers, some in the air and some on the ground I assume. If the system failed the pilots would have to fall back onto something else, perhaps what they do today, so they’d still need training and practice. If a pilot made a mistake the system would need to be able to detect that and update everyone.
asylteltine 3y ago
I agree. It’s SO antiquated. Nevermind issues with clearance there’s even issues like pilots forgetting what was ordered or ATC not catching incorrect read backs. This is just ridiculous that still in 2024 we are using technology from 1950 as the only way to give instructions. We solved encryption and authentication years ago. FAA should mandate strongly authenticated computer messages as the primary. But you know the real reasons it’s old. 1) corporate greed and no regulation 2) legacy… it’s always legacy holding us back. All the third world countries, Russia, etc would not adopt it.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  I wouldn't blame Russia for stupidly refusing to upgrade to newer technologies. Russia has its faults to be sure, but I'd sooner blame all the "freedom-loving" general aviation enthusiasts in America: you know, the people who refuse to give up carburetors and leaded gasoline in their 1940s-era airplanes?
lxgr 3y ago
> We got over this in other domains long ago. How does the incident/accident rate in these other domains look like, then? > How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? Everything safety critical always depends on skilled individuals not making a mistake, as long as there isn't full automation (in which case it depends on the people designing and implementing the automation system). Until we do have that, mixed automation can actually make things less safe if it isn't done very deliberately and carefully, with people in operations relying on an imperfect system, and system designers on ops to catch complex and edge cases.

bamboozled 3y ago

Maybe there is a good reason for it ? Wait for the answer before giving them judgment. You might be right, but there might be a valid answer.

tonmoy 3y ago

I doubt your “other domains” are as safe and reliable as the aviation industry. An automated system may be possible to make, but will require a huge undertaking to bring even close to the current safety standards, and would introduce its own safety issues

konschubert 3y ago
If I step into the elevator door, it doesn’t squash me and the elevator won’t move.
- drtgh 3y ago
  In the past six years there was some accidents just in the EU, at least one decapitation happened in the elevator of an hospital what I know. Or in the city were I live, a fail in a badly lubricated brake when an old person was entering (open door) sent the elevator to the top, just a few weeks after passing the monthly -supposed- maintenance service of the manufacturer. The maintenance seriousness in aviation is superior to an elevator, but even like that, the last human layer decision should not be avoided. For example, bad behaving sensor feeding a fin balancing algorithm introduced by the manufacturer to avoid the need to redesign an unbalanced plane to accommodate larger motors it was designed for, and pilots unable to make the plane follow their commanding due such algorithm blind decisions priority... has crashed planes.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  Usually. Liveleak will show hundreds of exceptions however.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    Liveleak was shut down more than 2 years ago
- lxgr 3y ago
  An elevator is many orders of magnitude less complex than an airport, though. Total automation can be done quite safely in some domains. Between that and a completely manual/human-operated system lies the area of augmentation, which can both be a boon to safety if done correctly, or deadly if it leads to automation complacency or false expectations around the types of situations it can successfully handle.

epolanski 3y ago

I have thought the same multiple times. I think the problem might not be super simple to solve through updating vehicles. You need to update infrastructure globally (and thus you need coordination between multiple different agencies), then you need to implement the solution at both airport and vehicles level. That's a lot of work. In case of LATAM the Airbus hit a fire truck (which would've too required such a solution). In case of the Linate air disaster, such technology would've had to be implemented on a very small Cessna Citation model. Maybe the updates need to be implemented at the airport level alone, quickly signaling controllers of possible violations/conflicts, and in fact most major airports have both ground radars and clear ground signals to avoid these incidents. But it's still impossible to avoid these issues as these errors may happen in a matter of very few seconds thus not giving enough time to react to any of the involved parties.

konschubert 3y ago
You have to define a universal standard and then gradually upgrade into it. You make it mandatory in new vehicles and for airports above a certain size. In 20 years, you can make it mandatory for all vehicles. I understand that these things take time.

hef19898 3y ago

And yet, aviation is one of the safest industries mankind ever built. It seems those solution in place are actually pretty good. Edit: Something I try to take to heart, if I don't have domain knowledge, I assume that whatever easy solution I can think of either was already discarded for valid reasons I don't know nor understand or is already implemented without me knowing about it. Generally, people working in a particular field tend to be competent in that field, just assuke that more often than not they know what they are doing.

konschubert 3y ago
We got very good at doing aviation safety in a certain way. The people who work in aviation are extremely skilled at doing safety in a certain way. This is usually true for any domain. People are very experienced and extremely skilled at doing things within a certain framework. It can still be true that there is a better way. I realise it’s hard to be on par with a century of aviation safety experience, even if the new approach is better. That’s why you need a gradual transition that focuses on enhancement rather than replacement

resolutebat 3y ago

It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears them correctly but accidentally goes to the wrong runway/taxiway, etc etc. And there's usually complicating factors like terrible weather, diversions to unfamiliar airports etc in the mix as well. What remains the world's worst single aviation disaster in Tenerife checked pretty much all these boxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_involving_ground_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_an...

konschubert 3y ago
All of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Airplane taxiing is manual. ATC can tell the plane to use runway A, and the plane can check that A is free, but neither will stop the pilot from accidentally steering into runway B.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    There’s nothing preventing airplanes from knowing the coordinates of every runway in the world and working out the truth using GPS though.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Modern passenger airplanes absolutely do have runway maps.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      This would elevate the impact of GPS spoofing from a minor or major [1] nuisance to a significant terrorism threat. [1] https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-it-works/ https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-i...

YPPH 3y ago

Pilots are accustomed to the immediacy of voice communication, which any electronic system will struggle to replicate. More sophisticated radio than simplex VHF has too many variables, and agreeing on an international standard would be challenging. There have been some developments of a replacement of, or at least a supplement to, simplex radio. But none are as cheap, quick and reliable as verbal communications with readback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller%E2%80%93pilot_data_link_communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller%E2%80%93pilot_data_...

konschubert 3y ago
“We’ve always done it like this” will no longer be a good argument when one of the increasing number of near misses turns into an accident.
- YPPH 3y ago
  Assuming (1) the replacement is a better solution, and (2) it is feasible to retrofit every aircraft in the world and switch everyone over to it. Just in relation to (2), I can't really think of anything worse than having two communication systems on operation at the one airport - everyone must be using the same system.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    You can make it an incremental upgrade that adds an additional safety layer, at least until all vehicles are updated in 30 years.
    - hindsightbias 3y ago
      The average age of general aviation aircraft is well over 30 years old.
      - konschubert 3y ago
        Well, then let’s start

pm3003 3y ago

I worked in software in a domain vaguely related to ATC, and I've heard a few years ago that even sampling the voice commands (and routing them as VoIP) is problematic , as altering the signal through sampling and encoding can go against regulations. I don't remember the details though. It was in a project related to ATC and area control / FIR services backup systems.

bronco21016 3y ago

I can’t speak to international ops because I’m just not sure. In the US though, we have runway status lights. At all the runway intersections there are lights embedded in the runway that will tell you if the runway is safe or not. A radar based system is constantly monitoring the runway and will light it up red if there is a potential for collision. The system works independent of any input from ATC. I think it’s actually quite effective. Unfortunately it’s expensive and so only runways at the busiest airports have it so far.

epolanski 3y ago
And yet in US it's also standard practice to have airplanes takeoff on the same runway at the same time if the preceding airplane is small enough to not create vortices. Note how no one did anything wrong really in this case: https://simpleflying.com/march-2020-air-canada-incident/ https://simpleflying.com/march-2020-air-canada-incident/
- konschubert 3y ago
  You can build a system that accounts for this.
  - snypher 3y ago
    >runway incursion monitoring and alert system had failed to detect the danger as it had detected that both aircraft were in the air despite still being on the ground.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Yea, seems like the system isn’t very good since it’s not actually connected to the vehicles.
koyote 3y ago
Not all Airports do, this incident at JFK happened not long ago and could have been a massive disaster: https://onemileatatime.com/news/american-777-delta-737-nearly-collide-jfk-runway/ https://onemileatatime.com/news/american-777-delta-737-nearl...

throw0101d 3y ago

> Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? And shouldn’t there be a small, well-tested core system that makes sure clearance never conflicts? ATC entering instructions into a computer, then pilots reading and interpreting from their computer, and then operating their plane, probably is slower and the context switches between the computer screen and what's outside the window may lead to errors. There are over 100,000 commercial flights each day (worldwide): * https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics https://www.flightradar24.com/data/statistics * https://news.paxeditions.com/news/airline/radar-shows-record-breaking-number-flights-one-day https://news.paxeditions.com/news/airline/radar-shows-record... * https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/9/visualising-the-global-air-travel-industry-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/9/visualising-the-... What is the error rate of runway incursions and such? > How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? Flying aircraft in general depends on "skilled individuals not making a mistake". Unless you think we should get rid of pilots completely? Other things that "depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake": driving cars, cooking food properly (to avoid poisoning), surgery, etc.

konschubert 3y ago
I didn’t say that anyone should enter anything manually into a computer, nor did I claim that a human reading a computer screen is how an automated runway system would ensure safety. As an aside, humans are not doing a good job at driving cars and should leave that to the computers.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  Is there a car autopilot system that good on the market that only you know about? And that can replace the driver completely?
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Waymo is safer than a human driver already. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/googles-waymo-safety-study-on-driverless-cars/3311188/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/googles-waymo-safe... Of course there will be locations where humans are required, but we can already start using computers in those locations where they perform better.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. It might make sense at some point in the future where an autopilot system knows how to taxi, take off, troubleshoot issues by itself during the critical phases of flight and so on. And like others said, aviation is one of the safest industries on the planet.

konschubert 3y ago
> Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. What makes you think so?
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  Because computers don’t have instincts. And don’t get nuances of communication or instructions.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    I don’t need nuances I need to know if the runway is clear or not.
    - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
      You are nitpicking at this point. A runway may be clear when given the clearance to land. And that happens about 4NM from the RWY threshold. In the meantime a incursion might happen. Given low visibility you may not see it as you land a big airplane whose nose is a bit high up because of the flare. And even if you see it, it takes a few seconds for engines to spool up to full power in order to do a go-around.
sammy2255 3y ago
>Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. Why? Human to human leaves room for error and misinterpretation.

gureddio 3y ago

I'm just a hobbyist, but my understanding is that there are supporting systems in-place, such as RIMCAS (Runway Incursion Monitoring and Conflict Alert System) https://test1.skybrary.aero/articles/runway-incursion-monitoring-and-conflict-alert-system-rimcas https://test1.skybrary.aero/articles/runway-incursion-monito...

rainsford 3y ago

It's largely a solved problem in aviation as well. Serious accidents get a lot of attention specifically because they are so rare and those based on clearance miscommunication or other radio misunderstanding are rarer still. So you'd be introducing a lot of additional system complexity trying to chase after ever decreasing gains. I'm not sure the end result is a net positive for safety.

jt2190 3y ago

> Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? “Communicating clearances” would actually be the easy part. The hard part is making sure that there actually is clearance. The system would need to be able to “see” the runway and to “know” about the flights that are permitted to use it in real-time. It would involve many computers, some in the air and some on the ground I assume. If the system failed the pilots would have to fall back onto something else, perhaps what they do today, so they’d still need training and practice. If a pilot made a mistake the system would need to be able to detect that and update everyone.

asylteltine 3y ago

I agree. It’s SO antiquated. Nevermind issues with clearance there’s even issues like pilots forgetting what was ordered or ATC not catching incorrect read backs. This is just ridiculous that still in 2024 we are using technology from 1950 as the only way to give instructions. We solved encryption and authentication years ago. FAA should mandate strongly authenticated computer messages as the primary. But you know the real reasons it’s old. 1) corporate greed and no regulation 2) legacy… it’s always legacy holding us back. All the third world countries, Russia, etc would not adopt it.

shiroiuma 3y ago
I wouldn't blame Russia for stupidly refusing to upgrade to newer technologies. Russia has its faults to be sure, but I'd sooner blame all the "freedom-loving" general aviation enthusiasts in America: you know, the people who refuse to give up carburetors and leaded gasoline in their 1940s-era airplanes?

lxgr 3y ago

> We got over this in other domains long ago. How does the incident/accident rate in these other domains look like, then? > How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? Everything safety critical always depends on skilled individuals not making a mistake, as long as there isn't full automation (in which case it depends on the people designing and implementing the automation system). Until we do have that, mixed automation can actually make things less safe if it isn't done very deliberately and carefully, with people in operations relying on an imperfect system, and system designers on ops to catch complex and edge cases.