3 ms·

Is there an actual reason why the control tower work can't be fully automated? For train control lights we almost don't rely on human operators anywhere.

foobarchu 2y ago
Not an expert but I can't imagine that would go very well. Trains have a single axis of movement that sometimes cross or combines with others. Aircraft have three axes of movement all under human control.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
namirez 2y ago
How would you deal with all sorts of emergencies involving human pilots? For unmanned aircraft(aka drones) it’s a lot easier to implement unmanned traffic management (UTM).
- hattmall 2y ago
  Direct them to land in the best location and make sure all other aircraft are on non-intersecting flight paths. What exactly is ATC doing that software isn't able to? How many options are there for handling emergencies with aircraft now? You pretty much just have either land ASAP or circle to burn fuel and then land.
  - namirez 2y ago
    Obviously you’re not a pilot. It might be helpful for you to listen to a few ATC transcripts of emergency situations.
    - Auracle 2y ago
      It does seem like the routine could be automated more, no?
  - justinspace 2y ago
    "You pretty much just..." Ah, there it is. "How hard could coordinating takeoff and landing for thousands of flights be? You just..."
- justinspace 2y ago
  [flagged]
stouset 2y ago
Trains run on fixed tracks with fixed intersections, and one track might see a handful of them per day. Planes around airports come in from all directions in three dimensions, and there can be hundreds of arrivals per hour. These are vastly different scales of problem domain.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Four Dimensional Navigation, actually! X, Y, Z, plus Time. By incorporating strict time constraints, air traffic controllers can schedule and merge arriving aircraft more precisely, reducing holding patterns and optimizing fuel usage. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750022064/downloads/19750022064.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750022064/downloads/19... >4D AREA NAVIGATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND FLIGHT TEST RESULTS >A 4D area navigation system was designed to guide aircraft along a prespecified flight path (reference path) such that the aircraft would arrive at the approach gate at a time specified by the ATC controller. Key components to achieve this requirement were: >(1) stored reference trajectories; >(2) a continuously recomputed capture trajectory to a selected waypoint on the reference trajectory so as to achieve the desired time of arrival; >(3) electronic situation displays; and (4) a control system to follow the overall trajectory in space and time. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19750015477 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19750015477 >Four-dimensional guidance algorithms for aircraft in an air traffic control environment >Theoretical development and computer implementation of three guidance algorithms are presented. From a small set of input parameters the algorithms generate the ground track, altitude profile, and speed profile required to implement an experimental 4-D guidance system. Given a sequence of waypoints that define a nominal flight path, the first algorithm generates a realistic, flyable ground track consisting of a sequence of straight line segments and circular arcs. Each circular turn is constrained by the minimum turning radius of the aircraft. The ground track and the specified waypoint altitudes are used as inputs to the second algorithm which generates the altitude profile. The altitude profile consists of piecewise constant flight path angle segments, each segment lying within specified upper and lower bounds. The third algorithm generates a feasible speed profile subject to constraints on the rate of change in speed, permissible speed ranges, and effects of wind. Flight path parameters are then combined into a chronological sequence to form the 4-D guidance vectors. These vectors can be used to drive the autopilot/autothrottle of the aircraft so that a 4-D flight path could be tracked completely automatically; or these vectors may be used to drive the flight director and other cockpit displays, thereby enabling the pilot to track a 4-D flight path manually. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2020-12-4d-tbo-a-new-approach-to-aircraft-trajectory-prediction https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2020-12-4d-tbo-a-... >4D-TBO: a new approach to aircraft trajectory prediction >How four-dimensional trajectory data could contribute to aviation decarbonisation targets >The real-time transmission of four-dimensional trajectory data has the incredible potential to greatly improve an aircraft’s trajectory prediction. By reducing the inaccuracy of current air traffic management (ATM) prediction models by approximately 30-40%, the Trajectory Based Operations in 4 Dimensions (4D-TBO) project is helping to pave the way to a more sustainable management of tomorrow’s air traffic. https://skybrary.aero/articles/4d-trajectory-concept https://skybrary.aero/articles/4d-trajectory-concept >The 4D trajectory of an aircraft consists of the three spatial dimensions plus time as a fourth dimension. This means that any delay is in fact a distortion of the trajectory as much as a level change or a change of the horizontal position. Tactical interventions by air traffic controllers rarely take into account the effect on the trajectory as a whole due to the relatively short look-ahead time (in the order of 20 minutes or so). >The implementation of 4D trajectory management is being researched by SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) in the EU and NextGen in the US. >The 4D trajectory concept is based on the integration of time into the 3D aircraft trajectory. It aims to ensure flight on a practically unrestricted, optimum trajectory for as long as possible in exchange for the aircraft being obliged to meet very accurately an arrival time over a designated point.
LeafItAlone 2y ago
> For train control lights we almost don't rely on human operators anywhere. Trains are on tracks. They basically move in one dimension. And the tracks can have (near) contact-based sensors along the way where the exact distance is known. (And in the US, there still is human conducting in a lot of the US) That’s a very different problem space than the three dimension, unattached, space that air traffic moves in.
randerson 2y ago
The problem space is too broad. E.g. On 9/11 ATC had to land almost 3000 planes in 1 hour. I'm not sure if that sort of national coordinated grounding is part of ATC training, but it's certainly not something I'd want to leave to some code that has never needed to run in production before.
- hattmall 2y ago
  It just seems like software could pretty easily compute non-intersecting flight paths for all planes and assign them accordingly. As well it could real time monitor all trajectories and continue to give out the updated flight paths. I don't see why you also couldn't run a trillion tests using real and simulated flight data to make sure it works well.
  - qazxcvbnmlp 2y ago
    Because right now airplanes are flown by humans. A large part of atcs jobs is dealing with humans. Not every pilot will be able to fly the optimum flight path.
  - YZF 2y ago
    Air traffic control has a lot more things to deal with. There are scenarios like runway closed and all traffic has to be diverted. Loss of communication. Various emergencies. Weather changes. It's not just a question of 3D motion planning. Controllers in the tower also use their eyes. In your imaginary system how is the software "tower" communicating with airplanes, using voice? I don't think we even have software that can reliably decode the variety of human voices over radio that a controller can respond to. One can imagine a digital protocol to all airplanes but technology works its way really slowly into aviation.
    - hattmall 2y ago
      Yes, it would require a piece of hardware, but that seems easy to regulate and wouldn't need to be very expensive certainly not in relation to the costs of owning and operating an airplane.
SeptiumMMX 2y ago
Because things can go from routine to multiple simultaneous life-threatening failures very quickly. Something like one flight declaring a mayday while another one just lost communication, all while the radar just started glitching in a weird way. Human intuition and common sense can sort it out. Deterministic algorithms would not.
stall84 2y ago
not a bad question honestly.. I'd want some highly skilled humans there monitoring things but, yes. The air traffic control system of the US is absolutely incredibly amazing, but their entire mission, technology and equipment used to accomplish that mission, etc need to be reviewed, maybe rebuilt to be even safer.
justinspace 2y ago
I mean this sincerely. What is more likely: that we've spent several decades ignoring very real automation solutions to this problem, or that it's a really, really hard problem that could get people killed?
kristjansson 2y ago
Positive Train Control has been a big fight too.
thowawatp302 2y ago
Weather. How often do weather events change the entire traffic flow into a train station? I’ve heard ATC swap landing and takeoff directions in the space of 10 minutes because of weather

foobarchu 2y ago

Not an expert but I can't imagine that would go very well. Trains have a single axis of movement that sometimes cross or combines with others. Aircraft have three axes of movement all under human control.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

namirez 2y ago

How would you deal with all sorts of emergencies involving human pilots? For unmanned aircraft(aka drones) it’s a lot easier to implement unmanned traffic management (UTM).

hattmall 2y ago
Direct them to land in the best location and make sure all other aircraft are on non-intersecting flight paths. What exactly is ATC doing that software isn't able to? How many options are there for handling emergencies with aircraft now? You pretty much just have either land ASAP or circle to burn fuel and then land.
- namirez 2y ago
  Obviously you’re not a pilot. It might be helpful for you to listen to a few ATC transcripts of emergency situations.
  - Auracle 2y ago
    It does seem like the routine could be automated more, no?
- justinspace 2y ago
  "You pretty much just..." Ah, there it is. "How hard could coordinating takeoff and landing for thousands of flights be? You just..."
justinspace 2y ago
[flagged]

stouset 2y ago

Trains run on fixed tracks with fixed intersections, and one track might see a handful of them per day. Planes around airports come in from all directions in three dimensions, and there can be hundreds of arrivals per hour. These are vastly different scales of problem domain.

DonHopkins 2y ago
Four Dimensional Navigation, actually! X, Y, Z, plus Time. By incorporating strict time constraints, air traffic controllers can schedule and merge arriving aircraft more precisely, reducing holding patterns and optimizing fuel usage. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750022064/downloads/19750022064.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750022064/downloads/19... >4D AREA NAVIGATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND FLIGHT TEST RESULTS >A 4D area navigation system was designed to guide aircraft along a prespecified flight path (reference path) such that the aircraft would arrive at the approach gate at a time specified by the ATC controller. Key components to achieve this requirement were: >(1) stored reference trajectories; >(2) a continuously recomputed capture trajectory to a selected waypoint on the reference trajectory so as to achieve the desired time of arrival; >(3) electronic situation displays; and (4) a control system to follow the overall trajectory in space and time. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19750015477 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19750015477 >Four-dimensional guidance algorithms for aircraft in an air traffic control environment >Theoretical development and computer implementation of three guidance algorithms are presented. From a small set of input parameters the algorithms generate the ground track, altitude profile, and speed profile required to implement an experimental 4-D guidance system. Given a sequence of waypoints that define a nominal flight path, the first algorithm generates a realistic, flyable ground track consisting of a sequence of straight line segments and circular arcs. Each circular turn is constrained by the minimum turning radius of the aircraft. The ground track and the specified waypoint altitudes are used as inputs to the second algorithm which generates the altitude profile. The altitude profile consists of piecewise constant flight path angle segments, each segment lying within specified upper and lower bounds. The third algorithm generates a feasible speed profile subject to constraints on the rate of change in speed, permissible speed ranges, and effects of wind. Flight path parameters are then combined into a chronological sequence to form the 4-D guidance vectors. These vectors can be used to drive the autopilot/autothrottle of the aircraft so that a 4-D flight path could be tracked completely automatically; or these vectors may be used to drive the flight director and other cockpit displays, thereby enabling the pilot to track a 4-D flight path manually. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2020-12-4d-tbo-a-new-approach-to-aircraft-trajectory-prediction https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2020-12-4d-tbo-a-... >4D-TBO: a new approach to aircraft trajectory prediction >How four-dimensional trajectory data could contribute to aviation decarbonisation targets >The real-time transmission of four-dimensional trajectory data has the incredible potential to greatly improve an aircraft’s trajectory prediction. By reducing the inaccuracy of current air traffic management (ATM) prediction models by approximately 30-40%, the Trajectory Based Operations in 4 Dimensions (4D-TBO) project is helping to pave the way to a more sustainable management of tomorrow’s air traffic. https://skybrary.aero/articles/4d-trajectory-concept https://skybrary.aero/articles/4d-trajectory-concept >The 4D trajectory of an aircraft consists of the three spatial dimensions plus time as a fourth dimension. This means that any delay is in fact a distortion of the trajectory as much as a level change or a change of the horizontal position. Tactical interventions by air traffic controllers rarely take into account the effect on the trajectory as a whole due to the relatively short look-ahead time (in the order of 20 minutes or so). >The implementation of 4D trajectory management is being researched by SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) in the EU and NextGen in the US. >The 4D trajectory concept is based on the integration of time into the 3D aircraft trajectory. It aims to ensure flight on a practically unrestricted, optimum trajectory for as long as possible in exchange for the aircraft being obliged to meet very accurately an arrival time over a designated point.

LeafItAlone 2y ago

> For train control lights we almost don't rely on human operators anywhere. Trains are on tracks. They basically move in one dimension. And the tracks can have (near) contact-based sensors along the way where the exact distance is known. (And in the US, there still is human conducting in a lot of the US) That’s a very different problem space than the three dimension, unattached, space that air traffic moves in.

randerson 2y ago

The problem space is too broad. E.g. On 9/11 ATC had to land almost 3000 planes in 1 hour. I'm not sure if that sort of national coordinated grounding is part of ATC training, but it's certainly not something I'd want to leave to some code that has never needed to run in production before.

hattmall 2y ago
It just seems like software could pretty easily compute non-intersecting flight paths for all planes and assign them accordingly. As well it could real time monitor all trajectories and continue to give out the updated flight paths. I don't see why you also couldn't run a trillion tests using real and simulated flight data to make sure it works well.
- qazxcvbnmlp 2y ago
  Because right now airplanes are flown by humans. A large part of atcs jobs is dealing with humans. Not every pilot will be able to fly the optimum flight path.
- YZF 2y ago
  Air traffic control has a lot more things to deal with. There are scenarios like runway closed and all traffic has to be diverted. Loss of communication. Various emergencies. Weather changes. It's not just a question of 3D motion planning. Controllers in the tower also use their eyes. In your imaginary system how is the software "tower" communicating with airplanes, using voice? I don't think we even have software that can reliably decode the variety of human voices over radio that a controller can respond to. One can imagine a digital protocol to all airplanes but technology works its way really slowly into aviation.
  - hattmall 2y ago
    Yes, it would require a piece of hardware, but that seems easy to regulate and wouldn't need to be very expensive certainly not in relation to the costs of owning and operating an airplane.

SeptiumMMX 2y ago

Because things can go from routine to multiple simultaneous life-threatening failures very quickly. Something like one flight declaring a mayday while another one just lost communication, all while the radar just started glitching in a weird way. Human intuition and common sense can sort it out. Deterministic algorithms would not.

stall84 2y ago

not a bad question honestly.. I'd want some highly skilled humans there monitoring things but, yes. The air traffic control system of the US is absolutely incredibly amazing, but their entire mission, technology and equipment used to accomplish that mission, etc need to be reviewed, maybe rebuilt to be even safer.

justinspace 2y ago

I mean this sincerely. What is more likely: that we've spent several decades ignoring very real automation solutions to this problem, or that it's a really, really hard problem that could get people killed?

kristjansson 2y ago

Positive Train Control has been a big fight too.

thowawatp302 2y ago

Weather. How often do weather events change the entire traffic flow into a train station? I’ve heard ATC swap landing and takeoff directions in the space of 10 minutes because of weather