5 ms·

Or you modernize the system (not just tech but potentially the procedures). Kind of stupid to increase air traffic and traffic density over decades and just exp

Or you modernize the system (not just tech but potentially the procedures). Kind of stupid to increase air traffic and traffic density over decades and just expect the old systems to scale.

taeric 2y ago
Modernizing a system while it is in use is high risk. Absurdly high risk. Might still be needed, but is not a cheap or quick thing.
- robocat 2y ago
  The implication is some sort of greenfield change-everything-at-once idea? There is no choice but to do the alternative: modify and modernise all our critical systems piecemeal over decades while they are running, covered by the business cliche "We are building the plane, while flying it." We all naively desire (especially politicians) the software concept of the big rewrite, the version 2, project phoenix, Second-System Syndrome. With development experience we learn both the psychological pull of the concept and we learn why it is so hard to do successfully. It always seems so simple how to fix societal systems we have no experience with. Successful systems slowly improve, slowly introduce and prove new ideas, slowly accrete changes: we accept the costs of vestigial path-dependent aspects and technical debt. One of the incredible learning experiences of developing software systems is that it is a huge melting pot of different techniques that are iterated quickly (fast parallel evolution and proving) and the knowledge diffuses between people and teams and organisations. The waterfall model is rarely used! I believe we are now seeing those skills and techniques be applied to other system domains - especially high growth businesses.
  - taeric 2y ago
    This sounds like an agreement?
cogman10 2y ago
I'm not sure this is something that is solved by tech. It sounds like they simply don't have enough staff, whether that a budget problem or hiring problem IDK. The article mentions they have a 50% reduction in new hires which either says it's hard to be competent, the job is too demanding, or both. They had 1 tower with 1 operator and no redundancy at a fairly busy airport, which is definitely concerning.
- leeoniya 2y ago
  > I'm not sure this is something that is solved by tech in this case it seems like it could definitely have been solved by tech. both aircraft were traveling at predictable paths and opertating nominally.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    In the leaked ATC recording, the display is showing a collision alert before the impact. It just doesn't have any capability to do anything about them, it has to rely on the air traffic controller to resolve the issue. You could argue that helicopters, being very nimble craft, should have ADS-B receivers and provide display and sound their own collision warnings to their pilots. That's perfectly possible, I just don't think it's mandated
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  This is a nearly perfect problem for tech. We solve and automate very similar problems in other contexts at scale but FAA is extremely conservative about tech.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Your comment assumes the current system can be scaled indefinitely. But you also acknowledge that we can't currently fill the staffing. I also explicitly called out that the modernization might not be tech changes but procedure changes (realistically it would likely be procedure changes made possible through tech). Doing something to distribute information differently could result in redundancy such that if the commercial craft have a 1-3 mile ADS-B view around them, they can check that ATC isn't giving them bad instructions and that others are following directions.
fzeroracer 2y ago
Modernize the system how? Like do you have explicit steps on how to modernize it and what needs to be done?
- giantg2 2y ago
  They're working on multiple technical upgrades already, and some airports have been upgraded. I think better information distribution is one thing. Large craft could have ADS-B (or ATC's view) tracking of a 1-3 mile bubble displayed to them. This would add a check to being blindly told what to do and blindly trusting that others are doing what they're told. You could change certain procedures such as the military having one pilot use NVG while the other not when flying in high traffic and high illumination airspace. No reason we can't add better sensors to planes when you think about all the collision detection we are adding in cars. I'm sure there are many other things that can be changed as well. Some of it's the pace. Stuff that's already been piloted and shown to be effective is still taking forever to roll out at the other airports.
  - coin 2y ago
    > Large craft could have ADS-B tracking of a 1-3 mile bubble displayed to them. This would add a check to being blindly told what to do and blindly trusting that others are doing what they're told. Already exists, it's called TCAS
    - giantg2 2y ago
      That doesn't work with all transponders, right? Many private or military craft don't work with that system.
      - coin 2y ago
        TCAS works with Mode-C (same as military Mode 3).
        giantg2 2y ago
nradov 2y ago
It is being modernized through the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This will take decades and a huge amount of funding. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen https://www.faa.gov/nextgen They accept public comments so all of the armchair aviation experts on HN should probably send them an email and explain how they can solve all the problems by connecting ChatGPT to a controller console.
- hooo 2y ago
  Why does it have to take decades? That sounds insane
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - taeric 2y ago
    To modernize a running system, you have to duplicate everything so that you can someday do a switchover. For commerce tech, you switch, see what breaks, switch back and adjust for next try. You may have lost some sales. But probably just inconvenienced people. When doing travel systems, something breaking is likely a lot of deaths.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Have you read the various reports that are available right there on the web page?
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    A wide variety of decades-old aircraft, and even newer aircraft are often modernized versions of ancient aircraft models. All of them built and operated with the motto "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", because every change brings risk (and costs money). There was also a lot of resistance to the idea that every aircraft should broadcast its position, heading, etc. because of privacy concerns. And as long as there are holdouts the tower can't rely on the information being available
  - hkpack 2y ago
    Large infrastructure projects always take decades. Look at the railroad development in EU for example. You have to invent a lot of tech (signaling, communication between trains, interoperability with old systems), build a lot of infrastructure, train a lot of people and roll it out at scale with the goal of zero accidents. It is just impossible to do quickly.

Or you modernize the system (not just tech but potentially the procedures). Kind of stupid to increase air traffic and traffic density over decades and just expect the old systems to scale.

taeric 2y ago

Modernizing a system while it is in use is high risk. Absurdly high risk. Might still be needed, but is not a cheap or quick thing.

robocat 2y ago
The implication is some sort of greenfield change-everything-at-once idea? There is no choice but to do the alternative: modify and modernise all our critical systems piecemeal over decades while they are running, covered by the business cliche "We are building the plane, while flying it." We all naively desire (especially politicians) the software concept of the big rewrite, the version 2, project phoenix, Second-System Syndrome. With development experience we learn both the psychological pull of the concept and we learn why it is so hard to do successfully. It always seems so simple how to fix societal systems we have no experience with. Successful systems slowly improve, slowly introduce and prove new ideas, slowly accrete changes: we accept the costs of vestigial path-dependent aspects and technical debt. One of the incredible learning experiences of developing software systems is that it is a huge melting pot of different techniques that are iterated quickly (fast parallel evolution and proving) and the knowledge diffuses between people and teams and organisations. The waterfall model is rarely used! I believe we are now seeing those skills and techniques be applied to other system domains - especially high growth businesses.
- taeric 2y ago
  This sounds like an agreement?

cogman10 2y ago

I'm not sure this is something that is solved by tech. It sounds like they simply don't have enough staff, whether that a budget problem or hiring problem IDK. The article mentions they have a 50% reduction in new hires which either says it's hard to be competent, the job is too demanding, or both. They had 1 tower with 1 operator and no redundancy at a fairly busy airport, which is definitely concerning.

leeoniya 2y ago
> I'm not sure this is something that is solved by tech in this case it seems like it could definitely have been solved by tech. both aircraft were traveling at predictable paths and opertating nominally.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  In the leaked ATC recording, the display is showing a collision alert before the impact. It just doesn't have any capability to do anything about them, it has to rely on the air traffic controller to resolve the issue. You could argue that helicopters, being very nimble craft, should have ADS-B receivers and provide display and sound their own collision warnings to their pilots. That's perfectly possible, I just don't think it's mandated
jandrewrogers 2y ago
This is a nearly perfect problem for tech. We solve and automate very similar problems in other contexts at scale but FAA is extremely conservative about tech.
giantg2 2y ago
Your comment assumes the current system can be scaled indefinitely. But you also acknowledge that we can't currently fill the staffing. I also explicitly called out that the modernization might not be tech changes but procedure changes (realistically it would likely be procedure changes made possible through tech). Doing something to distribute information differently could result in redundancy such that if the commercial craft have a 1-3 mile ADS-B view around them, they can check that ATC isn't giving them bad instructions and that others are following directions.

fzeroracer 2y ago

Modernize the system how? Like do you have explicit steps on how to modernize it and what needs to be done?

giantg2 2y ago
They're working on multiple technical upgrades already, and some airports have been upgraded. I think better information distribution is one thing. Large craft could have ADS-B (or ATC's view) tracking of a 1-3 mile bubble displayed to them. This would add a check to being blindly told what to do and blindly trusting that others are doing what they're told. You could change certain procedures such as the military having one pilot use NVG while the other not when flying in high traffic and high illumination airspace. No reason we can't add better sensors to planes when you think about all the collision detection we are adding in cars. I'm sure there are many other things that can be changed as well. Some of it's the pace. Stuff that's already been piloted and shown to be effective is still taking forever to roll out at the other airports.
- coin 2y ago
  > Large craft could have ADS-B tracking of a 1-3 mile bubble displayed to them. This would add a check to being blindly told what to do and blindly trusting that others are doing what they're told. Already exists, it's called TCAS
  - giantg2 2y ago
    That doesn't work with all transponders, right? Many private or military craft don't work with that system.
    - coin 2y ago
      TCAS works with Mode-C (same as military Mode 3).
      - giantg2 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

It is being modernized through the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This will take decades and a huge amount of funding. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen https://www.faa.gov/nextgen They accept public comments so all of the armchair aviation experts on HN should probably send them an email and explain how they can solve all the problems by connecting ChatGPT to a controller console.

hooo 2y ago
Why does it have to take decades? That sounds insane
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- taeric 2y ago
  To modernize a running system, you have to duplicate everything so that you can someday do a switchover. For commerce tech, you switch, see what breaks, switch back and adjust for next try. You may have lost some sales. But probably just inconvenienced people. When doing travel systems, something breaking is likely a lot of deaths.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Have you read the various reports that are available right there on the web page?
- wongarsu 2y ago
  A wide variety of decades-old aircraft, and even newer aircraft are often modernized versions of ancient aircraft models. All of them built and operated with the motto "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", because every change brings risk (and costs money). There was also a lot of resistance to the idea that every aircraft should broadcast its position, heading, etc. because of privacy concerns. And as long as there are holdouts the tower can't rely on the information being available
- hkpack 2y ago
  Large infrastructure projects always take decades. Look at the railroad development in EU for example. You have to invent a lot of tech (signaling, communication between trains, interoperability with old systems), build a lot of infrastructure, train a lot of people and roll it out at scale with the goal of zero accidents. It is just impossible to do quickly.