7 ms·

Air traffic (and ground traffic) control are not simple problems. La Guardia has 350k aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) every year. 1000/day. Peak tra

by dpark 7mo ago

Air traffic (and ground traffic) control are not simple problems. La Guardia has 350k aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) every year. 1000/day. Peak traffic is almost certainly more than 1 plane every minute. Runways are always in use and the idea that some simple software will solve all the safety problems is not grounded in reality.

CamperBob2 7mo ago
[flagged]
- JohnMakin 7mo ago
  One jet landing every minute, coordinating the airspace for miles around the airport, along with coordinating non-landing traffic (helicopters, small craft), while making sure these (already heavily automated) flight systems dont get confused and kill several hundred people sounds easy to you, along with keeping everything on time and schedule? Go write it then.
  - estearum 7mo ago
    And I think most critically: being able to adapt all of this on the fly when invariably something goes off-plan.
    - CamperBob2 7mo ago
      Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately dangerous to make a human do a machine's job.
      - thomascountz 7mo ago
        You say it “…sounds like a simple problem,” and sure, if you think this is a computer problem, it sounds simple. But if all you’re getting back is indignant sputtering, that’s your cue to explain why it’s simple—explaining something simple shouldn't be hard. What do you actually know? It takes all of two minutes of Wikipedia reading for me to understand why this isn’t simple; why it's actually extremely not simple! If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". But then, if you're ignoring those things, you’re not really solving the problem, are you?
        CamperBob2 7mo ago
        If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". Those are excuses and encumbrances, not reasons. If they are so important, it leads to a question: what existing automated systems can we improve by adding similar constraints? If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such. I would like to say, "Because knowledgeable people have explained the difference to me." But again, this has come up before, and no explanations are ever provided. Only vague, reactionary hand-waving, assuring me that humans -- presumably not the same ones who just directed a fire truck and an aircraft onto the same active runway, but humans nevertheless -- are vital for safety in ATC, because for reasons such as and therefore. There you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying. There is no substance in the replies. There never is. Only unanchored FUD.
        estearum 7mo ago
        The only difference between an excuse and a reason is the designator's belief as to the validity of the reason provided. You have already said you do not have the expertise required to assess validity, yet here you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying. If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such.
        thomascountz 7mo ago
        Ok. You have shared that what some say are reasons, you say are excuses. Do you want to be told you are right, or do you want to propose a valid solution? If the latter requires the former, I maintain that this is not a simple problem.
        CamperBob2 7mo ago
        I just want what I've been asking for: someone to explain to me why, in 2026, humans still need to be involved in the real-time aspects of ATC. "Because it's always been done that way, and that's what the regulations say," will not be accepted, at least not by me. (Really, my question is more like why humans will still be needed in the loop in 2036. If we started automating ATC today, that's probably how long it would take to cut over to the new system.)
      - estearum 7mo ago
        > Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated. This is just not how complex systems work. N of 1 events happen regularly, which is exactly what makes them challenging. You simply asserting every scenario has been seen before does not actually make it so.
  - CamperBob2 7mo ago
    while making sure these (already heavily automated) flight systems dont get confused and kill several hundred people Confusion is indeed a common side effect of a job done halfway. Replying: I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Because we've already done harder things. 1000 takeoffs and landings per day equals a trillion machine cycles between events... on the phone in your pocket. It is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof, to say that this task isn't suitable for automation. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? I'm not qualified to do it, I didn't say I was, and in any event, I don't work for free. I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses. The concrete reason your ideas won’t work is you don’t have any. It's not my job to explain how to do it, it's your job to explain why it can't or shouldn't be done. The extraordinary claim is yours, not mine. Remember how we installed traffic lights all over the roads and now car crashes never happen any more at intersections? Truly automation solves all problems. Hard to respond to an argument of this quality, at least without getting flagged or worse.
    - JohnMakin 7mo ago
      I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing?
      - dpark 7mo ago
        > Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? I know this was rhetorical but the obvious answer is a complete lack of any actual ideas. “Just automate it” is a common refrain from people who don’t know how to fix the actual issues with any domain. Remember how we installed traffic lights all over the roads and now car crashes never happen any more at intersections? Truly automation solves all problems.
    - estearum 7mo ago
      > I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses. It sounds like you're not asking anything at all Just to play it out a bit, are you imagining that a pilot would be reporting a mechanical failure upon descent into busy airspace to some type of like AI voice agent, who will then orchestrate other aircraft out of the way (and not into each other) while also coaching the crippled aircraft out of the sky? Are you imagining some vast simplification that obviates the need for such capability? Because that doesn't seem simple at all to me.
- HoldOnAMinute 7mo ago
  I worked in aviation in the late 1990s and automating ATC is all they could talk about. So, that's almost 30 years of talking and no action.
  - CamperBob2 7mo ago
    That's because it's a political problem, and not a technical problem. It could have been done then, and it can be done now. Just curious: how many people in this thread know what SAGE was? A $5 Arduino has more computing power than the whole SAGE network. This isn't 1958, so we don't need the 'Semi' part of 'Semi-Automatic Ground Environment' anymore.
- dpark 7mo ago
  > Every time I've asked what's so hard about automating ATC Why don’t you describe the hypothetical automation you believe would solve the problems then? My hunch is that either your ideas are already implemented (like GP post who said they need to add red lights at the runway instances, except yeah, they do have that), or they are just bad. > indignant sputtering and patronizing hand-waving. Preemptively insulting everyone who might respond to you certainly looks like you’re asking for a real conversation. :| Your accusation of “patronizing hand-waving” is especially off base considering you literally proposed nothing except “automating”. Hand waving indeed.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
mvdtnz 7mo ago
No one said it was simple. You're tilting at windmills.
- dpark 7mo ago
  Literally called it “low hanging fruit”.
  - slg 7mo ago
    But context is important. "Low-hanging fruit" doesn't mean the solution is "easy" in a vacuum, it just means this specific aspect is the easiest and/or most obvious place to start attacking a problem. Or to stick with the language of the analogy, every fruit tree has some fruit that is lower than the others. That doesn't mean all "low-hanging fruit" is within arm's reach of the ground, some fruit just doesn't require as big of a ladder as other fruit. This comment isn't a judgment of this specific case. I don't know enough about ATC to have any confidence in my opinion on the viability of replacing humans with software.
    - PLenz 7mo ago
      That goal post moved so fast it made a whooshing noise as it passed
      - slg 7mo ago
        I think you're mistaken. That whooshing sound must have been my comment flying over your head. That was my first comment in this thread, so there was no established goal to change. My sole goal was to clarify the meaning of an idiom that the comment I was replying to was misstating. I even included a disclaimer that "This comment isn't a judgment of this specific case", so I don't know how you could have received it as such.
    - wk_end 7mo ago
      I disagree with you entirely. "Lowest-hanging fruit" isn't the same as "low-hanging fruit". The phrase "low-hanging fruit" does specifically mean that the solution is easy, in a vacuum - the fruits are "low", which is not relative to the other fruits or the height of the tree, but relative to the ground.
infinitewars 7mo ago
> more than 1 plane every minute Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.
- glitchc 7mo ago
  Yup, by having backup runways.
  - dpark 7mo ago
    And no fire trucks crossing the runways.
    - PunchyHamster 7mo ago
      ....they need to get to fucking fire ....if they go around kilometer of the runway the fire will turn into bigger fire
      - singleshot_ 7mo ago
        Two trucks
      - renewiltord 7mo ago
        Did it? They didn’t get there so did we get bigger fire at their target? I imagine the training will consist of something like changing the comms protocol to say “runway lights are on, control. Truck 1 confirming cross runway 4D?” prior to crossing. Double check so to speak.
        rogerrogerr 7mo ago
        Ground vehicles consistently have radio conventions that just don't fit into the aviation world. It feels like a contributor to this accident, you can hear the controller's brain skip a couple gears trying to understand the goofy word order from the truck. Pilots and controllers speak the same language in the same order; ground vehicles just kinda say stuff. The aviation-ized version of your proposal would be something like this: > tower truck 1 short of 4 at delta, red status lights
PieTime 7mo ago
This isn’t hypothetical, this system just exists in other countries. Digital systems can confirm flight instruction from ATC with zero radio communication.
- dpark 7mo ago
  I’m not saying we couldn’t move more into automation. What I’m saying is that doing so will not solve all of our air/ground control problems. We still have human pilots and humans driving vehicles on the ground. Switching from humans directing landings to machines might improve some things but will not solve for all (and probably not most) risks. Literally the crash here was caused by a fire truck entering the runway.
  - clint 7mo ago
    The ATC told them to enter the runway because they were confused or distracted due t overwork. No one here or anywhere is saying automation would solve or be able to handle everything that human operators handle, that's an argument you invented that no one is making. People are saying automation could handle a significant portion of the routine things allowing humans to handle the more complex/finicky issues. Even if automation could handle 10% of the most common situations it would be a huge boon. In reality its probably closer to 50%.
    - dpark 7mo ago
      > The ATC told them to enter the runway because they were confused or distracted due t overwork. Very possibly. It will be interesting what comes from the investigation. > No one here or anywhere is saying automation would solve or be able to handle everything that human operators handle, that's an argument you invented that no one is making. I’m asking if it would have solved even the current situation. The truck presumably saw the red light, and was asking to cross. Would traffic control have said no if more had been automated and if so, what automation would fix this? Unless we are supposing the truck would be autonomously driven and refuse to proceed when planes are landing, in which case, maybe, though that’s not really ATC automation anymore.
felipellrocha 7mo ago
Hehehehe, grounded.
amomchilov 7mo ago
That makes digitization even more important, you sold me.

by dpark 7mo ago

CamperBob2 7mo ago

[flagged]

JohnMakin 7mo ago
One jet landing every minute, coordinating the airspace for miles around the airport, along with coordinating non-landing traffic (helicopters, small craft), while making sure these (already heavily automated) flight systems dont get confused and kill several hundred people sounds easy to you, along with keeping everything on time and schedule? Go write it then.
- estearum 7mo ago
  And I think most critically: being able to adapt all of this on the fly when invariably something goes off-plan.
  - CamperBob2 7mo ago
    Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately dangerous to make a human do a machine's job.
    - thomascountz 7mo ago
      You say it “…sounds like a simple problem,” and sure, if you think this is a computer problem, it sounds simple. But if all you’re getting back is indignant sputtering, that’s your cue to explain why it’s simple—explaining something simple shouldn't be hard. What do you actually know? It takes all of two minutes of Wikipedia reading for me to understand why this isn’t simple; why it's actually extremely not simple! If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". But then, if you're ignoring those things, you’re not really solving the problem, are you?
      - CamperBob2 7mo ago
        If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". Those are excuses and encumbrances, not reasons. If they are so important, it leads to a question: what existing automated systems can we improve by adding similar constraints? If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such. I would like to say, "Because knowledgeable people have explained the difference to me." But again, this has come up before, and no explanations are ever provided. Only vague, reactionary hand-waving, assuring me that humans -- presumably not the same ones who just directed a fire truck and an aircraft onto the same active runway, but humans nevertheless -- are vital for safety in ATC, because for reasons such as and therefore. There you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying. There is no substance in the replies. There never is. Only unanchored FUD.
        estearum 7mo ago
        The only difference between an excuse and a reason is the designator's belief as to the validity of the reason provided. You have already said you do not have the expertise required to assess validity, yet here you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying. If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such.
        thomascountz 7mo ago
        Ok. You have shared that what some say are reasons, you say are excuses. Do you want to be told you are right, or do you want to propose a valid solution? If the latter requires the former, I maintain that this is not a simple problem.
        CamperBob2 7mo ago
        I just want what I've been asking for: someone to explain to me why, in 2026, humans still need to be involved in the real-time aspects of ATC. "Because it's always been done that way, and that's what the regulations say," will not be accepted, at least not by me. (Really, my question is more like why humans will still be needed in the loop in 2036. If we started automating ATC today, that's probably how long it would take to cut over to the new system.)
    - estearum 7mo ago
      > Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated. This is just not how complex systems work. N of 1 events happen regularly, which is exactly what makes them challenging. You simply asserting every scenario has been seen before does not actually make it so.
- CamperBob2 7mo ago
  while making sure these (already heavily automated) flight systems dont get confused and kill several hundred people Confusion is indeed a common side effect of a job done halfway. Replying: I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Because we've already done harder things. 1000 takeoffs and landings per day equals a trillion machine cycles between events... on the phone in your pocket. It is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof, to say that this task isn't suitable for automation. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? I'm not qualified to do it, I didn't say I was, and in any event, I don't work for free. I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses. The concrete reason your ideas won’t work is you don’t have any. It's not my job to explain how to do it, it's your job to explain why it can't or shouldn't be done. The extraordinary claim is yours, not mine. Remember how we installed traffic lights all over the roads and now car crashes never happen any more at intersections? Truly automation solves all problems. Hard to respond to an argument of this quality, at least without getting flagged or worse.
  - JohnMakin 7mo ago
    I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing?
    - dpark 7mo ago
      > Why don't you do it then? What am I missing? I know this was rhetorical but the obvious answer is a complete lack of any actual ideas. “Just automate it” is a common refrain from people who don’t know how to fix the actual issues with any domain. Remember how we installed traffic lights all over the roads and now car crashes never happen any more at intersections? Truly automation solves all problems.
  - estearum 7mo ago
    > I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses. It sounds like you're not asking anything at all Just to play it out a bit, are you imagining that a pilot would be reporting a mechanical failure upon descent into busy airspace to some type of like AI voice agent, who will then orchestrate other aircraft out of the way (and not into each other) while also coaching the crippled aircraft out of the sky? Are you imagining some vast simplification that obviates the need for such capability? Because that doesn't seem simple at all to me.
HoldOnAMinute 7mo ago
I worked in aviation in the late 1990s and automating ATC is all they could talk about. So, that's almost 30 years of talking and no action.
- CamperBob2 7mo ago
  That's because it's a political problem, and not a technical problem. It could have been done then, and it can be done now. Just curious: how many people in this thread know what SAGE was? A $5 Arduino has more computing power than the whole SAGE network. This isn't 1958, so we don't need the 'Semi' part of 'Semi-Automatic Ground Environment' anymore.
dpark 7mo ago
> Every time I've asked what's so hard about automating ATC Why don’t you describe the hypothetical automation you believe would solve the problems then? My hunch is that either your ideas are already implemented (like GP post who said they need to add red lights at the runway instances, except yeah, they do have that), or they are just bad. > indignant sputtering and patronizing hand-waving. Preemptively insulting everyone who might respond to you certainly looks like you’re asking for a real conversation. :| Your accusation of “patronizing hand-waving” is especially off base considering you literally proposed nothing except “automating”. Hand waving indeed.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

mvdtnz 7mo ago

No one said it was simple. You're tilting at windmills.

dpark 7mo ago
Literally called it “low hanging fruit”.
- slg 7mo ago
  But context is important. "Low-hanging fruit" doesn't mean the solution is "easy" in a vacuum, it just means this specific aspect is the easiest and/or most obvious place to start attacking a problem. Or to stick with the language of the analogy, every fruit tree has some fruit that is lower than the others. That doesn't mean all "low-hanging fruit" is within arm's reach of the ground, some fruit just doesn't require as big of a ladder as other fruit. This comment isn't a judgment of this specific case. I don't know enough about ATC to have any confidence in my opinion on the viability of replacing humans with software.
  - PLenz 7mo ago
    That goal post moved so fast it made a whooshing noise as it passed
    - slg 7mo ago
      I think you're mistaken. That whooshing sound must have been my comment flying over your head. That was my first comment in this thread, so there was no established goal to change. My sole goal was to clarify the meaning of an idiom that the comment I was replying to was misstating. I even included a disclaimer that "This comment isn't a judgment of this specific case", so I don't know how you could have received it as such.
  - wk_end 7mo ago
    I disagree with you entirely. "Lowest-hanging fruit" isn't the same as "low-hanging fruit". The phrase "low-hanging fruit" does specifically mean that the solution is easy, in a vacuum - the fruits are "low", which is not relative to the other fruits or the height of the tree, but relative to the ground.

infinitewars 7mo ago

> more than 1 plane every minute Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.

glitchc 7mo ago
Yup, by having backup runways.
- dpark 7mo ago
  And no fire trucks crossing the runways.
  - PunchyHamster 7mo ago
    ....they need to get to fucking fire ....if they go around kilometer of the runway the fire will turn into bigger fire
    - singleshot_ 7mo ago
      Two trucks
    - renewiltord 7mo ago
      Did it? They didn’t get there so did we get bigger fire at their target? I imagine the training will consist of something like changing the comms protocol to say “runway lights are on, control. Truck 1 confirming cross runway 4D?” prior to crossing. Double check so to speak.
      - rogerrogerr 7mo ago
        Ground vehicles consistently have radio conventions that just don't fit into the aviation world. It feels like a contributor to this accident, you can hear the controller's brain skip a couple gears trying to understand the goofy word order from the truck. Pilots and controllers speak the same language in the same order; ground vehicles just kinda say stuff. The aviation-ized version of your proposal would be something like this: > tower truck 1 short of 4 at delta, red status lights

PieTime 7mo ago

This isn’t hypothetical, this system just exists in other countries. Digital systems can confirm flight instruction from ATC with zero radio communication.

dpark 7mo ago
I’m not saying we couldn’t move more into automation. What I’m saying is that doing so will not solve all of our air/ground control problems. We still have human pilots and humans driving vehicles on the ground. Switching from humans directing landings to machines might improve some things but will not solve for all (and probably not most) risks. Literally the crash here was caused by a fire truck entering the runway.
- clint 7mo ago
  The ATC told them to enter the runway because they were confused or distracted due t overwork. No one here or anywhere is saying automation would solve or be able to handle everything that human operators handle, that's an argument you invented that no one is making. People are saying automation could handle a significant portion of the routine things allowing humans to handle the more complex/finicky issues. Even if automation could handle 10% of the most common situations it would be a huge boon. In reality its probably closer to 50%.
  - dpark 7mo ago
    > The ATC told them to enter the runway because they were confused or distracted due t overwork. Very possibly. It will be interesting what comes from the investigation. > No one here or anywhere is saying automation would solve or be able to handle everything that human operators handle, that's an argument you invented that no one is making. I’m asking if it would have solved even the current situation. The truck presumably saw the red light, and was asking to cross. Would traffic control have said no if more had been automated and if so, what automation would fix this? Unless we are supposing the truck would be autonomously driven and refuse to proceed when planes are landing, in which case, maybe, though that’s not really ATC automation anymore.

felipellrocha 7mo ago

Hehehehe, grounded.

amomchilov 7mo ago

That makes digitization even more important, you sold me.