5 ms·

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 spu

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
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492768 Can you please explain how specifically you imagine a scenario like this getting automated?
      - CamperBob2 7mo ago
        No, that's not how this works. You tell me why it can't or shouldn't be automated. "Design an automated ATC system" isn't a valid answer to "Why can't ATC be automated?"
        wk_end 7mo ago
        Er, I sort of do think that's how it works? The ultimate rebuttal to "you can't do X" is to actually do X. Until you do that I think that ultimately the burden of proof falls on you. It can be very easy to imagine certain tasks and systems can be automated - especially when you aren't actively involved in those tasks and systems and are unfamiliar with their intricacies.
        estearum 7mo ago

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
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492768 Can you please explain how specifically you imagine a scenario like this getting automated?
    - CamperBob2 7mo ago
      No, that's not how this works. You tell me why it can't or shouldn't be automated. "Design an automated ATC system" isn't a valid answer to "Why can't ATC be automated?"
      - wk_end 7mo ago
        Er, I sort of do think that's how it works? The ultimate rebuttal to "you can't do X" is to actually do X. Until you do that I think that ultimately the burden of proof falls on you. It can be very easy to imagine certain tasks and systems can be automated - especially when you aren't actively involved in those tasks and systems and are unfamiliar with their intricacies.
      - estearum 7mo ago