3 ms·

There is no need for pilots or anyone to type anything. Weather data can be published every minute and shown live as a full map over the screen, not as random

There is no need for pilots or anyone to type anything. Weather data can be published every minute and shown live as a full map over the screen, not as random abbreviations of wind and cloud coverage. And we already know where each aircraft is, and where they took off, and where they're headed. So practically speaking the radio talk can be limited to only the important communication and emergencies, while increasing the situational awareness by at least ten fold.

tjohns 13d ago
> Weather data can be published every minute and shown live as a full map over the screen This already exists via FIS-B. > not as random abbreviations of wind and cloud coverage The abbreviations (METARs) are a feature, not a bug. There are numerical legal minimums for weather that determine whether a landing is legal or not. A graphical map doesn't tell you this. The METARs are condensed because they're easy for professional pilots to skim. (Back in the days of teletypes they also saved bandwidth, but that's just a historical note at this point.) Regardless, pilots already have access to both textual and graphical weather products in the cockpit. > And we already know where each aircraft is, and where they took off, and where they're headed. So practically speaking the radio talk can be limited to only the important communication and emergencies, while increasing the situational awareness by at least ten fold. As a pilot myself, I think you're vastly misunderstanding the nature of ATC communication. 90% of communication on the radio are time-sensitve, important things - mostly heading and altitude changes to avoid other traffic. Weather and clearances (when not relayed by ACARS, FIS-B, or CPDLC) are routinely handled on dedicated frequencies and aren't really causing meaningful frequency congestion.

tjohns 13d ago

> Weather data can be published every minute and shown live as a full map over the screen This already exists via FIS-B. > not as random abbreviations of wind and cloud coverage The abbreviations (METARs) are a feature, not a bug. There are numerical legal minimums for weather that determine whether a landing is legal or not. A graphical map doesn't tell you this. The METARs are condensed because they're easy for professional pilots to skim. (Back in the days of teletypes they also saved bandwidth, but that's just a historical note at this point.) Regardless, pilots already have access to both textual and graphical weather products in the cockpit. > And we already know where each aircraft is, and where they took off, and where they're headed. So practically speaking the radio talk can be limited to only the important communication and emergencies, while increasing the situational awareness by at least ten fold. As a pilot myself, I think you're vastly misunderstanding the nature of ATC communication. 90% of communication on the radio are time-sensitve, important things - mostly heading and altitude changes to avoid other traffic. Weather and clearances (when not relayed by ACARS, FIS-B, or CPDLC) are routinely handled on dedicated frequencies and aren't really causing meaningful frequency congestion.