Originally Posted by
Reverserbucket
No HD, and I don't think many ANSP's view the pilot as the customer, however it is the airlines who pay the user charges and who ultimately, will pick up the tab for the incredible amount of money that the EU is currently ploughing into SESAR deployment and the development of future PBN and related implementation through the ANSP's - the idea being that eventually, with future ADS-B 'In' capability, self separation will in fact become a reality and in some ways, perhaps a return to procedural control, but with the FMS maintaining separation and ATC monitoring as suggested by Not Long Now.
I like speaking to a human rather than a computer however and I foresee, rather in the same way we have seen a deterioration in basic handling skills and situational awareness in the airlines through increased technology and automation, a gradual reduction in capacity due to controllers in busy TMA's being unable or unwilling to vector when necessary to help alleviate flow during peak periods. I personally hope that ATC does not go the same way that flight deck philosophy has gone in the last couple of decades where the pilot has been effectively designed out of the system (almost). PBN appears to offer many benefits but ultimately, the path it takes is not being determined by ATM experts or aircrew but largely by lawyers, accountants and the aviation manufacturing industry.
I have had the pleasure of spending much time in the company of civilian controllers from many parts of the world, however now and again (and I mean very occasionally) I have met those who feel, and particularly in the US I discovered, that aircrew are there to make their lives difficult and are largely treated with contempt - where would European ANSP's derive their shareholders profits and pension pots from if not from their customers, the airlines, and their airborne representatives, the pilots?
An interesting point. But, realistically speaking, I can see the day (not too far off) when Approach Control is basically a monitoring function - for when sh*t happens.
Every ANSP wants to squeeze costs, which is done by more aircraft with same/less "controllers".
Yes, in bad weather, arrival rates will suffer but in "normal weather" (which, statistically speaking, is the norm) then the reliance will be on technology, with minimal ATCO input.
It's what the world (customer) wants....cheap fares, OTP, etc., etc.
Same goes for Tower controllers....more (accurate) info on arrival touchdown times with warnings provided about when it's safe to clear a departure for take-off etc, until it too is a monitoring function.
Technology creep, first "tools" to assist controllers, then automation/ATC being "monitors".
Not always a bad thing, however - humans make random errors (I'm human, I make them).
We're closer now to the "monitoring function"/"only take over in emergency situation" than we've ever been.
Ye olde controllers will say "yes, but when I started X years ago we were all told that we'd be (effectively) out of a job in 20 years" due to this 'techno creep'. Now, more than ever, this is true. Less ATCOs, less cost. 90% of the time it'll work better/more efficiently/with less cost, and equally safely (if not better).
It's what happens with the other 10% that matters...