"There is a possibility that one aircraft may not follow the agreed trajectory, but that will be alerted to the controller by conformance monitoring software which will display the trajectory the aircraft should be following and often the vectors to put the aircraft back onto the trajectory. All this with backup from ACASx that will provide efficient avoidance based on aircraft capabilities should the controller/system not separate the aircraft."
Thanks Ian. My point, although slightly muddled I admit, is that if you are to rely on an automated system, rely on it. What is the point of the 'controller' if the system monitors conformance, and provides remedy to non conformance? Surely it would be better, and a lot quicker if multiple 'instructions' are needed to remedy a situation, to simply remove the controller and send all messages by CPDLC/datalink whatever? It seems to me we are allowing reliance on automation, as long as a human has a veto at the crunch time, which seems to place a lot of faith in the ability of said human, and be contradictory to the initial premise that automation can do it, and probably better..,