Future for Controllers ????

[Hatchet Harry]

Ladies and Gents,

I've been surfing this wild and wonderful internet and have noticed a few career/employment statistics and info sites that have stated ATC as an occupation that will have a smaller workforce in the future due to improvements in technology.

My question to those of you who are involved is......

"Do you agree with the hypothesis of a shrinking workforce or is this all a fairytale ????"

We all know that technology will slowly overtake some of the duties of a controller but is the day of computer delivered control on the way all too soon ????

And if this is true, will there be a shortage of ATC's in the future ?
And if so will those that remain be left with a life of Finger tapping into keyboards with no real Human interaction, leaving the Profession of Air Traffic Controller on the level of a data entry Clerk ?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Just a curious Bystander with an interest in the future of a Aviation Professionals.......

[5milesbaby]

How can technology ever cope with an infinate number of problems that may occur? Starting at the usual computer failure and moving onto more indepth "need to divert there NOW" but not knowing that the place is shut due to bad WX or lack of fire coverage etc - I think pax a/c will NEVER be pilotless and ATC will always have human interface.

As for the workforce shrinking, well maybe but in what context? I think the UK will lose most of its assistants (ATSA's) over the next 15 or so years, but actual ATCO numbers will rise in the near future (definately need to here) and then plateau. As the numbers of a/c handled by one ATCO increases, so does the demand on each piece of airspace, so basically airspace gets divided up more and number of ATCO's remains high.

Too many freak behaviours in this industry for it to be completely computerised - and I'm not just talking about Heathrow Approach :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[NERC Dweller]

As one of the people that would be providing these new ATC systems I would have to agree with 5milesbaby.

Advancement in technology will provide the controller with more advanced decision making tools that will advise him/her on what the best course of action may be. It will not replace the controller in the decison making process.

I also do not think it will "de-skill" the controller. If anything the skill level will have to increase as the controller will still have to understand what the system is trying to do.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

In Australia, as mentioned the majority of the assistants are gone, but in their place we have controllers entering pop-up flights into the system, and rerouting a/c following change of flight plans enroute, previously duties flung to the assistants. Similarly Australia used to have Flight Service Officers handling a/c OCTA but now ATCO's handle those, so if anything there are more controllers in Australia since the change to an advanced stripless system.

In many years we may evolve into something like an airbus pilot where we sit and watch the a/c do 90% of the tasks and just be there in case it all goes wrong :p

[Spitoon]

NERC Dweller, you paint a rather scary picture for me. Technology may provide greater assistance in decision making roles and planning and the like. But you final para scares the willies out of me.

The de-skilling that controllers talk about is that of the core skills that a controller needs to keep aeroplanes apart when all that wizzy technology stops working. Then, of course, the techie people that said how wonderful and reliable it all was, start talking about a patch that should be ready the day after tomorrow. In the meantime the controllers have to try and remember all those skills that are not practiced regularly. That's de-skilling.

And, by the way, I don't think that developing more skills 'to understand what the system is trying to do' is much of a benefit. The tools that support ATC should be intuitive to use and function as advertised, i.e to support the controller and the service that he or she is providing.

Although it may not sound it, I'm not averse to technology in ATC - just badly specified, designed, implemented and supported technology. Sadly so much of what finds its way into the Ops Room is all these things.

[Canoehead]

Over the years, ATC has come out of the stone age to the world of hi-tech. It is all good. Our jobs are still extremely demanding. The magic does help, however. I figure there will ALWAYS be a shortage of controllers. Main reasons being the unique and undefinable qualities required, and the extremely high costs of training. We can write our own tickets. Just believe that and you'll do anything and work anywhere you want. And lastly, to answer the original question, air traffic is forecast to increase year after year for the forseeable future. Gonna need more of us, that's for sure!

[Hatchet Harry]

I am also of the opinion that Controllers will never be made to take a back seat to technology due to the unpredictable nature of the many tasks they perform. What made me ask the question in the first place was seeing a few Career site etc that painted a gloomy future for ATC.

So what does the future hold for you people ? Does anyone out there know what technology is in development to make ATC more automated/computerised ???

Where do the younger generation of Controllers see themselves in 20 years ????

I can alraedy hear you all saying "Retired to a secluded Island Paradise in the sun"
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[quasi_dextrous]

Apparently there are new systems being developed that will be installed into aircraft to maintain separation (I think ADS-B is one), without the use of ground stations. The systems do this by issuing resolution advisories to pilots, similarly to TCAS, but with a separation standard applied that is similar to those applied by ATC today (rather than the current TCAS separation, "they won't hit").

With this system, there may be a reduced need for ATC, but only if it is fitted to ALL aircraft - and that could take a while to do.

Does anyone know about any of these systems, and if they are being used anywhere yet?

[FWA NATCA]

Hatchet Harry,

For years we keep hearing how controllers and pilots are going to be replaced by computers, satelites, etc.

I have yet seen where a computer can seperate and sequence multiple aircraft of varying speeds, or have the backup capability when the computer system burps, the power fails, the radar fails, or the occasional inflight emergency, and the host of other problems that we see and experience.

From concept to installation in the field the average time frame for us to see new equipment is ten years. The budget crisis has drastically reduced the installation of new equipment (STARS, ASR-11 or 12, Digital Radios with reduced frequency spread, etc.) Then add in the factor that many of the present en-route centers buildings are over 50 years old and in dire need of replacement, that many of the present control towers are inadequate for present needs with an average replacement cost of $10 million dollars or more (depending on the type facility).

Modernization may reduce the number of controllers by a small amount through consolidation of radar facilities, but it will be a very long time before we can be reduced to just a few controllers monitoring computers that are working large tracks of airspace.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[NERC Dweller]

Spitton - Sorry I didn't mean to scare you and it wasn't my intention and I think we are talking about the same thing. Let me clarify

During normal operations Tools should make a controllers life easier and provide benefit, however you need to maintain (and practice) the skill of going from normal operations with the tools to a fallback mode without the tools.

Hope this helps

[karrank]

One wonders if an over-reliance on modern wonders led to a certain recent European tragedy. The wonder-box was turned off for maintenance and the skills had atrophied????

I know I have personally been de-skilled by new technology. I used to run a procedural sector using the flight progress board, handling a huge area with a fair amount of traffic. I moved to the new center and learnt the new bells and whistles, then had to move back to the procedural board... It was a real slog getting the picture from the strips instead of just sitting there on the screen. Even after a couple of months I wasn't as happy as I had been before being spoon fed by the technology.

On the other hand, dealing with the daily strip-o-lanch is something I'm fairly glad to leave behind:E

It worries me a little that just about ALL jobs that seem interesting or useful have been, are being or could be replaced or at least diminished by technology. This leaves making latte, tourism and lap dancing as the only growth industrys, and somebody needs to have a real job to need stress relief in the form of:
a regular coffee,
a regular holiday, and
regular t*t-whipping:hmm:

[Barra Tuesday]

Interesting topic. Was involved in the incorporation of a "state of the art" air traffic management system a few years ago. This system was supposed to revolutionise the way ATC was being delivered and the way the information was displayed and manipulated. In short it didn't work very well and I hear, still doesn't work that well!!! The system was designed by engineers with all the things that they thought would be good for controller's with little or no input from controller's themselves and when challenged as to the usefulness of the equipment, the engineers just told us that we didn't understand and really had no credibility to criticise these groundbreaking improvements.
There will always be a role for a controller as far as I can see although we might be able to log-on at home and do the job!! Interesting aside was driving home last night after a couple of beers with a colleague who has just checked-out in a Terminal specialty at the ripe old age of 21....... got me thinking about this topic and wondering what changes he will see throuhgout his career.

[Scott Voigt]

I expect that some day we will be more like George Jetson and the computer will do everything. Both the one in the air as well as the one on the ground. You are going to come home and tell the spouse, you wouldn't believe my day to day, I had to punch the button TWICE <G>.

The good news for us as controllers, the tech companies out there aren't anywhere near a computer solution for doing what we do. They can indeed separate two aircraft one at a time. But then so can a trained talking monkey... You just change altitudes of each of them. But when you throw in a LOT of aircraft, other duities that must be taken care of, and then some weather. That is a different story. The computer just barfs and shuts down, or has the aircraft going all over the sky.

I was on a work group which was working on some gee wiz ATC stuff about a decade ago. We had a Dutch Engineer come in to brief us on what the NLR was doing. Some really neat computer simulations to show us how to separate aircraft. It worked somewhat like TCAS, however it also used headings. It did indeed separate one aircraft from another string of aircraft one aircraft at a time. It had the aircraft turning all over the sky trying to miss five aircraft. When I asked the engineer why the machine just hadn't stopped the aircrafts climb and level him for about three minutes and NO ONE would have had to turn? He stated that this was the most efficient to get the aircraft to altitude so that it would burn less fuel... So they wound up turning almost EVERY aircraft in the problem to miss this one aircraft, who also had to vector around quite a bit.

Computers just can't think in a strange solution yet. The day will eventually be here where the computers have all the power that they need and more importantly, the artificial intelegence that will allow it to be taught all that a good controller knows and how to use it in moving aircraft, safely and expeditiously...

regards

Scott

[badarse]

There is another technology change on the horizon that no one has mentioned. Economists and Geologists disagree only on the time line but it appears that at the current rate of usage there is only somewhere between 10 and 50 years of petroleum left in the ground that can be economically harvested. There are a number of alternatives for fixed power sources and ground transportation, ditto for the sea. Aviation, though, without something that isn't even on the horizon will go the way of the Dodo when the fuel supply dries up.

If I am wrong here I am missing something. It seems to me that the world should move immediately to alternate sources of power where ever it can so as to conserve the petroleum for the usage that has no alternative. Failing to do this I fear that many of us, not just controllers, who are not somewhere close to retirement are going to be out of a job.

[CUNIM]

Barra Tuesday hit the nail on the head by stating that engineers often - but not always - tell the operational staff what is good for them. BIIIIIIIIIG Mistake. If you don't take the controllers along the development road with you, you will fail folks. The modern radar label that you will see where the Mode C will cancel the Cleared flight level on reaching CFL or where the Cooordinated level disappears when the CFL equals it, was invented by controllers in 1983 down in a Pub in Bournmouth, lubricated by much beer. Does NERC use this? Probably not as I think that they only input on the paper strip. I stand to be corrected. The modern equivalent of that label is still the basis of design today.

The problem facing controllers now is that with all the decision tools, what happens when the three pin plug is removed from the socket? Will they have the ability to seperate procedurally? LATCC had these failures many years ago and I thank my lucky stars that I had been a procedural controller in the past. Continuation training for these occasions will be increasingly necessary to ensure an adequate level of safe operation in unusual circumstances.

[2 six 4]

The future tools are already under development. They are intuitive and will increase capacity by taking out conflicts not just at the next crossover but the one after that and the one after that. The machine will prompt when a decision needs to be taken and alternatives offered.

The skills of the individual ATCO will remain high. Because we are not creating and solving problem after problem with the same flight the number of decisions will decrease on any given flight so we will need less ATCOs overall in a 24 hour period 365 days.

That should get us nicely to the Spanish 3 days on 3 days off rostering.

If you look at the collaboration announcements by NATS over the last year you will see where our partnership developments lie.

The decision to equip the Manchester and Scottish combined centre with new technology is not just about replacing like for like. There is your testbed for the new technology which will be developed for the Swanwick replacement system.

What happens when all the computers fail ? Ask any Airbus driver what were their thoughts before they trained on the A320 and beyond.

Less of us with better conditions and early goes for those currently in their 40s :D :D :D

[Canoehead]

Several years ago, someone paid for my trip across the pond and I had the unique opportunity to witness and evaluate the development of a future ANS system.
An outfit in Amsterdam, with cooperation from London and Paris, was looking into developing something for the year 2015. The premise is the introduction of the "fourth dimension" (time) into ATC. We already use time, but they are talking precision....any fix within 3 seconds! Even had a Ba11 go from London/Paris, and with the required on-board equipment, this thing could be at ANY fix with a 3 second window!
So imagine a terminal airspace: Times (in seconds) are issued for succeeding aircraft at the bedposts, then the 10-mile fix, then the outer marker, finally the runway. A mega-computer figures all this out, we just watch. An en-route application would be the reduced time required for aircraft climbing through another's altitude.
And did it work? Not really. Although the BA11 and the Citation did real good, the computer 'jammed', integration of departures/arrivals was a nightmare, and the whole thing seemed (at least to me) to be light-years away. Great idea, however, not in my foreseeable future.