Computerized ATC

[dcoded]

There are lots of talks today about the pilotless/single pilot airliners to cut costs.

Although it's hard to believe that the common man will set foot in such an airline in the near future, it's quite probable that our industry / jobs will change in the future.

But is there any ongoing work to replace the ATC? Surely the technical capabilities exist for such a feat? At least, it seems to me that the ATC guy and girls are facing the same level of complexity we pilots need to face in our daily duties.

I think the common man would have an easier time stepping into an two pilot airliner today which is flying through a computer controlled airspace.

What are your thoughts?

[eagleflyer]

Not in my lifetime! It´s still and will be for a long time way too complex and somebody has to pay for it, too.

[kcockayne]

I joined ATC in 1971. I was informed by a chap who owned a “computer production” business, at the time, that I would soon be out of a job. 37 years later, I retired.....& still no hint of ATCOS being replaced by computers. I’m pretty sure it will eventually happen - but not in my lifetime, either.

[dcoded]

Originally Posted by eagleflyer

Not in my lifetime! It´s still and will be for a long time way too complex and somebody has to pay for it, too.

Why do you think it's more complex than automatic flying?
Is it more complex than for example the Russian Buran spacecraft making an automatic glide landing from space? This was accomplished few decades ago even.

Sure I agree it will be costly.

But don't you think that the common man, would have it easier to accept to fly through automated Airspace, than to fly on a pilotless drone?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

We had a chap at Heathrow who had been tasked with automating ATC. I told him to automate the EG list which was infinitely more complex!

[dcoded]

Originally Posted by LookingForAJob

One difference in the examples that you cite is that only one vehicle is involved. ATC is pretty easy when the controller only has one aircraft to deal with - introduce other aircraft and the interactions between each very quickly becomes very complex.

Glide landing a spacecraft involves a high number of unknown variables. Sure it involves one craft, with a specific target of Landing on a specified spot.

In ATC there are also an finite number of unknown variables with a specific target of avoiding collision and providing an "efficient" flow.

I fail to see how automated airspace Is more complex?

The computer can know beforehand approximately how much traffic is expected, what routing it will follow and so on, and on a global scale could probably coordinate more direct routings over larger distances than today?

I don't intend this thread to be a fight between controllers and pilots as to which profession will "die" first.

[le Pingouin]

You're comparing automation of a single aircraft that doesn't have to interact with anything else with automating a whole system.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

.... or weather, or just achange in the wind, or the sudden closure of a runway, or a million other reasons.

[zed3]

Let's just watch this driverless car business (2022?) and take it from there... should be interesting.

[good egg]

There are various areas where the ATC function could be "assisted" by computers - whether it's Area, Approach or Aerodrome control. Each area has to be rigorously studied for every eventuality and hence the slow "progress" in these areas.
When everything is "standard" it's quite easy to see the benefit of automation, in practice there are so many variables (some of which will never have been seen before) that even the cleverest level of artificial intelligence would struggle.

That's not to say that humans don't also struggle in new situations, and certainly don't always make the right decisions.

One of the huge issues is, of course, if the computers are determining minimum separations in order to squeeze as much traffic as is possible through the system then what happens when something non-standard happens. Artificial Intelligence is making huge bounds, and will continue to do so, but it relies on the quality of its data. There are huge limitations associated with raw data, the transmission of data, the timeliness of data, the number of sources of data, conflicting data and so on.

How do you quiz a computer about its actions at a subsequent board of inquiry? Who's to blame? The programmers?

Confidence will grow, in time, following many many trials of computer-assisted decision-making but it's still a long way off, in my opinion, before you can remove the human ATCO (for all its failings) from the system. In the short-medium term I can see that ATCO numbers will be reduced, with the functions becoming more and more reliant on computer-assisted decision-making and "tools" but with contingency for human recovery.

It may well take the "fun" out of the job...but will almost certainly be more efficient. In some ways the computerisation may even assist teaching ATCOs - faster and more efficiently that just a human OJTI could.

[Tarq57]

good egg, regarding your fourth paragraph, once you have computers making most of the decisions regarding sequencing and spacing, in the event that a "contingency for human recovery" becomes necessary, it simply ain't going to happen.

Humans are usually poor at monitoring systems. I'd say this is particularly true of controllers. We get bored, quickly, when not engaged. If a situation arises requiring human intervention, it's highly unlikely that the people doing the monitoring will (a) be 'on to it' in time, or (b) have the currency or experience required to take an effective course of action.

Once you open the bottle of that genie, it's staying open, and forget about going back.

[big_head]

Even if someone created the software brains today (still no easy task), we would be a long long way off being able to provide the processing power. It would be phenomenal, in the too hard basket for a generation or 2 i would imagine.

[EastofKoksy]

Air transport contains too many variables e.g thunderstorms, malfunctions etc to risk taking competent humans (well trained and current) out of the loop. Although there are lots organisations that are prepared to take other peoples money in order to try!

[tczulu]

Had a single engine piston going from the Continent to Bournemouth.Approaching SE of Gatwick asked me about distance to go. Something in his voice made me wonder. Asked",do you have a fuel issue?" Reply,"maybe". I said" I can send you to Gatwick if you want?""Yes please ".All ended happily, could a computer do that?Pilots don't always let on how serious a problem they have. Reference the Avianca (I think )crash at New York after running out of fuel while holding.

[ZOOKER]

good egg,

According to a book I'm currently reading, the human brain is one of the most complex structures in the known Universe. Each ATCO comes complete with one of these, fitted as standard.

When you have a computer that can cope with the situations mentioned above, and also......

Compose music.
Paint pictures,
Build a house,
Write several books,
Restore an Aston Martin,
Ride a horse,
Climb Helvellyn
Fly an aircraft
Complete an OU degree course while safely carrying out the ATC task.....

etc, etc

Then, we may be on our way to having an automated system capable of replacing ATCOs.

[good egg]

Hey Zooker,

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a long way off - if it becomes possible at all.

But “technology creep” is here.

It’s not difficult to see the pattern of using technology to squeeze more aircraft into the system with the same, or fewer, number of ATCOs.

Continue this pattern and where do you end up? (Rhetorical)

[good egg]

Originally Posted by Tarq57

...once you have computers making most of the decisions regarding sequencing and spacing, in the event that a "contingency for human recovery" becomes necessary, it simply ain't going to happen.

Ummmm, computers are already doing this.

[good egg]

tczulu,

Sure that would be an issue until such time as the plane’s computers were talking to the ATC computer...(admittedly more likely to start with the big commercial operators than Mr/Mrs C172).

PLANE determines low fuel. PLANE informs PILOT and ATC.
PLANE determines viable options - diversion airfields/priority approach etc and offers to ATC.
ATC determines which options could “fit”, or be made to “fit”, and offers these back to the PLANE.
PLANE offers PILOT viable solutions.
PILOT selects appropriate solution i.a.w. operator protocols and informs PLANE & ATC.
All in the blink of an eye.
[Where “PLANE”, “PILOT” and “ATC” are all computers.]

Pie in the sky? Sure, in today’s world but I reckon that’s where system architecture is heading - at first by “assisted decision-making” with humans remaining in control of the decisions.
From there it’s a small leap to leaving the computers to take the decision, but monitored by human with executive authority to intercede.

[kcockayne]

Originally Posted by good egg

Hey Zooker,

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a long way off - if it becomes possible at all.

But “technology creep” is here.

It’s not difficult to see the pattern of using technology to squeeze more aircraft into the system with the same, or fewer, number of ATCOs.

Continue this pattern and where do you end up? (Rhetorical)

In the sh*te !

[zonoma]

Every time this topic gets raised it makes me chuckle, thanks once again for another chuckle.

Fully automated will never happen unless you make aircraft that never have anything even as minor as a technical issue and find a machine to suck up all the nasty weather.