You can’t see a time when the plane will diagnose itself when it has a problem?

It’s interesting that all the scenarios are to do with radar. Tower is always ignored. Why? Beyond the fact that towers try and get aircraft as close together and sometimes make pilots do things that they may not want to do so quickly. Never mind GMC!

terrain safe,

Towers have 'windows'........No, no the Gates Windows........Real glass, that ATCOs look through, using a fully serviceable pair of 'stereoscopic-eyeballs'.

No wonder 'Reduced Separation' is such a hit.

Keep up the very good work.

If Peugeot write the software, No.

2 s :-)

good egg,

Many thanks for the usual considered replies......And for getting up at the Crack Of Sparrow's F@rt, on a Sunday, to add them.

If you ever need an assistant, please give me a call. As 'opposites attract', I'm sure You and I would get on like a Plane.....Sorry......House on fire.

Oops......But, Seriously, I'm always interested in the future.

IMHO: it's near and inevitable future.
All aircraft in the sky are in same network, sharing with it (and each other) wind/turbulence/icing/weather radar info.
Scenario: CPDLC>CPDLC (where first C is computer)>CCDLC. for a/c without DLC automated voice speech could be used.
Human controller can't issue two separate instructions at the same time. Computer can. infinite number.
What we will have: ultra-precise horizontal separation on final (multi-instruction speed control, or uncommon speeds 162, 157, etc), lower delays, marginal fuel savings, possible use of Optimum Flight levels (like a/c will fly 3 minutes at 330, then 3 minutes at 331, 3 at 332 and so on).
computer is able to do ATC stuff way better than human. but not yet)

If" computer can do it way better than human but not yet" then how do you know it can do it?

I mean that present hardware is powerful enough to substitute ATC, but there is no proper software. YET!

Terrain safe

I doubt very much that towers will be exempt from technology creep - particularly those at airports with little/no vfr traffic to speak of.

Digital/remote towers, artificial intelligence, safety prompts (e.g. Oi, Tower controller, I sense the departure isn’t rolling yet and the next arrival will be over the tarmac before your departure gets airborne...gonna do something about it??).
And before anyone shouts about “but that’s what you have eyes for!” then why do we already have RIMCAS, SAMAX, etc, etc, etc...

Hey again Zooker

It’s the sleeplessness caused by future developments
(or maybe by a toddler...) ;)

Ah,

And I thought you were a shift-working ATCO........."What a mistaker to maker".

There's also the political cost. Who would support the "computerized ATC"? Who would risk to be blamed for the first accident it caused?

And the backup systems? What if the computer fails? What if the radio or data signals fail to reach the aircrafts? What about bad weather, or emergency traffic? How do we integrate all airspaces in different countries to pursue the road of computer-based ATM? Would politicians ever agree to go for an ATM system run by computers?

At this time it’s hard to envisage. But it’s a steady creep....more traffic, less ATCOs...more reliance on computers to squeeze the gaps (arrivals/departures/en-route).
This trend is only likely to continue with advancements in technology. On the upside for those left in work it ought to be highly highly paid....

Already happens. Aircraft computers automatically downlink things like assigned altitude (Mode S), routine ADS-C reporting, and proposed new routing in DARPs to name just a few, which is then processed by ATC computers.

I wonder whether that's what caused Monarch to go down the pipe good egg? A reduction in those in "highly highly paid" work, so fewer folk unable to afford what was allegedly a high-quality product?

That is what is going to cause all of us to “go down the pipe”; computerization etc. No one will be left in meaningful & rewarding work. Therefor, no one able to afford anything. Except the robots !

Sure I can see a day with less ATCOs, just like flight decks now have only 1-2 crew. But what has happened is that computer assistance and semiautomation has significantly increased the productivity of each controller such that each individual can now manage far more flights simultaneously than in the past. I'm thinking electronic flight strips, automated coordination through AIDC messaging, improved surveillance with ADS-B automatically fused with and prioritised against other position information sources. All information displayed and automatically updated on a couple of screens, including a graphic PPI for all flights, including non-surveillance.

So really, for ANSPs embracing automation, at this point of development the number of ATCOs is relatively static, give and take, in an environment where the number of flights is increasing year on year.

Thanks all for pointing out my grammatical error. I shall beat myself up about it later.

In any case the natural progression, using technological advances, is fewer ATCOs per “X” number of movements. Can the number of ATCOs ever be reduced to zero?

As “tech” becomes cleverer (/more clever)/cheaper/more prevalent will we see the end of the ATCO? (And the pilot?)

Still, there’s Brexit, potential for a nuclear war, climate change, bitcoin boom & bust, etc, etc.
Failing that, there’s always the regulator’s hoops to jump through (quite rightly).

I’d guess ATCOs (& pilots) will be around for a while yet.

I mean it’s not as if they’d let driverless cars/trucks/UAVs on the road/in the sky is it?

*Coughs*

We once designed the perfect ATC Ops Room. Everything computerised and working away. In the corner is a big glass case with an ATCO in it. A notice hangs on the case next to a hammer. It reads

IN CASE OF BLAME, BREAK GLASS