[jagger27]

Newark’s overworked controllers might argue differently. Of course in this forum the general suggestion will be to replace tired controllers with sleepless machines, and the technologists here have strong incentives to advocate for such solutions.

[cperciva]

My understanding is that ATC controllers would be far less overworked if they had modern (and properly functioning!) equipment.

[CamperBob2]

(Shrug) ATC is no job for humans, and I'm tired of pretending it is.

If we were building our aviation infrastructure from scratch starting today, you would get some really strange looks if you suggested employing humans to manage air traffic.

[agubelu]

En-route ATC is already mostly automated, with humans supervising the system and talking to the pilots.

Arrival/departure/ground ATC has to deal with much more complex traffic, emergency situations and edge cases in general. Technologically, we're nowhere near fully automating this.

[CamperBob2]

When's the last time someone in a control tower was actually surprised by anything genuinely new? (Anything that didn't involve ancient equipment breaking down in a new and unusual way, that is.)

ATC is a solved problem. Nothing is going to happen that hasn't happened before, or otherwise can't be anticipated. There's nothing about ATC that inherently demands human involvement in real time.

[agubelu]

> Nothing is going to happen that hasn't happened before, or otherwise can't be anticipated.

By the way, this mentality is at odds with safety. If you design a safety-critical system under the assumption that nothing unexpected will ever happen, then whenever it happens (and it's a question of when, not if) people will die.

[CamperBob2]

The first and most important reaction to anything unexpected is simple: localize the trouble spot and reroute traffic away from it.

What can't be handled by doing that? You've listed quite a few examples (and thanks for taking the time to do so!) but all but one of them seem like perfectly reasonable scenarios for automation.

Another point I'd raise is that most ATC screwups don't involve anything weird happening except failures to follow existing ATC procedures. Any list of Things That Make For Bad Days at the Airport needs to include that.

[agubelu]

Happy you asked! Here are a few interesting cases that the respective ATCs probably hadn't seen before or will ever see again:

- Plane loses radio communication on final approach and ignores go-around orders, lands on occupied runway as ATC gets others out of the way [1]

- Guy steals a plane and takes off without permission [2]

- Someone left some cones on a runway at JFK [3]

- Door blows off aircraft [4]

- Some dude runs across the runways [5]

- Pregnant woman giving birth on flight [6]

- Student pilot freaks out, ATC calms her down and gets her instructor on frequency [7]

- Earthquake [8]

- Pilot hits a deer [9]

- Bomb threat on board, pilots decide to evacuate on the tarmac after no help arrives in ~1h [10]

Some situations have probably happened before, somewhere. Some others are completely new. I would highly recommend that you watch these videos (they're all relatively short) and genuinely ask yourself whether our current state-of-the-art AI models would be able to successfully handle these situations in the short timeframe required to do so. Let alone the fact that by AI we mean text models, so I'm not sure how they would integrate with terrain information, real-time radar data, arrival/departure routes, etc.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what control towers do. They're not there to simply observe planes do their thing and intervene if they get too close. They actively handle the traffic, and this task requires human pattern recognition and cross-domain reasoning skills in a matter of seconds, and the technology to replace this is simply not there yet. If you still disagree, I'd love to learn which technologies you'd apply to this problem and how they would compose with each other in order to achieve the same outcomes as in the cases I linked.

Of course, this is not to say that ATC shouldn't be made safer and more automated wherever possible. Particularly in the US, where equipment is severely outdated and some dubious regulations allow their ATCs to handle runways and give clearances in a way that would not be allowed in Europe and have already resulted in more than a few close calls. These are all valid concerns, but IMO they can't be extrapolated to "all ATC services can and should be automated".

I fly often, and I for one feel safer (at least, with our current technology) knowing that there are humans in the cockpit and in the control tower who can react and take control when unexpected stuff happens.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXNWwKx9c1o

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LLmF9tZoEE

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmywjMQDbos

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ma0JzO43Ig

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZviKoEKAaw

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pZ3VOPlarw

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgc2Wh4cOgo

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o80cNJ_XhX0

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x04kRUIgXpQ

[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAW2JbqxLRM

[CamperBob2]

Plane loses radio communication on final approach and ignores go-around orders, lands on occupied runway as ATC gets others out of the way [1]

Trivially handled by video game-grade AI. Is an aircraft somewhere it's not supposed to be, or doing something it's not supposed to be doing (most likely because a human has screwed up somewhere?) Route everything else out of the area, signal authorities. Human intervention not required.

Guy steals a plane and takes off without permission [2]

See above. What can ATC possibly do about this, besides alert other aircraft to the situation and signal law enforcement?

- Someone left some cones on a runway at JFK [3]

Foreign object detected or reported on runway, an everyday occurrence. Alert other aircraft and facilities personnel. What else is the controller going to do, go downstairs and pick up the cone?

Door blows off aircraft [4]

What is the controller supposed to do about this, other than accept the crew's request for an emergency landing and (guess what) route everybody else out of their way?

Some dude runs across the runways [5]

Like other 'surprises', two-legged FOD might have surprised the Wright brothers, but that's about it. Alert law enforcement and warn aircraft.

Pregnant woman giving birth on flight [6]

Just another routine 'surprise' covered by standard procedure. Handled primarily by the air crew rather than ATC. Handle emergency landing permission if requested by crew, alert medical personnel to meet the aircraft when it lands, done deal.

Student pilot freaks out, ATC calms her down and gets her instructor on frequency [7]

Honestly not sure what should be done to automate this kind of situation. I suppose an LLM could handle it as well as anyone else. :-P

See also the edge cases where the pilot(s) are incapacitated and an untrained civilian needs to be talked through the landing. How often does that happen in real life (and how often does it actually work?)

Earthquake [8]

Not really something ATC would be involved with except at the purely-tactical level. Ground outgoing traffic and reroute incoming flights until all-clear given by officials.

Pilot hits a deer [9]

Reroute traffic and alert medics.

Bomb threat on board, pilots decide to evacuate on the tarmac after no help arrives in ~1h [10]

Not an ATC issue except for the need to (guess what) reroute traffic.

They actively handle the traffic, and this task requires human pattern recognition and cross-domain reasoning skills in a matter of seconds, and the technology to replace this is simply not there yet. If you still disagree, I'd love to learn which technologies you'd apply to this problem and how they would compose with each other in order to achieve the same outcomes as in the cases I linked.

You could still have a valid overall point regarding the need for humans in the real-time loop, but I disagree that most of the scenarios you mention support that point. All of those cases can be (and are) anticipated, all of them have happened before except possibly [10], and all of them can be handled by computers at least as well as humans. Except possibly the situation with the pilot needing real-time psych support.

Let alone the fact that by AI we mean text models, so I'm not sure how they would integrate with terrain information, real-time radar data, arrival/departure routes, etc.

I definitely don't mean LLM-style text models. As I suggested in the first answer, nothing on this list except (again) #7 would have flummoxed a game programmer ten or twenty years ago. If some people want to try an ELIZA-like LLM to deal with #7, fine, but that would be a research problem. Nothing else on your list requires any new research.

[agubelu]

You have listed the correct actions to take in each scenario, but it's still not at all obvious to me how each case would be fully automated, start to finish. I would like more specifics, besides simply

  if(conesOnTheRunway) {
      closeRunway();
      rerouteAircraftOnGround();
      rerouteAircraftOnAir();
      pickUpCones();
      reopenRunway();
  }

Since I took the time to compile a list of examples that you sadly didn't find surprising enough, I would appreciate it if you returned the courtesy and provided a more concrete design of a fully automated ATC system using current technology.

> Trivially handled by video game-grade AI.

I think it's fairly likely I have played more flight simulator games than you have. If you know of a single one of them where the ATC AI isn't utterly stupid, please do let me know, I'd love to try it. There's a reason VATSIM exists and remains very popular :)

[jagger27]

It’s like I summoned you! Just be honest about your incentives if you care to make these arguments. Then be prepared to answer the accountability question, for when the system inevitably fails.

[CamperBob2]

My "incentive" is that I fly somewhere every once in a while, as do people that I care about, and I want the system to be as safe, reliable, efficient, resilient, and cost-effective as possible.

Don't you?

[sofixa]

> Then be prepared to answer the accountability question, for when the system inevitably fails.

Airplanes have gotten increasingly automated. Who is responsible when Airbus' excellent automations that have prevented countless upsets and accidents fail? Nobody, if it was an honest mistake, and lessons learned are applied to improve even further.

The problem with modern ATC is that a lot of the safety systems are bolted and backported on top of existing extremely legacy tech. Ffs, the communications still happen over radio where transmissions are missed if more than one person talks at the same time. And people have died because of this, as well as controllers making a mistake or pilots and controllers misunderstanding each other.

There's no reason to continue bolting more stuff on top. A very large part of ATC can be fully automated and made safer.

[CamperBob2]

All true, except that a key reason they still use AM for voice communications is precisely because it's obvious if multiple users are trying to transmit at once.

AM is obviously not the way a "CSMA/CD" system would be designed today, but it does get the job done, and has for a long time.

[cperciva]

AM is good for instructions because its broadcast nature allows everyone to hear everyone, but arguably coordinates-over-voice-over-AM is dangerously error-prone. My sense is that the ideal system might look something like "AM with a digital side band" where ATC can press buttons to transmit data (e.g. authorized altitudes and vectors) to a plane but metadata is still carried over AM.

A lot of fatalities have been avoided thanks to a pilot overhearing ATC giving takeoff or landing clearance to another plane, but quite a few incidents could also have been avoided if plane cockpits had a big red light "authorized to enter runway" which could only be turned on by ATC. In an industry which is designed around so many redundant systems, it's rather astonishing that an error in a single communication channel can lead to disaster.