[ptero]

There is definitely value in stability and the US system worked well for a long time, but it is not the only way for a safe ATC.

So OK, if you want to do development in this space, do learn about the US setup from a retired old fart who worked with paper strips and thinks the system should stay like this forever. But also learn about systems in Europe, Japan and other places; and realize that ATC can move away from the stone age. My 2c.

[jandrewrogers]

The irony is that the US routinely uses much more capable software for almost identical purposes in domains like battle space management. It isn’t like the US doesn’t have this software, more that the FAA doesn’t consider anything derivative of that tech as an option.

[ptero]

My original response was sharper than I intended; I am aware of both the air-defense and ATC systems for both the civilian and military use (so worked in each cell of that mini-2x2 table). The military is much more tolerant of risks and, even if implementing them would lead to an increase in safety and convenience using military systems for civilian ATC will likely cause all sorts of problems due to differences in training, planning, etc.

[cesaref]

I was involved in writing ATC software in the 90s for a European country (the FATMI system for Finland), and they were definitely using paper strips at the time, and I believe the design did not change this. I wasn't involved in the flight strip printing though, I was working on SIDs and STARs, airspace sectorisation, that sort of thing.

It would be interesting to know how things have changed since then, as obviously nearly 30 years has passed since that system would have been commissioned!