[thomascountz]

You say it “…sounds like a simple problem,” and sure, if you think this is a computer problem, it sounds simple. But if all you’re getting back is indignant sputtering, that’s your cue to explain why it’s simple—explaining something simple shouldn't be hard. What do you actually know?

It takes all of two minutes of Wikipedia reading for me to understand why this isn’t simple; why it's actually extremely not simple! If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". But then, if you're ignoring those things, you’re not really solving the problem, are you?

[CamperBob2]

If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple".

Those are excuses and encumbrances, not reasons. If they are so important, it leads to a question: what existing automated systems can we improve by adding similar constraints?

If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such.

I would like to say, "Because knowledgeable people have explained the difference to me." But again, this has come up before, and no explanations are ever provided. Only vague, reactionary hand-waving, assuring me that humans -- presumably not the same ones who just directed a fire truck and an aircraft onto the same active runway, but humans nevertheless -- are vital for safety in ATC, because for reasons such as and therefore.

There you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying.

There is no substance in the replies. There never is. Only unanchored FUD.

[thomascountz]

Ok. You have shared that what some say are reasons, you say are excuses. Do you want to be told you are right, or do you want to propose a valid solution? If the latter requires the former, I maintain that this is not a simple problem.

[CamperBob2]

I just want what I've been asking for: someone to explain to me why, in 2026, humans still need to be involved in the real-time aspects of ATC.

"Because it's always been done that way, and that's what the regulations say," will not be accepted, at least not by me.

(Really, my question is more like why humans will still be needed in the loop in 2036. If we started automating ATC today, that's probably how long it would take to cut over to the new system.)

[thomascountz]

You have made a claim.

   That... sounds like a simple problem.

I have made a counter-argument.

   If you ignore the incumbency, the regulations, the training requirements, the retrofitting, the verification, the international coordination, and the existing unfathomably reliable systems built out of past tragedies, then sure, it’s "simple". But then, if you're ignoring those things, you’re not really solving the problem, are you?

You retorted.

   Those are excuses and encumbrances, not reasons.

I rebutted.

   Ok. You have shared that what some say are reasons, you say are excuses... I maintain that this is not a simple problem.

Which you ignored to make a new claim against a straw man.

    I just want what I've been asking for: someone to explain to me why, in 2026, humans still need to be involved in the real-time aspects of ATC.

That is what is not acceptable. You cannot simply abandon your original claim because it has been plainly pointed out that it is incorrect. You were not simply asking for someone to explain why humans need to be involved in real-time aspects of ATC. That is a wholly different question! You claimed this problem was simple, and it has been explained to you why it is not. Please reason about your argument more soundly.

On the heels of tragedy, you reasoned this could've been avoided simply. We are all ears. And yet, at no point did you demonstrate any understanding of the problem containing real world constraints, and instead demand that it be explained to you how the world works and how systems are implemented.

If you want to discuss an idealized system in a vacuum, then say as much; I would find that interesting. But do not demand to be given an explanation when you do not understand—and cannot accept—why things are the way they are.

Let me summarize it like this: you may very well have the best solution in the world, but if it doesn't include a strategy for how to share it (let alone implement it), then I maintain you do not understand the problem and therefore cannot claim it is simple.

[CamperBob2]

Let me summarize it like this: you may very well have the best solution in the world

I have no solution at all, for the 35th time.

This conversation is over; it's clear I'm not going to get what I asked for. If someone could answer my question, they would have by now, rather than throwing one smoke bomb after another.

[estearum]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492768

Can you please explain how specifically you imagine a scenario like this getting automated?

[CamperBob2]

No, that's not how this works. You tell me why it can't or shouldn't be automated.

"Design an automated ATC system" isn't a valid answer to "Why can't ATC be automated?"

[wk_end]

Er, I sort of do think that's how it works? The ultimate rebuttal to "you can't do X" is to actually do X. Until you do that I think that ultimately the burden of proof falls on you. It can be very easy to imagine certain tasks and systems can be automated - especially when you aren't actively involved in those tasks and systems and are unfamiliar with their intricacies.

[estearum]

You: why don't we have a universal cancer vaccine?

Me: [ insert specific example of currently intractable problem ]

You: sounds like an excuse

Me: okay... can you explain how it could work?

You: THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS

okay

[estearum]

The only difference between an excuse and a reason is the designator's belief as to the validity of the reason provided. You have already said you do not have the expertise required to assess validity, yet here you are doing it in order to avoid engaging with the substance of what people are saying.

If these are just "excuses" and not "reasons," then explain how you have determined them as such.