Another air traffic controller sleeping on the job; FAA says changes to work schedules coming -- 16 April 2011 (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Another-air-traffic-capress-934807684.html?x=0)

"...the Federal Aviation Administration says it happened early Saturday morning at a radar facility in Miami that handles high altitude air traffic.

A controller fell asleep while on duty..."





KaPvJlPnc6E

"...the technology the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses to navigate $200 million jets is less advanced than the GPS technology drivers use to navigate $20,000 cars..."

I'm not sure how many hours air traffic controllers work, but there needs to be some kind of dead mans switch that sends out a loud audio tone that wakes up the controller if he/she doesn't respond every few minutes to a command prompt on their computer.

alright, here is the deal if your wondering whats going on.........

for the last couple of years NATCA has been pushing fatigue studies for ATC but no one has answered their repeated request; then you end up with a barraige of incidents and finally something gets done. repeated incidents at high profile airports, band aids are placed, more incidents occur, administrators are forced to retire, stage another incident, and bada bing - new focus will be on getting them out of there completely crazy schedules (which they are, you can google how it varies week to week - it is crazy).

disclaimer - im not an ATC person but i have heard about this for years, this is purely my two cents on the subject.

It's crazy to me that we still have TACAN audio squeals and guys with radar and binoculars in towers controlling our airspace. Why does it take so long for people in this country to embrace technology. Launch a crap load of military-grade radar satellites above the US, point them down at us, give all the planes GPS, and let computers run the whole mess. Problem solved.

After I typed that I just realized why we are still stuck in the 1960s. ATC and pilots jobs are unionized. Gotta protect those jobs, screw progress!

I think this is certainly a topic worth discussing but I'm not sure what it has to do with politics. Maybe the current events threads would be more appropriate.

It's crazy to me that we still have TACAN audio squeals and guys with radar and binoculars in towers controlling our airspace. Why does it take so long for people in this country to embrace technology. Launch a crap load of military-grade radar satellites above the US, point them down at us, give all the planes GPS, and let computers run the whole mess. Problem solved.

The problem is money and technology.

Alot of people reference GPS as the solve all to all of our aviation woes but it isnt.

For instance, has your gps in your car ever took you to someplace that wasnt there, or has it ever lost signal, where does that data come from and how reliable is it, why do different manufactures use different data sets, whose is more correct, what about a coding error or an entry error? Now take that same issue with 300 people moving 500 miles per hour along with 87,000 OTHER aircraft that are in the national airspace system each and every day and its easy to see the problem that comes on relying on a signal from space. Fact of the matter is that we have huge amount of traffic in comparison to sparsely populated countries like Canada which only has 509 airports(oklahoma has around 100 by itself) compared to 14,900 in the US. I could also reference solar flares, electronic interference from really weird items that you would never expect, terrorism (there are weapons out now that broadcast a frequency that blocks gps so all aircraft are blind). There are dozens of other reasons but i think you get the general idea.

Then it comes down to the money part, airlines are slow to equip because of the huge cost, GA Pilots are slow to equip because of the cost, and the federal government is slow to equip because of the cost of setting this whole new next generation of air traffic.

Or you could pull a PP or a Kerry and blame it on the Unions to really show your ignorance over the subject matter - its the biggest fad right now :poke:

To add to what William said.

There are 2 GPS technologies out there (WAAS and LAAS). I suggest you wiki both of them for a better understanding. I've heard from local FAA folks that there has been a great debate over the 2 technologies. The airlines want LAAS (better accuracy and able to provide CAT II/III landings) where as "industry" wants WAAS. From an FAA point of view WAAS won out and LAAS fell to the wayside.

William I really disagree entirely with your premise. The military has been using GPS for years and they do it very successfully. They have to account for everything that you just said, in addition to warfare conditions where people are actively trying to jam their signals. No engineer is going to design a system with a single reference system. To suggest that what you get at Wal-Mart when you buy a Tom Tom is anything remotely like the types of things they are doing on their aircraft is just wrong on so many levels. There is no reason whatsoever that we couldn't adapt those types of systems for commercial use. Yes, it would be a big initial up-front investment. But you know what? So was installing robots in automobile assembly plants. We didn't do it at first and the Japanese did and as a result they nearly kicked our asses to the economic curb when their fixed cost, although large, remained fixed and their variable costs when to practically zero in the coming years. I am not mentioning this because I believe there is a competitive analogy here but rather because I believe the economics are extremely similar... a large up front cost should translate into reduced variable costs over time that should pay for themselves if the system's lifespan is long enough. That is basic, irrefutable economics.

So maybe it isn't a union issue, but it is clearly a people issue. People just don't want to change and are offering up excuses. When our ATC system is run by big green spinning wheels, computer panels that look like they are from Forbidden Planet and in some cases guys at windows with binoculars there is something horribly wrong with our system. To look at only the short-comings of a possible new system and not realize they are small in comparison to the giant gaping holes in our current system is nothing but protectionism.

You obviously have no knowledge of ATC. It's not tubes anymore. Pretty much every radar control center (ARTCC as well as TRACON) is using digital displays. Every Class B and Class C Tower has DBRITE Radar displays, and a lot of Class D airports have a back-up/reference radar. The binoculars are a must at towers. The Tower is responsible for making sure nothing is on the runway, as well as being able to point things out for the pilots. Such as, landing gear not coming down, birds in the approach path, animals/FOD on the runway/taxiways, etc. Except for a few instances, no controller will use binoculars to direct traffic with, but only use them as an aid.

Most TRACONS use either STARS or ARTS radar modes. They are very similar to the D-BRITEs used in towers.

All Center (ARTCC) have advanced DSR radar. Very good digital displays, very functional. The ATC system is constantly being improved, including with the addition of ASDE-X ground surveillance radar. A Radar that shoots a signal to the ground from the tower, and with use of aircraft Mode-C transponders, can give precise details to the whereabouts of airplanes and vehicles on the airport.

ATC is nothing like you describe, dark rooms with green radar scopes.

DBRITE radar screen (what is used in towers):
http://oak.natca.org/Images/racd/racdsystem.jpg

STARS radar screen (Approach/Departure control):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ej5kQwZWlzM/TDVQkq9nr0I/AAAAAAAAAX4/UHCGVmMZo1U/s1600/usaf_radar.jpg

DSR radar screen (Center radar -- High altitude/Low Altitude En-Route control):
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/194130_dsr_nexrad_warp.jpg

ASDE-X Ground Surveillance Radar (This is from Atlanta):
http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/media/2008/08/main/projects/airport-surface-wireless-communications/airport-surface-detection-equipment-model-x_asde-x_display.jpg

US air controller suspended after watching [movie] at work - April 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13133158)

"...the incident occurred on Sunday at a radar centre in Oberlin in Ohio, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The worker's microphone inadvertently transmitted the movie's audio to all nearby planes, the FAA said..."

...naps, movies -- sounds like good work, if you can get it. I wonder how a private company would handle such incidents from their employees.

There is obviously some ways to go to upgrading ATC in the country. However, replacing people with technology won't solve everything. We still need the human with quick thinking in the centers and towers when the unthinkable happens. Much like having two pilots on a commercial flight. I think we also need to consider the impacts on OKC as well with any ATC changes since all the federal controllers in the nation come from here.

The biggest issue seems to be the stupid work rules and shift assignments. Why they have such a chaotic is just stupid. FAA and the union just need to get it fixed.

You obviously have no knowledge of ATC. It's not tubes anymore....

I never said anything about tubes, and I find it hysterical that you get riled up but then 1. agree with me that they still use binoculars in ATC centers, requirement or not, 2. attempt to refute me by posting pictures of giant goofy looking IKBs and black and green screened MFDs, oh pardon me there's a splash of gray and cyan in there too, and 3. follow it up with the penultimate system that we should all strive for... 8-bit color with ASCII big-blocked graphics. Awesome.

I never said that the systems weren't new-ish. I said that they weren't modern. But that is the whole problem with the aerospace industry... modern to it is basically where the tech industry was 10 years ago. The problem is that folks in industry are stuck in the mind-frame of the aerospace industry... constrained by giant government organizations and corporations lumbering along at a snails pace. What I am saying is that what you are heralding as state of the art for your industry is unacceptable from a global technology standpoint.

There is obviously some ways to go to upgrading ATC in the country. However, replacing people with technology won't solve everything. We still need the human with quick thinking in the centers and towers when the unthinkable happens. Much like having two pilots on a commercial flight. I think we also need to consider the impacts on OKC as well with any ATC changes since all the federal controllers in the nation come from here.

The biggest issue seems to be the stupid work rules and shift assignments. Why they have such a chaotic is just stupid. FAA and the union just need to get it fixed.

Oh I completely agree, there will always be a role for humans. I just happen to think it is currently over-stated. I think there should be more autonomous control than what there currently is, and I think that a lot of what happens should be governed by pilots requesting actions and expert systems responding to those requests most of the time. As for guys with binoculars... one has to wonder why optical FLIR cameras... which the military has been using to see through all kinds of weather including fog for years, aren't used in conjunction with computer systems for some tower spotting activities. Yes there would probably still be a role for humans in there somewhere, but again I am just pointing out that it could be minimized.

It might surprise you to know that for most of any flight computers are in control of the aircraft....

It might surprise you to know that for most of any flight computers are in control of the aircraft....

Not really. Nearly every portion of the flight is computer controlled now including the landing unless the pilot flying wants to do it manually (unless conditions prevent and the airport has the proper equipment to support autoland). Most flights are pilots entering settings into the computer and letting it do the rest. Granted, that computer can freeze or underestimate the actual conditions outside...so having the two humans up front helps with that. US 1549 is a good example of a situation where a computer could never match what 2 experience pilots can accomplish.

Oh I completely agree, there will always be a role for humans. I just happen to think it is currently over-stated. I think there should be more autonomous control than what there currently is, and I think that a lot of what happens should be governed by pilots requesting actions and expert systems responding to those requests most of the time. As for guys with binoculars... one has to wonder why optical FLIR cameras... which the military has been using to see through all kinds of weather including fog for years, aren't used in conjunction with computer systems for some tower spotting activities. Yes there would probably still be a role for humans in there somewhere, but again I am just pointing out that it could be minimized.

It might surprise you to know that for most of any flight computers are in control of the aircraft....

It's important that radar screens have an "institutional" look to them. I don't want fancy graphics and cool gadgets for the controller's to get distracted with. I want them to have functionality. When safety is involved, fancy graphics have no role. That's why all D-BRITE monitors (the pic I posted isn't EXACTLY what is used now. It's very difficult to come across pictures of these things.) look the way they do. The ones now are LCD 20" screens that hang down from the ceiling and are on a swivel. So they can be positioned anywhere in the tower cab the controller wants them. They can also list a lot more data than the prior versions.

And, ATC Centers do not use binoculars, only Towers. And again, they serve a functional role of spotting anomalies that can potentially put an aircraft in danger. They are rarely used for actually directing traffic.

I used to have a ton of pics of tower displays that I have taken over the years, but a recent hard-drive crash has lost these images forever.

You will never replace humans in ATC. No computer can handle the amount of workload it takes to run a busy airspace. The human mind is the most efficient way to be able to handle a TON of variable data and continuously process it and come out with successful outcomes. A computer would end up making mistakes because at one point in time, the data would lead it to one conclusion, but on the next radar update, say an aircrafts speed has unexpectedly increased by 10 knots (wind change possibly at altitude), the computer would then get confused because the data wasn't consistent to what it was expecting.

And no, I am not surprised that computers are controlling the flight commands of the aircraft. The pilots are in control of the computer, though. Autopilot isn't exactly the most reliable thing on the planet. They get replaced in aircraft a lot more than you think they do. And they are found faulty by pilots writing them up. If the pilots are on the ground, and an autopilot has an airborne failure or system fault, what do we do next?

Dismayed - accept SkyWest's assertion that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll +1 his remark, but from the other side of the radio. I'm a pilot, and he has a fantastic grasp of what controllers do. I'll boil down why we need human controllers in a world of GPS and TCAS: Aircraft separation. If there's nobody controlling aircraft, then the world becomes one big uncontrolled airport environment, and I can envision this as the outcome (weather is 500' overcast, 2 miles visibility, winds 180 at 10):

SW1234: "Will Rogers traffic, Southwest 1234 10 miles northeast out of 3,000, inbound on the RVAV (GPS) RWY 17R. Any traffic please advise."
AA5678: "Ah, Southwest, American 5678, we're 10 miles to the northwest with localizer intercept for the ILS RWY 17L."

You're looking at a crash three minutes before impact over I-40 & Meridian that will kill hundreds of people.

Just like all modern-day aircraft systems are mostly controlled by software, but the pilot still has some control, there is no reason why an ATC center couldn't be automated to a greater degree than it is now. I never ever ever said that we needed to completely do away with human oversight; however, only a pilot would reach the conclusion that software is scary and humans are always better, even in the face of cold hard statistics indicating that pilot error is the majority cause of all aircraft accidents. I can't recall any accidents that have been attributed to software. On top of that, simple dead reckoning of aircraft trajectories is child's play compared to what is going on under the hood of that aircraft's avionics system that you are flying around in; I do not see why ATC would be any more difficult than that.

The non-fancy desire blows my mind. I'm sure it wouldn't be helpful at all to hit a button and to have map topology thrown underneath those horrific displays. I mean why would an ATC guy be concerned about the size of the mountains surrounding his airport. There's a difference between non-value added eye candy and improving the way people work via greater flexibility and more powerful options... why would you assume that anything else would always be the former and never the latter?

At any rate, it's sort of a moot point. All the government press releases on the FAA's website seem to indicate that the coming overhaul of the nation's ATC infrastructure, NextGen, is in fact going to do exactly these sort of things.

Controllers can toggle MSA and MVA (minimum vectoring altitude) maps on and off. An MVA map is much easier than a topology map (less color intensive). There have been numerous studies relating to colors on ATC screens. They keep them down to a minimum to avoid sensory overload in stressful situations. Remember, this screen will be looked at for 2 or more hours continuously. You don't need a bunch of conflicting colors making the brain overwork.

Vectoring is not "child's play" and no computer software can realistically achieve the efficiency of the human mind at it. The systems in the flight management computers on board the aircraft deal with different parameters. They follow a logic flow that only deals with the first person. It does not care about other traffic in the area, what the ATC instructs, etc. It is programmed (by the pilot) to do a specific route, and achieve specific in-flight efficiencies. The computer then commands the flight controls to achieve the pilot's requested action.

For example, air traffic controllers commonly place a speed and altitude restriction to arriving aircraft. Such as, "American 1899, descend and maintain 9,000. Cross Olympia V-O-R at or below 17,000 feet, maintain 280 knots or greater" The pilot will select 9,000 in the aircraft's autopilot altitude selector. He will type OLM 170B 280A in the FMC and the aircraft will follow the command and calculate the proper flight controls to achieve it. If it is unable, it tells the pilot it is unable and waits for further input. It doesn't make a decision. It follows command to lessen the workload on the pilots.

Now, developing an ATC system to work from a computer without human input. This will require it to have the ability to vector an aircraft, make decisions on it's own, be efficient, use logic, and use common sense. All of those qualities are in a human air traffic controller and are very hard, if not impossible, to recreate in a computer program. Every day is a new day for an ATC, something different will happen they have likely never encountered. This is where computers would ultimately fail at the ATC level.

Computers play a significant role in flow control and sequencing. But that is it. And even then, it is not directing traffic that is moving. It provides controllers with a workflow to organize their traffic and not send 200 planes to the destination at once (such as a major hub reopening after a ground stop due to weather -- think all of the OKC diversions from Dallas). Hundreds of flights are diverted throughout airports scattered nearby DFW. A computer organizes the adjusted departure times so traffic is flowing into Dallas again, not cramming it at once. Other than that, I don't see computers taking over a command and decision role in ATC. Not in our lifetime anyway.

...only a pilot would reach the conclusion that software is scary and humans are always better...

What pilot said that in this thread, or anywhere fore that matter? Sure wasn't me.

Dismayed - accept SkyWest's assertion that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll +1 his remark, but from the other side of the radio. I'm a pilot, and he has a fantastic grasp of what controllers do. I'll boil down why we need human controllers in a world of GPS and TCAS: Aircraft separation. If there's nobody controlling aircraft, then the world becomes one big uncontrolled airport environment, and I can envision this as the outcome (weather is 500' overcast, 2 miles visibility, winds 180 at 10):

SW1234: "Will Rogers traffic, Southwest 1234 10 miles northeast out of 3,000, inbound on the RVAV (GPS) RWY 17R. Any traffic please advise."
AA5678: "Ah, Southwest, American 5678, we're 10 miles to the northwest with localizer intercept for the ILS RWY 17L."

You're looking at a crash three minutes before impact over I-40 & Meridian that will kill hundreds of people.
Southwest 1234, Will Rogers, turn left heading zero niner zero, climb and maintain 6,000, stand by for further instruction - I've got to take a nap. :LolLolLol

William I really disagree entirely with your premise.

I based my dumbed down layman's explanation over some of the issues on my direct experience in working for the part of the organization that deals with this. I'm glad that your internet persona is an expert though, all those years I spent as a pilot and now working in this direct field all the people around me have had it all wrong.

I'll let them know on Monday.



At any rate, it's sort of a moot point. All the government press releases on the FAA's website seem to indicate that the coming overhaul of the nation's ATC infrastructure, NextGen, is in fact going to do exactly these sort of things.

:doh: