[HN Gopher] How to fix America's aviation system (2023)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to fix America's aviation system (2023)
        
       Author : camkego
       Score  : 107 points
       Date   : 2024-04-20 20:07 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.wbur.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.wbur.org)
        
       | camkego wrote:
       | The article says: "near misses are [...] up 25% in the past
       | decade"
       | 
       | For example, there was almost a collision between Southwest and
       | Jetblue Thursday morning at Reagan Airport.
       | 
       | https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/us/washington-ronald-reagan-a...
       | 
       | I wonder, it going to take actual collisions to spur the focus
       | and attention to work on this issue of "so many close calls"?
        
         | agsnu wrote:
         | There was almost an even worse collision at Kennedy on
         | Wednesday as well that only just came to light
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6lAwLy_Os
        
           | hggh wrote:
           | Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40098469
        
         | nimbius wrote:
         | Its a simple answer I give professional drivers in the diesel
         | engine shop I work at.
         | 
         | Youre going too fast.
         | 
         | Mashing different departments together to do things quicker,
         | faster turnarounds at the gates, playing with flight times to
         | game service hours...it all comes back to you in the worst way.
         | 
         | I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Reagans sacking the air
         | controllers union isnt still haunting this country to this day.
         | Those were professionals, and you decided the rates interfered
         | with profits, so now you get a lot more near misses from a much
         | more exhausted crew.
        
           | dingnuts wrote:
           | the data on airline safety over the last forty years does not
           | bear out your argument at all. Air travel has gotten much
           | cheaper and much safer since Reagan -- TFA and Boeing's
           | problems notwithstanding.
           | 
           | What you're describing sounds a lot like, to me, someone who
           | loves unions and is mad about something that happened two
           | generations ago, and it's looking for some bad effect to
           | blame on it.
        
             | meowster wrote:
             | Air Traffic Controller here. A major problem is staffing,
             | and that's still a problem because of Reagan's mass-firing.
             | 
             | I don't care about unions one way or the other. I'm just a
             | member of my union for the "job insurance", but now I'm
             | thinking about quiting next January (we can only quit in
             | January) because they showed themselves to be ineffective
             | and not representative of my needs (pay).
        
         | delfinom wrote:
         | There was a near miss in JFK Friday between a Swiss Air that
         | was cleared to takeoff, with 3 planes immediately after that
         | cleared to cross the same runway by a second controller.
         | 
         | Would have had a death toll rivaling 9/11 if it was on a foggy
         | day with no visibility downstream for the Swiss Air to abort in
         | its take off.
        
       | NegativeLatency wrote:
       | Would love to see low lead fuel phased out too while we're fixing
       | the system.
        
         | Plasmoid wrote:
         | The FAA recently approved 100UL fuel
        
         | tjohns wrote:
         | That's actively happening. 94UL was approved a couple years
         | ago, and some of the smaller airports in the SF Bay Area are
         | already dispensing it.
         | 
         | 100UL was the last major barrier (since high performance
         | aircraft need 100 Octane fuel), and that was just approved last
         | year. It should start being dispensed at smaller airports soon.
         | There's a lot of pressure to get this in pumps as quickly as
         | possible before the EPA bans 100LL.
         | 
         | (Probably not fast enough to prevent San Carlos Airport in the
         | bay area from closing - the county officially wants to close it
         | due to leaded fuel, though it's an open secret that's just a
         | convenient excuse so they can free the airport land + airspace
         | up for real estate developers. The airport's already switched
         | over entirely to 94UL pumps.)
        
       | KennyBlanken wrote:
       | The reason America's aviation system is so broken is because the
       | FAA's budget is primarily user fee/tax funded. Airlines want as
       | low government fees and taxes as possible, so they heavily lobby
       | against any sort of funding increase.
       | 
       | Congress could fund technology updates and ATC training
       | programs...then rapidly increase the number of controllers in the
       | country, and then lower the maximum hours controllers can work in
       | a shift/week, increase break times, etc.
       | 
       | But that means raising fees and taxes and tariffs, and both
       | wealthy travelers and corporate interests don't want that.
       | Airline travel is predominantly done by people who make over
       | $100k a year, and business travelers comprise 75% of profits.
       | 
       | Oh, and it doesn't help that AOPA screams blue bloody murder any
       | time anyone so much as suggests phasing out incredibly expensive,
       | outdated technologies.
        
         | mschuster91 wrote:
         | There are about 45.000 flights a day [1] in the US or 16
         | million a year, and that's just commercial, not including GA
         | the 2010 dataset [2] is the newest I could find, it assumes
         | 1/3rd for commercial, 1/3rd charters and the rest for GA,
         | military and cargo, and I assume that this ratio has been
         | roughly the same in the last decades.
         | 
         | So, a surcharge of 100 dollars per flight to fund FAA
         | controllers would lead to a whopping 1.6 billion dollars a year
         | while only adding less than 50 cents in ticket costs per
         | passenger (assuming an average of 200 people per flight).
         | Further income could be made with a lower surcharge for cargo
         | and charters (let's say 50 dollars), and a very small one
         | (let's say 10 dollars) for GA - assuming the above roughly
         | 1/3rd split, you'd have an additional 800 million dollars from
         | charters and cargo, and 160 million from GA, leading to a total
         | of about 2.6 billion dollars.
         | 
         | Increase the fees to 200 dollars for commercial flights and
         | you'd get 4.2 billion dollars - an about 20% increase of the
         | FAA's current 19.8 billion dollars. That's a lot of money that
         | even the most price-sensitive, high frequency fliers will not
         | really feel. Assuming some rich executive flying twice a day
         | for 250 working days a year, he'd pay 1000$ more in travel
         | costs, a tiiiiny fraction of his expenses. A hobbyist pilot
         | with his PPL needs a minimum of 24 hours and a checkride every
         | two years, so ~12 flights per year, so their FAA surcharge cost
         | would be around ~120 dollars a year - not very much compared to
         | the cost of getting and maintaining a PPL.
         | 
         | In the end, the whining is pointless (especially as I've shown
         | the actual impact is negligible). Either the government
         | subsidizes air traffic of all kinds (similar as it does for
         | road and to a lesser extent rail traffic) and distributes the
         | cost across all members of society, or it makes for a self-
         | sufficient system, or a mix of both - but the status quo of
         | keeping it on life support is no longer sustainable.
         | 
         | Personally, I'd prefer a self-funding mechanism, alone because
         | governments (not just in the US, it's just most pronounced
         | there) seem to be completely incapable of actually governing,
         | and preferring to cut costs even where it's actually life-
         | critical.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers
         | 
         | [2] https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/datasets/air-traffic/
         | 
         | [3]
         | https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-03/F...
        
           | filleduchaos wrote:
           | > Personally, I'd prefer a self-funding mechanism, alone
           | because governments (not just in the US, it's just most
           | pronounced there) seem to be completely incapable of actually
           | governing, and preferring to cut costs even where it's
           | actually life-critical.
           | 
           | The FAA is in fact a part of the US government, which self-
           | funds its operations via taxes, such as the surcharge you've
           | just suggested (and if you ever look at your flight tickets
           | past the airport codes and flight times, you might notice
           | that passengers already pay several taxes that fund the
           | Department of Transportation and airports themselves).
        
             | mschuster91 wrote:
             | With "self-funding" I mean a mechanism that does not depend
             | _at all_ on broken politics to pass budgets.
        
           | sokoloff wrote:
           | > A hobbyist pilot with his PPL needs a minimum of 24 hours
           | and a checkride every two years
           | 
           | Citation needed on the first part. (The second part is also
           | not a checkride, but rather a biennial flight review, for
           | which a checkride will replace the need for, but a BFR will
           | suffice.)
        
             | mschuster91 wrote:
             | I went by the PPL(A) requirements in Europe [1, lower half
             | of page 2] - and gotta correct myself, it's only 12 hours
             | flight time (with 12 starts/lands, so at least 12 separate
             | flights of at least an hour length) plus a 1h checkride in
             | the 12 months prior to expiry (every 24 months).
             | 
             | Since the PPL is ICAO regulated, it should be the same case
             | in the US.
             | 
             | [1] https://www.sachsen-
             | anhalt.de/fileadmin/Bibliothek/Politik_u...
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | It is not the same in the US. The only currency
               | requirements for Part 91 (private) aviation per the FARs
               | are the landing currency requirements (only needed for
               | carrying passengers), IFR currency [if intending to fly
               | IFR], and the BFR.
               | 
               | Landing and IFR currency:
               | https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.57
               | 
               | BFR: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.56
        
         | CivBase wrote:
         | The FAA has plenty of problems, but they are far from the only
         | aviation regulatory body. I work on avionics and we have to
         | deal with many authorities from around the world. I think the
         | problem runs deeper than any single organization.
        
       | MrBuddyCasino wrote:
       | ,,Well, it's hard to think of a tougher or more important job
       | than being an air traffic controller. Go ahead and try, it will
       | take you a while.
       | 
       | Every day, more than 2.5 million Americans fly in or out of US
       | airports, along with, of course, many billions of dollars of
       | cargo. At any one time, there are about 5,000 aircraft above the
       | United States.
       | 
       | On 9/11, for example, air traffic controllers guided every one of
       | them to a safe landing in a little over an hour. Go ahead and try
       | that.
       | 
       | It's the kind of job where even a small mistake could lead
       | instantly to the deaths of hundreds of people. Not surprisingly,
       | the hiring standards for air traffic controllers were long among
       | the most selective of all federal jobs.
       | 
       | Applicants typically needed to complete military service or pass
       | the FAA's Collegiate Training Initiative Program. After that,
       | they sat for a specially-designed exam that tested for relevant
       | job skills, skills like math ability and complex problem-solving.
       | 
       | Only those with the highest scores made the cut. The system was
       | designed to choose the best. And for decades, it worked.
       | 
       | Then, during the Obama administration, activist bureaucrats
       | decided that the pool of air traffic controllers wasn't diverse
       | enough. They never explained why diversity ought to matter in air
       | traffic control or why it was more important than traditional
       | goals like competence and public safety.
       | 
       | The FAA, without a vote, just scrapped the old hiring system and
       | replaced it with a diversity-friendly version. Most people have
       | no idea this happened.
       | 
       | The FAA now requires many of its applicants to fill out what they
       | call a biographical questionnaire before any other screening.
       | Those who answer the questions in a way that diversity monitors
       | don't like cannot be considered for hiring, not matter how much
       | experience they have or how well they may do on the other
       | portions of the testing.
       | 
       | The biographical questionnaire is all important. So, what is in
       | this biographical questionnaire? Well, we can answer that
       | question because we've got a copy of it and we also got
       | information about how it is scored. And it's shocking!
       | 
       | For example, one question asked test-takers to name their worst
       | grade in high school. The preferred answer for that is science.
       | In other words, if you can't do science, the FAA is especially
       | eager to hire you as an air traffic controller. You get 10 points
       | for being bad at science, according to the scoring sheet.
       | 
       | Another question asked about work history. According to the FAA,
       | the best answer to that question is you haven't worked at all in
       | the past three years. You get 10 points for not working.
       | 
       | Apparently, unemployed people make the best air traffic
       | controllers. This is demented, by the way, but it's real. So do
       | applicants who played a lot of sports in high school. They're
       | rewarded too.
       | 
       | By contrast, applicants who say they know a great deal about air
       | traffic control get only five points. Trained pilots get two
       | points.
       | 
       | Once again, applicants who haven't worked at all, who have been
       | unemployed for the past three years, get 10 points. Pilots, 2
       | points. This is insane. And it's dangerous. It's also
       | indefensible.
       | 
       | We asked the FAA's top spokesman why applicants for an air
       | traffic control job would get more points for playing high school
       | sports than for flying planes or knowing a lot about air traffic
       | control.
       | 
       | His response, "I'm trying to find that out as well." Well, not
       | actually trying very hard, it turns out. We still haven't heard
       | back with a real explanation and, of course, we won't because
       | there isn't one, other than shut up, diversity.
       | 
       | But we won't shut up. This is too important. Lives are at stake."
       | 
       | https://vdare.com/posts/faa-lowers-standards-for-air-traffic...
        
         | jajko wrote:
         | Man, if that wouldn't be fox news with that... extremely
         | dangerous simpleton carlson, I would take what they/you say. As
         | it stands, its just raw political propaganda cherry-picking
         | anything not aligned to trump, if there is any truth at all.
        
           | MrBuddyCasino wrote:
           | Feel free to disprove anything stated here, if you can get
           | past the friend/enemy distinction, or even the cheap ad-
           | hominems.
        
           | d_k_f wrote:
           | https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-
           | scandal-... seems to have a mostly unpolitical interpretation
           | of the situation based on the case files of a related class
           | action lawsuit. And no matter what you think of Fox and
           | Tucker Carlson - it doesn't sound good.
        
         | d_k_f wrote:
         | The biographical assessment has been retired in 2018, by the
         | way: https://www.faa.gov/faq/faa-getting-rid-air-traffic-
         | skills-b...
         | 
         |  _EDIT: The next point might not be true. According
         | tohttps://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-
         | scandal-... the introduction of the BA "blindsided and
         | outraged" CTI schools (the pre-training mentioned below). END
         | OF EDIT_
         | 
         | Additionally, it was only ever required for the general, open-
         | for-all applicant pool (dubbed "off the street"). If you had
         | certain qualifications or participated in a pre-training
         | initiative, you were exempt (https://123atc.com/biographical-
         | assessment). No idea what the distribution between "off the
         | street" and other air controllers looks like, though.
        
         | smgit wrote:
         | Go read the McDonaldization of Society. This is now a 30-40
         | year old trend. Its not possible to compare skill requirements
         | of 2001 to today, thanks to tech and automation. We are moving
         | from info automation to decision automation. So Human roles
         | within the system move from being active to passive to non
         | existent. Thats the trend line. Which means you don't need the
         | same skill levels. Its more apt to compare things to running a
         | very busy McDonalds. And some McDonald operations are much
         | busier than the loads any ATC handles. Don't wait for the
         | fucking managers and politicians to tell you that. They are
         | fucking panderers who don't control anything about where the
         | ship is heading.
        
       | methuselah_in wrote:
       | Let engineering team work as engineering team
        
         | threatripper wrote:
         | We can't have this, think of alternate solutions.
        
         | cpursley wrote:
         | And get some engineers on the executive boards.
        
           | tacocataco wrote:
           | Social engineers?
        
         | CivBase wrote:
         | Interesting idea. I'm going to need you to provide a cost-
         | benefit analysis on this.
        
           | drtgh wrote:
           | Why? in the short term they will say "expensive", "low ROI",
           | without analysing the long term gains when the bridge does
           | not collapse, and those happy customers attract new customers
           | to our company, to run away from those companies that have
           | done such kind of ROI analysis in an attempt to justify their
           | lack of common sense.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _run away from those companies that have done such kind
             | of ROI analysis...lack of common sense_
             | 
             | Are we seriously arguing for management by gut feeling over
             | numbers in a thread about air traffic control?
             | 
             | ROI is a weighing of costs and benefits. It isn't
             | inherently short or long term. I can use 19th century
             | physics to prove no plane can fly. That doesn't mean we
             | conclude physics is fucked, never do physics again.
        
               | drtgh wrote:
               | What gut feeling? the comment is arguing towards
               | engineering, not towards homeopathy.
               | 
               | If you have to analyze the weighing of costs and
               | benefits, you are showing there is one point were you
               | will consider safety too expensive, or some acceptable
               | accidents (as long as it is not someone you love) in the
               | long term.
        
               | JumpCrisscross wrote:
               | > _you are showing there is one point were you will
               | consider safety too expensive, or some acceptable
               | accidents_
               | 
               | Yes. This is engineering. You can't engineer to infinite
               | safety without infinite cost.
        
               | drtgh wrote:
               | Life is cheap, we know, but it sounds more like the board
               | will receive a bonus increase, not like engineering.
        
       | ysofunny wrote:
       | gotta get rid of it so we can have free UFO tech
        
       | seatac76 wrote:
       | How much of this due to flight controllers and aircraft crew
       | being overworked. Looks like the FAA is starting to take action
       | 
       | https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/us/faa-to-increase-time-off-b...
        
         | meowster wrote:
         | Air Traffic Controller here.
         | 
         | That is going to screw up our schedules even worse. It also
         | violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the FAA
         | and the Air Traffic Controller's union.
         | 
         | The FAA released that without discussing it with the union
         | beforehand.
         | 
         | The biggest complaint among Air Traffic Controllers is pay.
         | Second is staffing.
         | 
         | Staffing is what is causing Controllers to work 6-day-workweeks
         | and causing fatigue, not the time in-between shifts.
         | 
         | Most controllers are willing to put up with it if the pay is
         | commensurate with what we're being told to do. But our
         | effective pay is dwindling with inflation while pilots are
         | getting raises and we are not. It's VERY demoralizing and
         | causing people to quit, which makes staffing worse.
         | 
         | The easiest and best fix is to increase our pay.
         | 
         | (It's also demoralizing when a Controller f**s up so bad and so
         | egregiously, that they aren't fired unless it makes the news. I
         | can't give any examples without doxing myself.)
         | 
         | #####
         | 
         | Reading the article now, but no one likes Paul Rinaldi. He
         | extended the CBA right before he left office which caught
         | everyone by surprise because they said Biden is the "most labor
         | friendly president" and no one tried to negotiate pay raises in
         | the midst of bad inflation. On top of that, then Rinaldi gets a
         | 250k/year "consulting" contract with the union.
         | 
         | Now the union is saying they are going to extend the contract
         | again because they're afraid if Trump becomes President, we
         | will get screwed, but we're already getting screwed and the
         | Controllers wants to renegotiate the contract anyway.
         | 
         | Our union is not effective right now, and the FAA is fine with
         | that. And since ATC is government, we cannot take any work
         | action that others like pilots can which is why they're getting
         | 40% raises and we are not.
         | 
         | #####
         | 
         | Opinions are my own, etc. We can get in trouble for talking to
         | the media. Supposedly r/ATC is being censored which is why
         | someone created r/ATC2 which is a little more unhinged, but
         | still accurately reflects controllers' frustration on pay.
        
           | Waterluvian wrote:
           | If you don't mind me asking while you're here, how is the
           | technology you're working with? Do you feel you have all the
           | technological advantage reasonably and safely possible for
           | doing your job as comfortably as possible?
        
             | meowster wrote:
             | The technology is old, but it's solid. It's never crashed
             | on us while working. I think the only time they reboot it
             | is at night when traffic is low and they do an update, but
             | it's seemless because there are two systems. They update
             | one and switch us to it, then update the other.
             | 
             | I work in an Air Route Traffic Control Center, not a tower.
             | 
             | If you asked me that a couple of years ago, I would say
             | being able to talk with the pilots, but now the airlines
             | are starting to adopt CPDLC which allows us to send text
             | commands (to climb, turn, etc) rather than relying on voice
             | communication. Not everyone has it though.
        
               | sparcpile wrote:
               | ERAM is multichannel, which is why we do the failover
               | between A-channel and B-channel during APL and OS CUTO.
               | If I remember the SSMs right, we do the update on the
               | B-channel first and once it has been approved by TechOps,
               | A-channel is then updated.
               | 
               | Everything is built to provide a fallback in cause of
               | failure, including the OS updates when they come in.
        
           | rokkitmensch wrote:
           | Another excellent example of an incumbent union with no
           | competition absolutely hosing the humans its mission should
           | be to advocate for. Go labor!
        
             | meowster wrote:
             | The union has done great things in the past, but lately not
             | so much.
        
           | mch82 wrote:
           | How much of the job relies on visual line of sight from the
           | tower? Could any of the job be done remotely using
           | information displays & high quality video feeds?
        
             | sokoloff wrote:
             | There is work being done on remote tower systems (RTS).
             | 
             | https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/non_federal/
             | r...
        
         | SoftTalker wrote:
         | Link to the recent memo from FAA administrator Mike Whitaker,
         | which includes links to a recent report on the risks introduced
         | by controller fatigue, and other related documents.
         | 
         | https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statement-faa-administrator-mik...
        
       | paulgerhardt wrote:
       | I'm always surprised no one talks about the top of funnel for ATC
       | controllers. As a pilot, ham radio operator, and operations
       | enthusiast I considered it as a career change at 35 but it's an
       | impossible field to switch into.
       | 
       | In particular:                   Must be a U.S. citizen
       | Must be age 30 or under on the closing date of the application
       | period (with limited exceptions)         Must have either three
       | years of general work experience or four years of education
       | leading to a bachelor's degree, or a combination of both
       | Must relocate to Oklahoma City + a rural airport for multiple
       | years.         Salary is $135k/yr
       | 
       | I suspect a lot of others get weeded out during the Hogan test
       | (mmpi2) and no-history-of-ADHD-or-depression requirements. The
       | extensive relocation periods don't bother me but one would have
       | had to come straight out of school with the mission of doing ATC
       | to even qualify.
       | 
       | This hiring thread is worth a read:
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1c1wmt2/i_am_an_air_t...
       | 
       | Coming from startup land, it's so clear the lack of available and
       | qualified controllers is directly down line of this thorny
       | problem. It's the inverse corollary to growth fixes all problems.
        
         | meowster wrote:
         | The salary varies from 60k to a middle-of-nowhere tower to
         | $150k in New York or California which is not enough to live on
         | comfortably. Of course we are going to burn out and make
         | mistakes when we have to drive an hour plus to and from the
         | city six days a week because we can't afford to live any closer
         | and staffing isn't better because people quit because of the
         | pay.
         | 
         | It's not a supply problem with staffing, it's a pay problem.
         | Over 50,000 people apply every year, but people are quiting
         | because quality of life sucks, and the biggest thing the FAA
         | can do to change it, is to increase pay, and they aren't doing
         | that.
        
         | MuffinFlavored wrote:
         | > Coming from startup land, it's so clear the lack of available
         | and qualified controllers is directly down line of this thorny
         | problem.
         | 
         | Am I wrong to feel personally that lowering the hiring
         | standards for ATC controllers is a step in the wrong direction?
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjoDn8zQgb8
         | 
         | One of the top comments:
         | 
         | > The controllers I know are PISSED about this because this was
         | grossly ATC's fault.
         | 
         | I'm personally terrified every-time I get on a plane. If you go
         | to a restauraunt, your order coming out right and not making
         | you sick depends on like, 3-4 systems/employees/supply
         | chains/whatever. I'd say it's like 80% fine most of the time.
         | 
         | How many supply chains does a plane go through? 80% fine most
         | cuts it for like... mild tech production incidents, screwed up
         | food orders
         | 
         | How does it work out for airplanes/ATC?
        
           | jessriedel wrote:
           | Commercial air travel is the safest form of transportation in
           | the history of the planet. If you're terrified every time you
           | get on a plane, you shouldn't be using that intuition as a
           | guide to policy.
        
             | MuffinFlavored wrote:
             | > Commercial air travel is the safest form of
             | transportation in the history of the planet.
             | 
             | Until it's not, right?
             | 
             | Historically, it has been.
             | 
             | If there was a 1/1,000,000,000 chance you were going to die
             | on a plane ride, would you voluntarily choose to take it?
             | Ok, what about 1/1,000,000?
        
               | JoshGG wrote:
               | Arnold Barnett, a statistician at the Massachusetts
               | Institute of Technology who has studied airline safety,
               | tells NPR that from 2018 to 2022, the chances of a
               | passenger being killed on a flight anywhere in the world
               | was 1 in 13.4 million. Between 1968 to 1977, the chance
               | was 1 in 350,000.
               | 
               | "Worldwide flying is extremely safe, but in the United
               | States, it's extraordinarily so," Barnett said.
               | 
               | In the U.S., there has not been a fatal plane crash
               | involving a major American airline since February 2009,
               | though there have been a handful of fatalities since
               | then.
               | 
               | Brickhouse, who has studied aviation safety for over 25
               | years, often tells people that the biggest risk of any
               | air journey tends to be driving to the airport.
               | 
               | More than 40,000 people are killed on U.S. roads each
               | year.
               | 
               | "Aviation remains the safest mode of transportation," he
               | says.
               | 
               | https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1237262132/why-flying-
               | safe-un....
        
               | jessriedel wrote:
               | This isn't the conundrum you think it is. My estimated
               | statistical value of life (revealed preference) is ~$30M,
               | so I would get on a flight with a 10^-9 risk without
               | thinking twice, but would value the 10^-6 risk at about
               | $30. That is, I would choose to fly in a plane that had
               | an additional 10^-6 risk of death if it was $50 cheaper,
               | but not if it was only $5 cheaper.
        
               | nine_k wrote:
               | The odds to die in a car ride are about 4000 higher than
               | in an airplane flight [1]. Knowing that, would you
               | willingly ride a car?
               | 
               | [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/
               | 15thhsh/...
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | You have about a 1 in 1 billion chance of dying for every
               | 750 feet or so that you drive.
               | 
               | I take risks far in excess of 1 in a billion every day.
        
             | whythre wrote:
             | The industry is currently very safe, so lowering hiring
             | standards will not affect overall safety rates (much)? Is
             | that the argument?
        
               | jessriedel wrote:
               | I mean exactly what I said: anyone who has this _fear_ ,
               | which is untethered from reality, should not trust their
               | intuition about what mechanisms are important for safety.
        
           | meowster wrote:
           | I see and hear about the mistakes that my coworkers make that
           | don't make the news, and I still have no problem flying.
           | There are many layers of safety including the systems and
           | pilots onboard the planes, and statistics still show it is
           | still safer than driving.
           | 
           | Lowering standards is definitely the wrong way to go.
           | Increasing pay to attract and keep good controllers is the
           | better route.
        
         | foobarian wrote:
         | > Must be age 30 or under
         | 
         | I wonder what legal exception allows this to be a requirement.
         | This would never fly on a tech job posting.
        
           | jxcl wrote:
           | The federal government is not beholden to federal employment
           | laws, ironically
        
       | petermcneeley wrote:
       | There shouldnt even be pilots much less air traffic controllers.
       | This is the same as the people that think subways need human
       | drivers.
        
         | meowster wrote:
         | Air Traffic Controller here. Tour an ATC facility and talk with
         | them. You'll see why it can't be completely automated.
        
           | petermcneeley wrote:
           | Yes but 99% probably could be. Go to Vancouver sometime. All
           | the subways are automated. But in rare cases they need to be
           | driven remotely and every few years they need to be driven by
           | a human.
        
             | tnmom wrote:
             | ATC is a unique thing - if you're interested, suggest
             | listening to the https://www.opposingbases.com/ podcast.
             | It's eye opening how much complexity they deal with, and
             | how frequent the edge cases really are.
        
             | nostrademons wrote:
             | It's the same issue that self-driving cars have. 99% can be
             | automated. The remaining 1% is a bitch, and life-
             | threatening.
             | 
             | I've heard piloting described as 99% moments of boredom,
             | followed by 1% moments of sheer terror. If you actually
             | could program a computer to anticipate all of the possible
             | scenarios in that 1%, it'd be good to take the sheer terror
             | out of the equation. But it's frightening _because_ those
             | are the moments when something has gone wrong and normalcy
             | no longer applies, and you need to apply collected
             | knowledge, wisdom, and experience to save your life and the
             | lives of your passengers.
        
               | petermcneeley wrote:
               | It is actually not like self driving at all. In the self
               | driving case the nominal situation requires hard AI.
               | 
               | In aircraft the nominal situation does not require hard
               | AI, only the emergency situation. If aircraft did not
               | have mechanical failures the nominal situation is really
               | well defined.
               | 
               | The ATC job is even more nominal since they are not
               | actually dealing with the mechanics of the plane.
               | 
               | I would guess that you could make a video game that
               | covers 99.999% of all ATC jobs and you could undoubtly
               | with enough effort also program an AI to cover this.
        
               | nostrademons wrote:
               | With self-driving cars the nominal situation does not
               | require hard AI. I remember sitting in a TGIF back in
               | 2012, when Waymo was still called Google Chauffeur, and
               | they projected what the self-driving car sees as it
               | drives down a road. It's just boxes of potential hazards,
               | detected largely by LIDAR but backed up by cameras and
               | traditional computer-vision approaches.
               | 
               | The non-exceptional case for self-driving was a solved
               | problem in 2012. My boss rode in a self-driving car at
               | the time; they were available for beta testing by
               | Googlers in Mountain View then. Heck, this is what L3
               | self-driving is, and is offered on the market now by
               | Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Kia, and others.
        
               | petermcneeley wrote:
               | Take all that you think and say about self driving cars
               | and apply it to an ATC. The ATC job is probably an order
               | of magnitude more automatable.
               | 
               | Again I think something that would resolve this question
               | quite easily would be a game that covers the domain. You
               | can actually get a game that covers ~98% of what cars
               | have to deal with. This would be something like GTA V
        
               | nostrademons wrote:
               | You can get a game that covers 98% of ATCs have to deal
               | with:
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Control_(video_game)
               | 
               | It's the missing 2% that's hard.
        
               | petermcneeley wrote:
               | This game looks very low budget and simplistic. Perhaps
               | with higher budget one could get to 99.9% and then one
               | would have a proper simulation of the jobs of ATCs. Then
               | you hook in your AI prove that it can perform. Then you
               | replace 99.9% of the human ATCs with this AI.
               | 
               | simple as.
        
               | drtgh wrote:
               | When one read the acronym "AI", should be replaced with
               | the synonym "statistics", which shows how contradictory
               | about redundancy and accuracy can be the people who ate
               | the marketing about these algorithms, and are thinking
               | about to replace real trained intelligence, humans in
               | this case, with it.
        
               | petermcneeley wrote:
               | I dont mean AI here as in NN or LLM I mean like the
               | traditional AI like you would find in an RTS.
               | 
               | But the proof is always in the pudding. I highly suspect
               | that someone could write an AI that could play "Flight
               | Controls" and play it flawlessly. So what does this
               | prove? Well it proves that 98% of the work of the ATC can
               | be automated.
        
         | MichaelMug wrote:
         | The topic of automation always comes up when discussing ATC or
         | aviation incidents. One says automation, another says it can't
         | be done. And both parties end up talking past each other.
         | 
         | Let's go back in time. Long ago pilots would give position
         | updates. Now that is done with radar and transponders. This is
         | a form of automation.
         | 
         | There seems to be an uptick in ATC mistakes. Recently as this
         | week where a tower cleared a takeoff and also cleared four
         | aircraft to cross the same runway. So a form of automation I
         | would like to see is something to communicate to everyone that
         | a runway is not clear.
        
       | ggernov wrote:
       | Just stop hiring incompetent people in maintenance departments.
       | Planes are falling out of the sky primarily because of bad
       | maintenance and poorly developed procedures to conduct
       | maintenance.
       | 
       | Pilot standards also need to be increased. Everyone doesn't
       | "deserve" to be a pilot. I don't care about their race or gender,
       | I just care that they can pilot the plane in stressful conditions
       | without error compared to pilot quality when we had the safest
       | flight records.
        
         | tnmom wrote:
         | What incidents are you looking at that make you think pilot
         | standards are too low? In the US?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-21 23:01 UTC)