Hacker News Reader

Comment by buildsjets | Hacker News Reader

What non-pilot techies fail to comprehend is that the entire ATC system is designed to operate in a no-communication failure mode. This includes features such as the paper strips, mandatory holding points, timed approaches, clearance void times, etc. It is all designed so if you have a complete communication failure in IFR conditions you can land without hitting anyone else.

Any fancy new system of, for example an in-cockpit text based clearance/routing display using an LTE network, will need to be backed up with a process that can be accomplished with a pencil, a compass, and silence.

For anyone considering doing development in this space, sign up for a 20 hour instrument flying ground school, preferably one taught by a retired old fart rather than a 25 year old “instructor” with no actual experience.

View on HN

> For anyone considering doing development in this space, sign up for a 20 hour instrument flying ground school, preferably one taught by a retired old fart rather than a 25 year old “instructor” with no actual experience.

That's a bit overkill in the world of DOGE. They'll just use some AI to design a system by a bunch of 20-somethings that have no experience whatsoever. Then, they'll come here and brag about it.

Nobody even mentioned DOGE

Well, since nobody mentioned, then I guess that means they don't exist?

2025-02-07

> “Big news,” Duffy said in a 5 February post on Musk’s social media platform, X. “Talked to the DOGE team. They are going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system.”

> Musk himself responded by saying that DOGE will make “rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system”.

[0] https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/elon-musks-institution-d...

The reason this story is in the news currently is because the current FAA administrator specifically turned the FAA's floppy disks into a story about why DOGE should be involved at the FAA.

Thank you for context.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com