http://www.bestofyoutube.com/story.php?**...-more-efficientfor those who are interested i came across this video of what is supposedly the future of air traffic controlcomputerized it sends messages directly to aircraft computers rather then the normal radio message. it also shortens flight time by not requiring the plane to go over certain areas and avoiding bad weather. this is supposed to save fuel, shorten flights, limit delays and make the holding pattern as well as airspace around the airport more efficient.

http://www.bestofyoutube.com/story.php?**...-more-efficientfor those who are interested i came across this video of what is supposedly the future of air traffic controlcomputerized it sends messages directly to aircraft computers rather then the normal radio message. it also shortens flight time by not requiring the plane to go over certain areas and avoiding bad weather. this is supposed to save fuel, shorten flights, limit delays and make the holding pattern as well as airspace around the airport more efficient.

Sounds to me it's one of those things that looks good on paper, but in practice will be a disaster waiting to happen!!

Generally speaking you find that whilst ATC staff are keen to have things which assist them, most will tell you that a computer could not do their job. This is not them being 'luddites' or wanting to protect their jobs or anything like that, it is because they have to react and comprehend unusual situations quickly, and for that, natural aptitude is usually an important determining factor, and it seems they do have a point.In the UK, there is a thirty percent failure rate for people who pass the initial induction to be trained as an ATC controller, and washing out usually occurs pretty late in the training, well after they have learned to fly, done numerous interviews and tests etc. Some people, despite being keen and intelligent, simply cannot handle the complexities of everything the task requires. As a job, it's tougher than pilot selection in many respects.When computerised systems are working well, they are brilliant, but it's when things go pear shaped that there is nothing to beat a competent human controller. Listen to the ATC conversations of two recent scary incidents: One, where the Airbus lost both engines over the Hudson River, the other, where a guy who had to take over the controls of a Beech King Air and land it after the pilot died of a heart attack. In both cases, the controller provided rapid and, perhaps more importantly, reassuring assistance. I know this system is only geared to on the ground stuff, but that's where a lot of accidents and problems occur too.In more everyday terms, you can relate it to automated phone systems, where you get to press the keypad to go through stuff with a recorded voice, there are often situations where they cannot cope with specific queries you have and end up stressing you out more, whereas with a human on the other end of the phone, things invariably get sorted quicker. Can you imagine the alternative for ATC? 'If you have lost a wing, press 1, if you've lost an engine, press 2...'I daresay we may see some of this computerisation come into play for mundane stuff, but I doubt it will ever be completely trusted for things where safety is a possible concern.Al