There's unfortunately an alertness problem WRT automated systems.

If the reason you have the human there is to handle the unusual cases, you run the real risk that they just aren't paying attention at critical moments when they need to pay attention.

It's pretty similar to the problem with L3 autonomous driving.

Probably the sweet spot is automation which makes clear the current set of instructions on the airport which also red flags when a dangerous scenario is created. I believe that already exists, but it's software that was last written in 1995 or so.

Regardless, before any sort of new automation could be deployed, we need slack for the ATC to be able to adopt a new system. That's the biggest pressing problem. We could create the perfect software for ATC, but if the current air traffic controllers are all working overtime and doing a job designed for 3 people rather than one, they simply won't have the time to explore and understand that new system. It'll get in the way rather than solve a problem. More money is part of the solution here, but we also need a revamped ATC training program which can help to fill the current hole.

> The ATC told them to enter the runway because they were confused or distracted due t overwork.

Very possibly. It will be interesting what comes from the investigation.

> No one here or anywhere is saying automation would solve or be able to handle everything that human operators handle, that's an argument you invented that no one is making.

I’m asking if it would have solved even the current situation. The truck presumably saw the red light, and was asking to cross. Would traffic control have said no if more had been automated and if so, what automation would fix this? Unless we are supposing the truck would be autonomously driven and refuse to proceed when planes are landing, in which case, maybe, though that’s not really ATC automation anymore.

It's worth pointing out that plenty of pilots take off and land safely at uncontrolled airports. ATC is a throughput optimization; the finite amount of airspace can have more aircraft movements if the movements are centrally coordinated. It feels like we are nearing the breaking point of this optimization, however, and it's probably worth looking for something better (or saying no to scheduling more flights).

....they need to get to fucking fire

....if they go around kilometer of the runway the fire will turn into bigger fire

That goal post moved so fast it made a whooshing noise as it passed

Aviation is over 100 years old. Everything that can possibly happen in ATC has either already happened or can reasonably be anticipated.

It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately dangerous to make a human do a machine's job.

> I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible. Spoiler: there are no reasons, only excuses.

It sounds like you're not asking anything at all

Just to play it out a bit, are you imagining that a pilot would be reporting a mechanical failure upon descent into busy airspace to some type of like AI voice agent, who will then orchestrate other aircraft out of the way (and not into each other) while also coaching the crippled aircraft out of the sky?

Are you imagining some vast simplification that obviates the need for such capability? Because that doesn't seem simple at all to me.

I'm really confused at the point you're trying to make - you declared yourself not an expert in this field, while loudly declaring it's so easy to automate. Why don't you do it then? What am I missing?

To repeatedly declare something simple to fix, but then have no idea how to fix it, and indeed to declare oneself unqualified to fix it, is kind of an astounding level of hubris.

> I'm asking for concrete reasons why it's not feasible.

The concrete reason your ideas won’t work is you don’t have any.