> more than 1 plane every minute

Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.

infinitewars 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm pretty sure the amount of data isn't the problem here. Maybe it's the number of corner cases? You would still want some human-in-the loop with quality UI for ATC.

▲

matthewkayin an hour ago | parent [-]

There are plenty of stories of ATC helping to guide pilots back to the ground after an engine failure or after a student pilot had their instructor pass out on them or something like that.

Even if most of the work is routine, you definitely still want a human in the loop.

▲

jrockway an hour ago | parent [-]

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).

	▲	nradov 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The FAA already does issue temporary ground stops for IFR flights when ATC capacity is saturated. This acts as a limit on airlines scheduling more flights, although the feedback loops are long and not always effective. The FAA NextGen system should improve this somewhat. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen

▲

PunchyHamster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

with extremely controlled conditions. There is no fog in database, nor fallible humans involved, What an ignorant response

▲

yifanl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In a digitized environment. We cannot yet simulate the real world.

▲

mongol 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

True. But to avoid 1 minute unavailability per year requires 99.9999 % availability

	▲	verelo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Like any scale system, degrade the experience. Use radio if the more advanced systems are unavailable?

▲

glitchc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yup, by having backup runways.

▲

jjmarr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A third runway for Heathrow was formally proposed in 2007 and is projected for completion in 2040. This is an airport so overburdened people are buying and trading slots.

This isn't a Kubernetes cluster where you can add VMs in 30 seconds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport

▲

dpark 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And no fire trucks crossing the runways.

▲

PunchyHamster an hour ago | parent [-]

....they need to get to fucking fire

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

	▲	singleshot_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Two trucks

▲

johnbarron 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>> Software routinely solves database coordination problems with millions of users per second.

A naive view that confuses the map with the territory.

While in a database state you write a row and reality updates atomically....for aircraft they exist in a physical world where your model lives with lag, noise, and lossy sensors, and that world keeps moving whether your software is watching or not. Failed database transactions roll back, a landing clearance issued against stale state does not. The hard problem in ATC is not coordination logic but physical objects with momentum, human agency, and failure modes that do not respect your consistency model.