Text Based ATC Communications for GA

[kontiki]

I see NextGen text based provisions going into large 121 airplanes and I was wondering if there are any GA Cockpit - ATC text based communications systems out there? This was at one time called Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC), I don't know if it changed into something else.

I personally believe better communications between the cockpit and ATC could improve safety. Missing routine radio messages seems common. If there was something out there, I might consider it when equipping for ADS-B out.

 

[Dav8or]

I have been going on about this idea for years. Once the ATC instructions are digital, not only can they be displayed on your MFD, but they could also be automatically loaded into your GPS nav. You would then just check to make sure that what they sent you makes sense and is correct and then press "activate" on your GPS and "acknowledge" to send a ping back to ATC telling them you got it and wilco. No more writing down chicken scratch and time wasting read backs. A much higher degree of accuracy.

With modern technology, IFR flying doesn't have to be anywhere near as difficult as it is. The only things in the way are, money, the FAA and pilot attitude towards change. Sadly, many pilots seem to like keeping the operation of an airplane to remain as difficult as possible.

 

[jordane93]

I have been going on about this idea for years. Once the ATC instructions are digital, not only can they be displayed on your MFD, but they could also be automatically loaded into your GPS nav. You would then just check to make sure that what they sent you makes sense and is correct and then press "activate" on your GPS and "acknowledge" to send a ping back to ATC telling them you got it and wilco. No more writing down chicken scratch and time wasting read backs. A much higher degree of accuracy.

With modern technology, IFR flying doesn't have to be anywhere near as difficult as it is. The only things in the way are, money, the FAA and pilot attitude towards change. Sadly, many pilots seem to like keeping the operation of an airplane to remain as difficult as possible.

The airlines do this already. It would be nice to put that kind of technology in GA planes. I see it being extremely expensive as both ATC and the planes have to have the proper equipment.

 

[James331]

I have been going on about this idea for years. Once the ATC instructions are digital, not only can they be displayed on your MFD, but they could also be automatically loaded into your GPS nav. You would then just check to make sure that what they sent you makes sense and is correct and then press "activate" on your GPS and "acknowledge" to send a ping back to ATC telling them you got it and wilco. No more writing down chicken scratch and time wasting read backs. A much higher degree of accuracy.

With modern technology, IFR flying doesn't have to be anywhere near as difficult as it is. The only things in the way are, money, the FAA and pilot attitude towards change. Sadly, many pilots seem to like keeping the operation of an airplane to remain as difficult as possible.

I don't want anything automatically loaded anywhere.

 

[Mistake Not...]

I see it being extremely expensive as both ATC and the planes have to have the proper equipment because the FAA will impose ridiculous and unnecessary certification requirements on the manufacturers.

It's text. Over the air. Your phone already does it.

 

[frfly172]

No text while flying.

 

[CTLSi]

I see NextGen text based provisions going into large 121 airplanes and I was wondering if there are any GA Cockpit - ATC text based communications systems out there? This was at one time called Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC), I don't know if it changed into something else.

I personally believe better communications between the cockpit and ATC could improve safety. Missing routine radio messages seems common. If there was something out there, I might consider it when equipping for ADS-B out.

It would be a new burden on a single pilot. The commercials have copilots to read the text.

 

[Shawn]

Sounds like a great compliment to the verbal instructions. I have a hard enough time pronouncing let alone spelling unknown intersection, then locating them for an IFR amended clearance!

"Load Route" into an EFB to see the route on a digital chart with all the instructions seems like it would allow pilots to be more heads up rather than entering all the info manually. I like it.

Now if you hit load direct to enter enter without verifying...then yes, you might be a CFIT example story in the near future!

Trust but verify!

 

[Velocity173]

I remember reading about Free Flight 20 yrs ago. Pilots choosing heading and altitudes on there own, fully automated ATC with no controller input, text based commands and of course ADS-B being the focal point. We were already suppose to be well on our way to Free Flight but I just can't see it becoming a reality in the U.S. unless everyone is required to have some sort of new text based ADS-B system in all airspaces. I think we're at least 15 years past the 2020 ADS-B mandate for something like that to happen.

 

[Brad Z]

IFR will be so much easier when ATC can steer the plane all the way to the destination. Hopefully they'll be able to load the approach for my autopilot to fly too. I'll be in the back if you need me, OK?

 

[petrolero]

I'd just like to have ATIS text displayed. Not the METAR, the ATIS info. That should be doable via ADS-B already with slight changes in the comm protocol. I acknowledge it on initial callup. Airliners have this but it is not done via ADS-B.

Clearances... meh. It would be nice, no doubt, but not worth many duckets to me. With a GTN 750 it is quick and easy to enter and amend clearances. YMMV

Instructions... never going to happen nor should it. ATC instructions are waaaaay to tactical and rapidly changing to be translated into text and uploaded for you to look at... when exactly? Do you ever miss text messages? Yeah of course you do. So do I - often. Voice comm is immediate and they know right away if you don't acknowledge.

 

[Dav8or]

See what I mean? Pilots themselves are a large part of the problem when it comes to implementing new technology. Very little vision all "It can't be done", "It'll cost too much" and "We don't even need it."

 

[Henning]

I don't want anything automatically loaded anywhere.

But then you can nap. In the clouds it doesn't make much difference anyway.

 

[Brad Z]

I imagine non-voice instructions will be a bigger challenge to existing ATC than it will to pilots. New cockpit technology aside, controllers will have more change on their end than we will on ours. I think the biggest challenge is speed; while voice isn't perfect, it is easier for the controller to multitask.

 

[JeffDG]

I imagine non-voice instructions will be a bigger challenge to existing ATC than it will to pilots. New cockpit technology aside, controllers will have more change on their end than we will on ours. I think the biggest challenge is speed; while voice isn't perfect, it is easier for the controller to multitask.

Yeah, but new technology can go in the tower too. Controller taps a plane on the screen, draws a line where he want's him to go, hits "Send" and voila, a new vector is transmitted.

 

[aterpster]

The airlines do this already. It would be nice to put that kind of technology in GA planes. I see it being extremely expensive as both ATC and the planes have to have the proper equipment.

So far as I know in the air only over oceanic or remote land areas. In domestic flying it is used only for initial ATC clearances while at the gate.

 

[Henning]

Yeah, but new technology can go in the tower too. Controller taps a plane on the screen, draws a line where he want's him to go, hits "Send" and voila, a new vector is transmitted.

Yep, no reason he can't rubberband in an arrival and hit <send>.

 

[JeffDG]

Yep, no reason he can't rubberband in an arrival and hit <send>.

Draw a line to the fix, menu pops up with "Add STAR" and boom.

If the flight plan was filed with "No STARS", it just expands out all the points in the STAR automagically.

 

[petrolero]

I'd just like to have ATIS text displayed. Not the METAR, the ATIS info. That should be doable via ADS-B already with slight changes in the comm protocol. I acknowledge it on initial callup. Airliners have this but it is not done via ADS-B.

Clearances... meh. It would be nice, no doubt, but not worth many duckets to me. With a GTN 750 it is quick and easy to enter and amend clearances. YMMV

Instructions... never going to happen nor should it. ATC instructions are waaaaay to tactical and rapidly changing to be translated into text and uploaded for you to look at... when exactly? Do you ever miss text messages? Yeah of course you do. So do I - often. Voice comm is immediate and they know right away if you don't acknowledge.

See what I mean? Pilots themselves are a large part of the problem when it comes to implementing new technology. Very little vision all "It can't be done", "It'll cost too much" and "We don't even need it."

Read much?

Anyway, are we supposed to just jump up and do a seal clap screaming "oooh yay, tech for the sake of tech!?"

Necessity, not cool factor, is the mother of invention. So the debate about necessity and practicality is valid.

 

[Velocity173]

Read much?

Anyway, are we supposed to just jump up and do a seal clap screaming "oooh yay, tech for the sake of tech!?"

Necessity, not cool factor, is the mother of invention. So the debate about necessity and practicality is valid.

AOPA has just recently been questioning about the practicality of ADS-B out let alone a text based system. This idea way down the road from the 2020 mandate if it should even be implemented. Also, unless you plan on a system with electronic flight progress strips where the controllers text automatically gets recorded on a strip, verbal and written method will be more effective.

I'm all about tech making aviation more èffective but this idea needs to be implemented 100 % across the board. I think the expensive for FAA and GA would be too great right now.

 

[Dav8or]

Read much?

Anyway, are we supposed to just jump up and do a seal clap screaming "oooh yay, tech for the sake of tech!?"

Hardly tech for tech's sake. What I described would be a significant improvement over the way we do it now. The way it's done now was awesome... for 1955! What I propose would make IFR flying significantly safer by reducing errors, confusion, easing single pilot work load and freeing up com frequencies. Not tech for tech's sake at all. Tech for the improvement and advancement of aviation.

Necessity, not cool factor, is the mother of invention. So the debate about necessity and practicality is valid.

Bull crap. Who ever needed a smart phone, an iPad, or even a personal computer? Come to think about it, in 1902, who ever needed an airplane?

 

[Dav8or]

Also, unless you plan on a system with electronic flight progress strips where the controllers text automatically gets recorded on a strip, verbal and written method will be more effective.

What happens when you digitize data? It becomes incredibly easy to share, transfer and access that data. Of course a digital flight plan would be shared on down the ATC system at a push of a button and at the speed of light. Every controller would know well in advance you're coming and on what clearance. No phone calls. No verbal unless there is a problem.

I'm all about tech making aviation more èffective but this idea needs to be implemented 100 % across the board. I think the expensive for FAA and GA would be too great right now.

When would that time be then? Is there ever a time in the future that you can see GA, or even aviation in general flush with cash? It takes ideas and then people to promote them, that's what gets things done. The money gets found.

 

[Henning]

Read much?

Anyway, are we supposed to just jump up and do a seal clap screaming "oooh yay, tech for the sake of tech!?"

Necessity, not cool factor, is the mother of invention. So the debate about necessity and practicality is valid.

The main basis to it is fuel savings. That is what is going on at the airline level. The computer is figuring out descent profiles to keep everybody up high until the last moment then doing a power off descent all the way to the threshold without leveling off anywhere. They've been working it a while on the Transpacs at SFO with great results on fuel savings and an added bonus of less noise. It's kind of neat, the ground uploads the profile direct to the FMS is my understanding of it.

 

[Velocity173]

What happens when you digitize data? It becomes incredibly easy to share, transfer and access that data. Of course a digital flight plan would be shared on down the ATC system at a push of a button and at the speed of light. Every controller would know well in advance you're coming and on what clearance. No phone calls. No verbal unless there is a problem.



When would that time be then? Is there ever a time in the future that you can see GA, or even aviation in general flush with cash? It takes ideas and then people to promote them, that's what gets things done. The money gets found.

Sure digitized is the way to go. I wish I could predict when we have full up ADS-B in / out text based system. Right now I think we're in baby steps. ADS-B out is the FAA's primary concern right now and from what I've read it seems that a lot are just going with an ES upgrade. As slow as the FAA is to change, I can't see any mandate for text stuff for maybe 20 yrs.

As I said it needs to be 100 % as well. I believe mixing text with verbal would create more work than necessary. Perhaps by 2030, all aircraft in Class B, C, above 10,000ft required an ADS-B setup that allows texts from ATC???

 

[Perezhr]

Yeah, but new technology can go in the tower too. Controller taps a plane on the screen, draws a line where he want's him to go, hits "Send" and voila, a new vector is transmitted.

I think it is inevitable and a logical next step. In fact, by the time it is implemented the computer at the controllers station will simply figure out the best next move and the controller will simply acknowledge to forward to the pilot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Henning]

I think it is inevitable and a logical next step. In fact, by the time it is implemented the computer at the controllers station will simply figure out the best next move and the controller will simply acknowledge to forward to the pilot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

By then mankind will have evolved past the need for airplanes.

 

[JeffDG]

As I said it needs to be 100 % as well. I believe mixing text with verbal would create more work than necessary. Perhaps by 2030, all aircraft in Class B, C, above 10,000ft required an ADS-B setup that allows texts from ATC???

I would disagree.

You could have a percentage digital, and the rest verbal. Those who are digital would instantly reduce frequency congestion. Those without the capability would simply keep going as they are.

 

[Brad Z]

The other thing to consider is ROI. Does it increase capacity? Does it improve safety? How often are accidents nowadays a result of a miscommunication? These are the sort of things FAA and industry consider when evaluating new technology.

Also, how easily does the process support questions like "how long can you maintain 180kts?" Or can you accept Runway 33?

Personally, I think this sort of technology would be best used initially for ground clearances. The clearance could be depicted on your taxiway diagram, and runway incursions ARE often the result of miscommunications.

 

[Perezhr]

In a typical IFR flight you can get a couple dozen instructions to turn to this heading, climb/descend to this altitude, no to mention all the frequency changes. I certainly would not mind getting all of that mundane stuff in a data link and leave the frequency open for more interactive communication when required. Less room for error misinterpreting a number.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[aterpster]

Personally, I think this sort of technology would be best used initially for ground clearances. The clearance could be depicted on your taxiway diagram, and runway incursions ARE often the result of miscommunications.

As has been the case for the airlines for many years for the initial IFR clearance.

And for perhaps 6, or so, years for all communications with ATC when out of range of VHF.

 

[LDJones]

Would we have to type "with you" on all check-in messages??

Seriously, I see this as logical and inevitable long-term. The ADS-B infrastructure could be enhanced to support it. If routine handoffs were handled digitally with a simple acknowledge button that automatically loads the new freq and sets the altimeter, it would eliminate 80-90% of the radio congestion, freeing it for more important communications.

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah but the folks over at LiveATC.net will be left twiddling their thumbs.

 

[LDJones]

Yeah but the folks over at LiveATC.net will be left twiddling their thumbs.

Nah....just add a ticker-tape display!

 

[Henning]

Would we have to type "with you" on all check-in messages??

Seriously, I see this as logical and inevitable long-term. The ADS-B infrastructure could be enhanced to support it. If routine handoffs were handled digitally with a simple acknowledge button that automatically loads the new freq and sets the altimeter, it would eliminate 80-90% of the radio congestion, freeing it for more important communications.

How? People are crying right now over having to spend $3k to get compliant for below FL180, how are you going to sell even more? Why would we pay for ATC ability and equipment 10% of pilots spring for the ability to take advantage of? Look at what was spent on the SVT database vs. usage. ATC already has a datalink system for airliners, I don't see a value in providing one for GA when the pilots are too cheap to take advantage. It's a waste of resource.

 

[Dav8or]

I would disagree.

You could have a percentage digital, and the rest verbal. Those who are digital would instantly reduce frequency congestion. Those without the capability would simply keep going as they are.

I agree. No need in my mind for 100% implementation on day one. The digitization and computer automation just frees up time and reduces controller work load. Traditional verbal clearances could still be achieved.

Also, how easily does the process support questions like "how long can you maintain 180kts?" Or can you accept Runway 33?

I don't foresee ever getting rid of verbal communications. Use the right tool for the problem. Using verbal communications to ask a specific question is always going to be superior to when time counts. Routine clearances and course changes are best done digital.

The other thing to consider is ROI. Does it increase capacity? Does it improve safety? How often are accidents nowadays a result of a miscommunication? These are the sort of things FAA and industry consider when evaluating new technology.

I believe that whenever you can reduce both pilot workload and controller work load as well as increase accuracy of communications, you increase safety. However, I doubt you can point to any specific set of accident reports that will show the cause to be errors caused by over worked pilots. On the other hand, could that not be a major cause of CFIT? In addition, in the case of the collision between the airliner and the Fed Ex plane in Austria (?) may never have occurred if a computer were directing the traffic. IIRC, an over worked controller making bad calls was to blame for that tragedy.

As to ROI, in the case of the controller, lower work load can mean less controllers required. Big savings there. In the case of the pilot, it's convenience, like GPS vs. VOR, or auto pilot vs. hand flying. Less head down time and distraction allows one to relax more and focus on the actual flight and what's going on at the moment. Will it save the pilot time or money? No, but it will improve the quality of the flight and the flight experience.

 

[Dav8or]

How? People are crying right now over having to spend $3k to get compliant for below FL180, how are you going to sell even more? Why would we pay for ATC ability and equipment 10% of pilots spring for the ability to take advantage of? Look at what was spent on the SVT database vs. usage. ATC already has a datalink system for airliners, I don't see a value in providing one for GA when the pilots are too cheap to take advantage. It's a waste of resource.

Keep in mind, there are a lot of aircraft owners that are holding off on their ADS-B compliance because the technology keeps improving. The theory being that the closer to 2020, the better the products will be and some even think it will be cheaper.

Also, ADS-B is mostly for the benefit of the controllers and the airlines, not private GA. We get free weather and traffic, but many VFR pilots have no desire for either. I agree that it may at this time be a wasted resource, but eventually it will get used a lot.

People are just miffed because the government is forcing them to do it. That's the American way, to ***** about the government. They forget that other countries have already forced their aircraft owners to get it and those guys get nothing in return. No weather, no traffic.

 

[kontiki]

ADS-B is a different issue. There the burden of tracking airplanes for ATC purposes is shifted from ground radar to the aircraft. That's it.

Text based com is an entirely different issue. The problem with spoken messages from a human factors standpoint it that the crew has to immediately divert their attention to listening and processing speech realtime. Sure, they can say standby for copy, but to receive a spoken message you must stop what you were thinking about and listen.

If it's text, you can finish your thought, then look at the message when you are ready. And if you need to go back and confirm the heading or altitude it's there and not improperly written down or transposed. I don't see a down side if it's setup to be as fast as text. Speaking as a novice instrument pilot, the entire lexicon of terms dosen't seem that large.

 

[Approach_controller]

NEXGEN which ADSB is a part of is multifaceted. In a slow ATC environment, text based communication will work. In the real ATC environment it won't. Speed of issuance being disregarded think about the last time you as a pilot heard a terrain or traffic alert. Tone of voice says everything and unless we break down how many !!!'s it takes to convey urgency.

On a similar note, if you're a regular and I'm busy I barely have to enunciate. "Seed wreck ABC Art ABC two zero zero." Type that? Proceed direct ABC. depart ABC heading two two zero. Or will the far AIM adapt so I can text ABC M8?

NEXGEN isn't fully here, its a great idea but it lags behind. We have it here in fusion. Three RADAR sets giving us an ultra accurate real time picture of where you are. Works well until planes start moving backwards when different sites disagree.

Aaaaand believe me the targets jump up to two miles erratically in one second. So much so that I've turned an MD80 base and 30 seconds later he's back where he was 60 seconds ago. Its like vectoring in a time machine.

 

[Henning]

Interesting on the consolidation errors, I'm guessing latency issues . Are they running the system on the Internet or something? Speech will disappear with pilots and controllers. In the end a user scale autonomous system will be safer.

 

[txflyer]

NEXGEN which ADSB is a part of is multifaceted. In a slow ATC environment, text based communication will work. In the real ATC environment it won't. Speed of issuance being disregarded think about the last time you as a pilot heard a terrain or traffic alert. Tone of voice says everything and unless we break down how many !!!'s it takes to convey urgency.

On a similar note, if you're a regular and I'm busy I barely have to enunciate. "Seed wreck ABC Art ABC two zero zero." Type that? Proceed direct ABC. depart ABC heading two two zero. Or will the far AIM adapt so I can text ABC M8?

NEXGEN isn't fully here, its a great idea but it lags behind. We have it here in fusion. Three RADAR sets giving us an ultra accurate real time picture of where you are. Works well until planes start moving backwards when different sites disagree.

Aaaaand believe me the targets jump up to two miles erratically in one second. So much so that I've turned an MD80 base and 30 seconds later he's back where he was 60 seconds ago. Its like vectoring in a time machine.

Jesus H. Christ that's some scary ****.

You mean your scope is resetting like a reboot glitch and showing aircraft behind where they were 60 seconds ago? So you're seeing a 'ghost' future target location, and issuing vectors...

I thought you guys could see better than that...