> To do this, we’ve developed Yeager, an ensemble of models including state of the art speech-to-text that can understand ATC audio.
Listening on multiple channels might help at busier airports. Ground, ramp, approach, departure, and enroute are all on different channels. Military aircraft have their own system. (That may have contributed to the DCA accident.)
Something like this was proposed in the late 1940s. The FAA was trying to figure out how to do air traffic control, and put out a request for proposals. General Railroad Signal responded.[1] They proposed to adapt railroad block signalling to the sky.
Their scheme involved people listening to ATC communications and setting information about plane locations into an interlocking machine. The listeners were not the controllers; they just did data entry. The controllers then had a big board with lights showing which blocks of airspace were occupied, and could then give permission to aircraft to enter another block.
Then came radar for ATC, which was a much better idea.
It's been interesting to see that a product as simple as combining data from multiple frequencies at once has been really compelling to folks. Can't tell you the number of times we've heard "wait, can you compile ground, tower, and approach in one place?"... "... yes, of course."
Military aircraft are typically equipped with UHF radios (in addition to civilian VHF). Many of the same systems apply, just a different RF band. And we're in the process of adding UHF capabilities to our product as a lot of these military aircraft land at civilian airports for training exercises.
I can't imagine what would've happened if we adopted block signaling for ATC ...
> I can't imagine what would've happened if we adopted block signaling for ATC ...
You don't have to imagine. We already do in many places. The North Atlantic Tracks are essentially exactly that. Aircraft give position reports and estimates, those positions reports are used to decide whether an aircraft can climb though which levels etc.
It's also used extensively in an IFR non-radar environments. Exactly why aircraft have to cancel IFR at uncontrolled airfields in the US or under a procedural ATC service in the UK. You hear it a lot around the Caribbean and Bahamas too.
Listening on multiple channels might help at busier airports. Ground, ramp, approach, departure, and enroute are all on different channels. Military aircraft have their own system. (That may have contributed to the DCA accident.)
Something like this was proposed in the late 1940s. The FAA was trying to figure out how to do air traffic control, and put out a request for proposals. General Railroad Signal responded.[1] They proposed to adapt railroad block signalling to the sky. Their scheme involved people listening to ATC communications and setting information about plane locations into an interlocking machine. The listeners were not the controllers; they just did data entry. The controllers then had a big board with lights showing which blocks of airspace were occupied, and could then give permission to aircraft to enter another block.
Then came radar for ATC, which was a much better idea.
[1] https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/1308783