I think you make some valid points about the way automation is right now, but
there are a couple of issues that I have a different perspective on:
Lonny M. Regan wrote:
> Hi George & all,
>
> George Robertson wrote:
> >
> > To All,
> > The article referred to appeared in Flight International a few weeks ago
> > and seemed to suggest that flying modern automated aeroplanes had become
> > some kind of rocket science that only degree holders can manage.
>
> Major discussion currently going on right now at the BLUECOAT forum
> regarding advanced flight deck automation
>
> http://www.neosoft.com/~sky/BLUECOAT/
>
> No, education surely is not a must; I have experimented and after an
> hour in the sim. I have had teenage computer nerds (average IQ) flying
> the aircraft (sim.) on average far better than some professional pilots!
>
I have seen situations in the past where rank amateurs displayed excellent flying
skills when given the opportunity to "try their hand" at flying. However, throw
in an emergency, or even the need to make a radio call, and it all starts to come
undone. I'm sure computer nerds could operate an aircraft with the automatics
engaged, but that is a long way removed from the real job that a pilot needs to
do. Flying by itself has always been easy, even before automation. Its all the
other things that have to be done at the same time, even in normal situations,
that can make it demanding. Throw in an emergency, and it can really get
challenging. In my opinion, flying is a lot more about prioritisation, and a lot
less about stick and rudder skills.
> > I have a university degree myself as do many of my colleagues, however the
> > problem as I see it is not one of pilot educational qualification so much
> > as the quality and adequacy of training materials and information provided
> > by the aircraft manufacturers.
>
> Typically, manufacturers have a pilots reference manual, with a system
> overview and usually surface info., not at all in depth; the manuals
> however do not tell you how to fly the plane!!
>
> The problem IMHO is we trainers and checkers (flight instructors & LCA)
> do NOT do a very good job. Few people understand automation philosophies
> and the average line pilot coming through does not get quality
> instruction that is specific to airplanes with advanced flight deck
> automation!!
If people are having trouble with issues such as automation policies, perhaps the
policy itself is to blame? Why do we find ourselves in a situation were we need
to "reprogram" the brains of pilots that have been used to "the old way" of
flying? Perhaps the problem lies more in the automation itself.
> > Take the Boeing 757/767 on which I am current. I have to depend on the
> > Boeing produced operations manuals for systems knowledge. These are about
> > as user unfriendly as you could imagine. To find out about the automated
> > systems I have to look in the Navigation, Flight Instruments, and Automatic
> > Flight sections as well as in the Normal and Supplementary procedures. The
> > layout and typesetting is poor and the graphics are all monochrome line
> > drawings to describe a system that depends heavily on colour displays. If I
> > had spent 50 million dollars of my own money on one of their products, I
> > would expect better than this. I have singled out Boeing here as I fly
> > their aircraft, but I doubt if Airbus or the others are any better in this
> > respect.
>
> You CANNOT get skills and experience reading any manual from any
> manufacturer.
>
> > The FMS fumblings which were a factor in the Cali accident, and the lack of
> > systems knowledge in the Birgenair accident at Puerto Plata are symptomatic
> > of a training problem quite separate from any HF issues. Poor systems
> > knowledge is more likely caused by lack of adequate information and
> > training opportunites, than the lack of ability of pilots to absorb it.
>
> We have a VERY serious problem here, WORLDWIDE! We are NOT properly
> understanding and teaching AUTOMATION!! The automation can GREATLY
> reduce pilot workload and help insure safety, yet many, many pilots and
> LCA still say if you don't know "what it is doing now", turn it all off!
> IMHO, that is VERY wrong! If you don't know what it is doing, you simply
> do not know your airplane. If you have MAGIC in your airplane, you
> simply do not understand your airplane! The pilot must at all times be
> the master of his/her airplane!!
I think you are talking about a symptom, not the cause. I agree, training for
automation, and systems knowledge does need to be improved, but before all of
that, how about the design itself? I believe we need to adapt the aviation
system around the human, not the other way around. Earl Wiener's work shows that
automation can reduce workload, but it often does it at the wrong time, when
pilots could actually do with a bit of workload, such as in the cruise. As a
B747-400 pilot on a FANS aircraft, I think a 14 hour Pacific crossing using
datalink makes that point emphatically! On the other hand, in the terminal area,
particularly if something unforseen or unusual happens, automation can mean a
huge increase in workload. From my B744 experience, the best (worst?!) example
of that is a late runway change when the aircraft has already entered the
approach mode. So, not only have we come up with systems that are difficult to
intuitively understand, the systems also do not always match our workload
requirements. Yes, we need better training and understanding, but perhaps some
of that should be directed at design teams as well as pilots!
Cheers,
Guy Standen
>
>
> Regards-
>
> Lonny