I have sent a cc: BLUECOAT, because of some similar discussion.
Guy Standen wrote:
>
> Lonny,
>
> 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.
Agreed; I just thought it was interesting watching some of the
youngsters go pretty much a flawless job (stick & rudder AND pitch and
roll modes utilizing automation as well). I recall in 1983 I brought a
mechanic friend with me to the sim. to do some hand flying under night,
instrument conditions. I was NOT thrilled with my performance; I was
working far too hard and the end result while acceptable was acceptable,
but not very pretty. My friend with a private license in small single-
engine aircraft with UNDER 100 hours total time did a better job; his 11
year old son who was sitting on 3 of my Jepp binders then gave it a go;
flawless job, AND, he was cool, calm, and dry!!!!!
> > > 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.
DL Automation Policy, from our FOM, 4-7:
AUTOMATION POLICY
GENERAL
Automation is provided to enhance safety, reduce pilot workload and
improve operational capabilities. Automation should be used at the most
appropriate level.
Pilots will maintain proficiency in the use of all levels of automation
and the skills required to shift between levels of automation. The level
used should permit both pilots to maintain a comfortable workload
distribution and maintain situational awarewess. The following
guidelines apply to the use of automation:
* If any autoflight system is not operating as expected, disengage it.
* All pilots should be aware of all settings and changes to automation
systems.
* Automation tasks should not interfere with outside vigilance.
* Briefings should include special automation duties and
responsibilities.
* The PF must compare the performance of the autoflight systems with
the flight path of the aircraft.
AREA NAVIGATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS
The following applies to all area navigation system (FMS, INS, etc.)
operations:
* Anytime the aircraft is being flown in an FMS NAV mode, at least one
pilot will have the map displayed on the HSI/ND, if installed. If the
distance is greater than 320 miles, verify the active waypoint on the
CDU.
* For situational awareness during descent and approach, the map
display, if installed, should have the active waypoint visible.
* All pilots shall maintain proficiency in programming and operating
their aircraft's area navigation system.
* Avoid excessive heads-down time at low altitude for system
operation. Raw data VOR, ILS, and ADF displays should be used in the
traditional manner when necessary.
* Both pilots should not simultaneously become involved with area
navigation system tasks during high workload periods, such as
departure and approach.
* For departures, arrivals, and approaches, supporting airway manual
Jeppesen documents will be out of the flight kit, opened, and
available. During the enroute phase of flight, supporting Jeppesen
documents should be readily available for use even though total
autoflight/FMS nav may be in use. This practise promotes situational
awareness, makes additional information readily available for route
changes, and is a backup in the event of FMS failure.
I personally see no problem with the above, COMMENTS??
*****THERE IS MORE ON CLEARANCE AND ALTITUDE AWARENESS*****
> > > 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
Lonny