Re: How the 'glass cockpits' may have concerns and issues with human factors
rdeb...@robertontheweb.com
First let me start this off by saying I am not a commercial pilot nor do I have any plans to become one. I am a new private pilot and will hopefully be completing my Instrument rating very soon. I obtained my PPL in a Skyhawk with steam gauges and a gns430. I am currently flying a Skyhawk with the G1000 as well as the previously stated aircraft. Switching between the two has made me appreciate the benefits of the Glass Cockpit and at the same time has made me aware of the consequences of flying a glass cockpit. I feel that I have been very lucky to have found instructors that believe that in order to be PIC you should know how to use every piece of equipment in every plane you fly. From day one it has been drilled into me that technology is great but unless you can do everything that is required without it you should not use it. This article vilifies the GLASS COCKPIT but the focus should really be on GPS, Automation and cost cutting. The Glass Cockpit increases situational awareness the GPS and Autopilot can make pilots lazy and over confident. From what I have been told by some pilots the airlines require that they use this automated equipment. I do not disagree with this but they should at least provide the pilots with a fleet of GA aircraft so that they can keep their flying skills sharp. With the salaries that airlines are paying these days Commercial Pilots cannot afford to do this on their own. I think a good case study for this is the Pilot that landed a commercial airliner by employing a gliding technique he had used in his glider. Computers fail, satellites fail and so do hydraulics so relying solely on automated equipment is flawed. I know they have backups but unless they use these backups on a regular basis they are essentially useless. I know this costs money but it is worth it in the end. Commercial simulators are great and they help keep the pilots pushing button, turning knobs and typing skills sharp but what about the seat of the pants flying skills? Once again I might be way off base since all I have to go on is what I have heard and what I have seen in regards to the commercial pilot world. I have seen and will continue to see what happens in the GA world. I decided early on to not become one of the “Weekend Warriors†which do not stay current and can hardly talk on the radio. In the end it’s up to the pilot to stay current and up to date. No matter how much technology you have in the aircraft it’s all useless unless you know how to use it and know what to do when it stops working.
On Thu Mar 29 12:09 , Rick Savage sent:
How many members of this list have flown with "glass cockpits", and how do you feel about them and this article?
Thanks!
Rick Savage
ric...@hotmail.com
How the "glass cockpits" may have concerns and issues with human factors
Technology may be eroding pilot skills
Training should refocus on manual flying expertise to avoid 'automation dependency,' experts say
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-0319-20120319,0,701014.column?goback=.gde_44569_member_102645628
Automation in the cockpit of commercial airliners has flown full circle over the past half century, leading experts to raise concerns about the erosion of manual piloting skills.
The impact of "automation dependency," creating a potentially dangerous scenario in which pilots are the backup to the automation, has escaped the attention of most airline passengers as well as many members of Congress responsible for overseeing airline safety, some experts say.
There is no dispute that automated systems on the flight deck of planes have saved countless lives over the years by acting as the helpful equivalent of a third pilot in the cockpit. In addition, autopilot controls can fly planes more efficiently than human pilots, leading to savings on fuel burn and better adherence to staying on "fly-quiet" tracks near residential areas around airports, according to experts.
But as the technology has advanced, automation has made it easy for pilots to become overdependence on the autopilot system, which is not infallible in terms of the risk of providing false information to pilots, experts said.
While some foreign airlines have revised their policies on the use of automation and strengthened their manual flying instruction, pilot training at U.S. carriers has not kept up with the changes in automation, the experts said.
The U.S. Senate Aviation Subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine how much progress has been made by the Federal Aviation Administration and the airline industry in meeting tougher safety requirements mandated by 2010 legislation.
The new rules, which require higher standards for pilot training and dramatically raise the number of minimum flight hours for pilots applying for airline jobs, were established in the wake of the February 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 in Buffalo, N.Y. The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the crash, which killed 50 people, was due to pilot error.
The mistakes that the Colgan captain committed, in response to a low-speed warning system designed to prevent the commuter jet from stalling, exposed a fatal disconnect between what the pilot expected the plane to do and what he actually experienced, officials said.
Concerns run deep in the airline industry that during flight situations that could quickly escalate into emergencies, pilots might rely too heavily on interacting with computerized flight systems instead of looking out the windshield to point the nose in the right direction, listening to the hum of the engines and flying the plane.
"Automation can dull the discovery of a problem if a crew relies on it too much," said Tom Peterson, manager of the advanced simulation program at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.
"Our instructors teach our students that if some problem develops suddenly, don't automatically try to reprogram the system. Just go back to the day when you were 16 years old and flying a small Cessna. Hand-fly the plane and look out the window," Peterson said.
A knee-jerk decision to troubleshoot automated readings appears to have contributed to the fatal crash of Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330 en route to Paris from Rio de Janeiro that went into a high-altitude loss of airspeed June 1, 2009 and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 people onboard. The pilots lost control in part because they responded incorrectly to an airspeed indicator failure and misinterpreted the problems that were occurring, the accident investigation determined.
"This issue of lack of awareness of what the aircraft is doing and the lack of understanding about what mode the automation is in are becoming common threads in accidents," said William Voss, president and chief executive officer of the Flight Safety Foundation.
"It's amazing how common it is to have a dimension where the pilot is out of sync with what the automation is doing," said Voss, who is scheduled to testify before the Senate subcommittee. "There is an ongoing degradation of flying skills because, on a daily basis, pilots simply don't have to perform a lot of functions.
"If you came up through a different generation, you'd say, 'Time out. Turn all the crap off and we'll see what we have here.' But more and more, pilots are becoming the backup to the automation."
He said it would be a lethal mistake for airlines focused on reducing costs to cut corners on the improvements needed in pilot training.
Emirates Airlines, based in Dubai, has added a two-day manual flying class to its training regimen, and it has substantially updated its rules on when and how automation is used, Voss said, adding that other Middle Eastern airlines are adopting the same change in training philosophy.
"It took accidents to launch people into a fundamental overhaul so pilots will be able to quickly detect when things are not right," Voss said. "I hope we see a positive reaction from U.S. carriers to get rid of procedures that erode that capability."