Originally Posted by
mustafagander
As I see these problems, a pilot needs situational awareness.
This means that you are aware of what's going on right now.
AF447 pilot issues - look at the GPS ground speed right in front of your face. Has it changed? No. Then DO NOTHING.
The Birgenair with crazy airspeed and altitude - DO NOT climb above your Rad Alt and use your GPS GS to return for landing.
I'm not being wise after the event, my airline trained us in the sim for this stuff. More warning systems mean more potential failures. It's called AIRMANSHIP. Know your aircraft and know your systems. If you want to command a big jet know your stuff, do your homework. I'm retired now and I must say that I wasted countless hours armchair flying scenarios that never happened but what if they did? Your command means that you must have thought through all possible scenarios.
No argument with your premise, but why do pilots sometimes (more often than we want to admit) fail to maintain situational awareness?
I have a hypothesis. One reason pilots fail to maintain situational awareness is that flight control and even navigation is often being performed by automation. The regular attention to instruments necessitated while flying manually is still "expected" of instrument pilots when automation is in control, but pilots are human, and such attention is replaced by other distractions of sight and mind.
Automation is not the problem, but the effect it has on pilot awareness is and that's where a solution should be sought. Consider today's electronic displays compared to the "steam-gauge" instruments of yesteryear. A speed deviation on the steam gauge, for example, was far more apparent than one on the moving tape when you consider the "quick-glance" of an instrument scan. The information displayed on an EADI is probably superior, but deviations are much less obvious unless close attention is paid. And under automatic control, close attention is not often paid.
I'd suggest a few improvements to electronic displays are in order. Deviations from target values should be more conspicuous before they present a hazard. They should be detectable with a quick-glance, such that corrective action is taken earlier. An indication of deviation that grows even more conspicuous as the deviation grows could help the pilots become aware of them and correct them earlier before they become hazardous.
Today, only deviations that are considered hazardous are alerted. By then the pilots are surprised by them, perhaps unbelieving at first, and corrections may be delayed or fail to be taken at all.
The deviation indictation I propose should not be an alert, because the condition is not yet a hazard. The indication itself, should not have an audible or flashing character, but its appearance (color, size, shape) should be distinctly different than a non-deviation condition.
Food for thought.