Another view of complacency, taken from my boy’s book of HF, is that it is the opposite of courage. Normally courage is opposed by fear. So perhaps the problem involves being fearful of automation, or just not understanding it?
“Without courage, wisdom bears no fruit.” Baltasar Gracian.
Automation covers a wide range of technologies and equipment.
Automatic systems have evolved from a simple workload relief for pilots (attitude hold), to complex systems that undertake tasks which are beyond human capability (Cat IIIB autoland, precision navigation).
Modern systems involve varying degrees of automatic activity and differing levels of integrity; - do I trust it to land me in all conditions (fail safe within extreme probabilities), or does the system require vigilant monitoring or crosschecking.
There is nothing wrong with relying on automatics for the tasks for which they were designed, provided the operation is conducted within the limitations of the systems certificated reliability (normally determined by procedures) and using the approved operating techniques - procedures.
Automation can be a threat if it is used in situations that it is not designed for – when we rely on it for a range of tasks beyond the envisaged capability – over reliance.
Similarly, it is a threat if the manufacturers operating procedures are not followed.
These are not necessarily operator’s SOPs. Additional problems can result from operator (or individual) derived SOPs that assume how and when automation can be used, i.e. operators (or individuals) decide independently on operational techniques and situations (I know better syndrome – complacency?).
A good example is using the autopilot to fly the aircraft while the crew deals with a system failure. In principle reducing the workload aids safety in the situation, but this assumes that the immediate operating rules have been followed;_
1. Aviate: fly the aircraft; the crew has established stable flight and a trimmed condition.
2. Navigate: determine the future flight path, track, altitude, check speed (time / fuel functions).
3. Communicate: amongst the crew and externally as required, exchange thoughts (mental models) requests (more information) and plans (intentions and possibilities).
4. Manage the resultant situation, which includes engaging the autopilot and checking that ‘it’ is following rules 1 & 2 (your monitoring task), then check rule 3 particularly because automation has difficulty in communicating – it cannot always tell you what or how it is doing or more important what it is going to do. A human can detect and state that it is working hard or it is near the limit of performance – it might fail, automation rarely has these capabilities.
In the situation above, automatic complacency occurs if you expect the autopilot to sort out the initial flight conditions and future path (rules 1 & 2) by selecting an immediate or ill-conceived engagement. Perhaps your autopilot will normally manage, but unless it was designed for the specific task there may be situations where it will fail, often without warning (limitations in rule 3).
Consider a similar situation in handing control to the other pilot; it is good practice (airmanship) to establish a stable flight path with the aircraft in trim; the intended flight path / navigation plan is briefed, and the hand over completed with a feedback check – ‘I have’. Why then not the same for an autopilot – “Automation is like a dutiful first officer, except it never learns”.
Automation may be a poor communicator, but it still deserves the respect afforded by good airmanship.
“
… then what measures remain to combat "The Threat" of automatic complacency?”
A. Fully understand what tasks the automation has been designed for and in what situations it can be used; do not exceed these tasks. (You don’t know better).
B. Maintain a good knowledge base of what the automation can achieve and how this is accomplished – basic operating procedures. If the system is complex and the depth of knowledge low, then only use a limited set of options or procedures.
C. Monitor (communicate with) automation in proportion to its level of integrity / reliability.
D. Respect automation, it too requires CRM, TEM, and Airmanship, but it rarely reciprocates.
“
It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in a moment there is life, and in change there is power.” Alan Cohen.
Embrace automation as if flying with a new crewmember on every flight. When employed correctly it can be most rewarding, but if provoked or unmonitored, it is a threat.