excerpts from a paper by someone who left his prejudices behind :
...
" Historically in commercial aviation, differing design philosophies were usually successful in practice, without one being "better" or "worse" than the other. One manufacturer's hype against the design philosophies of the other has usually served the industry poorly, leading to mis-informed public and industry opinion...
...Designing for the past or the future? Designing an aircraft with the objective of the highest levels of efficiency can mean that differences in operational techniques are inevitable. To design the private car of today so that it handles like a model T Ford or a Morris Oxford could be considered to be inappropriate and ridiculous. New operational techniques had to be learnt in the past, when straight wings became swept, and jets replaced piston engines. In all of these cases, sometimes traumatic adjustments had to be made...
... In recent years, manufacturers have indeed involved pilots in design, but "which pilots?" Flight crew are conservative by nature, a healthy trait in normal flight operations, but the employment of senior pilots to recommend future design solutions is likely to result in more of the same. Manufacturers should be careful to select experienced pilots who can abandon "mind sets", and visualise the best solutions in new arenas with open minds. These pilots may not always be younger, but should certainly be pilots who are experienced enough to understand the practical issues, with a blend of the qualities necessary to contribute effectively to design teams...
...The contemporary aircraft designer has deliberately severed a number of traditional man-machine connections in areas where computers can manage systems more efficiently than people. The first of these was the FMS (Flight Management System), which forced the pilot to "work through a keyboard". The increased "space" that this automation gives the crew to manage the operation is now well known and welcomed. Pilots have been "unloaded" to allow them to monitor the "big picture" more effectively. The intent has been to reduce human error in systems management, and although there have been some negative outcomes of these developments, effective training has generally been able to neutralise these effects, and support the intended gains.
... An example of a what could be described as a designer-severed interface can be found in the "normal lawote functions of Airbus A319/A320/A321/A330/A340 flight control system. This was designed for simplification of control, to improve efficiency, and to protect the airframe. (This philosophy is hardly new in earlier military aircraft design. Neither, when applied to other systems on airliners. Remember that the first anti-skid systems stopped the brakes operating against the order of the pilot. Who would like to return to the days of skidding on wet runways? Remember the early jet engines without acceleration control units. Who would like to return to the " flame-out on thrust application" of days gone by? Must we be allowed to overstress or stall our aircraft?).
...In "normal law" on the Airbus fly-by-wire types the pilot cannot stall, overstress, overbank, or overspeed the aircraft. Is this, as industry commentators have said, such a bad thing for pilots? The pilot flying an "envelope-protected" aircraft can suddenly apply maximum control at any speed, calling upon the lightning response of computers to fly his machine precisely around the edge of the flight envelope. The pilot can instantly place the aircraft in the optimum and most efficient avoidance maneuver possible. His or her chances of avoiding collision with terrain or other aircraft are far higher than is possible through human manipulative skill alone. The pilot still chooses to act, applies control input; and IS in control. He or she simply utilises the most precise tool available - the computer. A simple collision avoidance maneuver in the Airbus simulator, flown by a non-type qualified pilot, or even a non-pilot, convincingly demonstrates the skill level required: NIL!..
...Feedback in autothrust - a "designer-severed interface"? As a result of the reliable mechanically linked autothrust systems of the last generation of airliners, pilots have become used to getting a sense of performance trend through throttle/thrust lever movement (in autothrust). For many pilots, this has become, almost indiscernibly, primary performance feedback. "Moving lever" autothrust systems have therefore encouraged pilots to look at the throttles/thrust levers for feedback, rather than the airspeed indicator and trend arrows. This imperceptible, but progressively learnt, behavior has lead to some strong pilot paradigms on this subject. The designers of the A319,320,321,330,340 airliners have eliminated the need to sense performance from throttle/thrust lever movement. Pilots on these types must now look directly, without distraction, at the most accurate source of feedback; aircraft performance. (We should be reminded that in one of the most critical events where feedback is essential to a pilot, engine failure just above V1, a conventional thrust lever tells a pilot that the engine is still running!)...
...Mind sets must be changed (paradigms must be shifted). An early entry to the aviation paradigm line book, from a senior military officer in the twenties: -"Monoplanes will never take over from biplanes; less that two wings will not be acceptable to us." It is often difficult to understand and accept new concepts in design, especially without practical experience of the concept in action...
...A new man-machine relationship. It is most important for transitioning pilots to understand the fundamental conceptual changes. The traditional decision-making loop from stored mental systems knowledge - to pilot action, is now replaced by a code of conduct between man and machine. The designed protocols for ECAM/EFIS interaction are dominant features to understand, and these new behavioral codes for new generation pilots must be understood far more thoroughly than the internal workings of the systems which these protocols are designed to manage. The key to the effective handling of complex systems failures is to have an overall understanding of system architecture, dominated by a thorough understanding of the designed management disciplines required to handle the abnormality effectively. The latter part of this equation has a great deal more to do with task sharing, communication, and the effective use of resources, by two pilot crews (CRM), than technical expertise...
...Technical knowledge. If during training, pilots insist on a depth of technical knowledge which is traditional for conventional types, they will require training programmes extending to multiples of current transition course lengths. If pilots perceive that they still need to know the systems in traditional detail, they run the risks generated by changes to software (altering system function), and saturation during the management of complex abnormalities. Results from surveys indicate that some pilots feel that the operation of a high technology aircraft reduces systems knowledge. This is in fact true, but on the more advanced aircraft it is the designers intent! It must be stressed that the "high tech pilot" must now have a firm grasp of design concepts and protocols rather than detail which cannot be influenced..."
The author is John Bent, ex CPA Flight Training Manager, Founder of GeCAT HKG and promoter of another TWO TRTOs for China.
The whole article, "
Training for New Technology" can be found
here