Lonewolf_50,
“
So what do you do with that expensive sim time?”
As you indicate we spend a lot of time training specifics, but in complex ‘high tech’ situations we require greater generic skills, particularly those associated with situation assessment. Thus we require fewer action skills (many are still essential), and more thinking, pattern generating / matching skills.
Pilots have to be taught how to think in a high tech world – the patterns will differ from those in basic training, and then use and practice these skills in representative scenarios; not just the man – machine interface, but the man – situation interface.
I agree that we should not ‘
sell the pilots short’. Humans are still a valuable source in complex situation, but also most prone to failure.
Perhaps my bias was from experience; like you I had the pleasure of flying the T28, but I’m not sure that I really understood all of it.
“
If the computers make things work, you need to work out how they work,”
I am not convinced of the need for that, or the practicality of achieving it – generating appropriate knowledge and the reliable ability to recall it when needed.
The previously linked
Systems Failure suggests considering complex systems at a higher level; e.g. autoland is computer controlled, but a pilot does not need to know if this involves dual-dual or dual-dissimilar software/hardware; what is important is fail passive vs fail op - ‘do something’ vs ‘do nothing’ (do less) in the event of failure. There has to be a balance between knowing what, and knowing how; technology has changed this balance, has the training changed too?
Education, yes, but time and resource has to be balanced under currently dominating economic pressure. Are we, the industry safe enough, or are we blinded by the potential of automation; only the next accident might determine that.