Observations from two other industries
Automation and the loss of human technical skills are wide spread throughout the industrial arena. The problems suffered in a cockpit are time sensitive and news worthy but those same problems occur in many industries. I’m not sure that any industry has a good answer for keeping humans in the loop and their skills up to date while the computers handle most normal operations and procedures.
I am very familiar with two non-aviation technical industries where the promise of using automation and then hiring less educated, lower skilled, cheaper technical staff has resulted in many problems similar to those discussed on this web site..
A prior message described the concerns of a process operator in a pharmaceutical facility. I have had the identical experience in very large, very dangerous, petroleum processing facilities.
When I started as one of many computer systems engineers responsible for computerizing the processes I spent years learning how the systems worked. I learned those details from highly skilled technicians who had helped build, startup, and operate the facility. They understood every little nuance of pressure, temperatures, flows, voltages, etc. They did not need my computer – but it sure made the day-to-day operation easier. They could monitor the computer and consistently take over and out-perform the computers when anomalous events occurred. Over the years our computer automation became more sophisticated, quicker and more accurate but I never once felt we could do without highly skilled and proficient operators.
That generation of technician/operator has retired and the new techs are just computer operators, screen watchers, and button pushers. They do not have the in-depth, intuitive knowledge of how the very complex parts of the processes interact. When process X mis-behaves, or monitor Y shows impossible data; they do not have the ability to quickly and easily determine what other processes and equipment will be affected and how they will react.
The first and 2nd generation operators were not allowed in the control room to work with the computers until they had spent years manually running the processes from the field. The current operators have not spent years and years climbing towers to turn valves, measuring depths, and monitoring temperatures. All they know is what the computer tells them and when it doesn’t tell them – they are confused. Usually, unlike a cockpit at 34,000’, there is time to figure it out or to call someone on the phone – but those skills will soon be unavailable.
Another example
My wife is the senior operator with 30+ years experience running a very large and complex municipal water system. She started as a field hand manually operating pumps, chlorinators, filters, test equipment, and valves. Over the years she pretty much learned how each and every connection and control interacted. When they automated EVERYTHING, after she had been there 12 years, she was very comfortable running the system from a control room with nine video screens and 60’ of wall space with gauges and displays. She still knew how it all worked – she had touched those parts and watched them operate. She knew in her gut what a change on a flow meter displayed on a computer would mean an hour later for the pressures at a standpipe 30 miles downstream. .
She has been responsible for training new operators. She uses a curriculum developed by engineers and educators who have never actually operated the equipment. She now has five techs working for her, none with any real hands on experience, and not a one of them can sit down and tell her what happens to the pressure at valve Z when the pump at location A fails. When the police call to say a 36” main is flooding the street; those new techs don’t instinctively know that a 70’ tall standpipe 5 miles away is draining thru that ruptured pipe.
And, the computer sure can’t tell them! Eventually the computer sees the standpipe reaching critically low level and displays an alarm but by then 5,000 people do not have enough water pressure to flush their toilets and it takes four hours to rebuild that pressure.
In both situations I described – management was able to hire less skilled technicians, spend less time training them, and pay them less money because they are easier to replace.
I guess things worked out OK because in neither case am I aware of any disaster caused by the lack of skill. But, I am well aware of a lot of lost product, poor product, and inefficient operation because the technicians did not have the experience to correct unusual situations for which the computer was not programmed as well as possible.
In both my experience in the refinery and her experience with the water system – the computer does a near perfect job 99%+ of the time. They are great for trending, remembering when to do something, displaying checklists, and bringing up procedures.
But – when a truly unusual event occurs that I as a systems engineer did not anticipate – then only a human with a lot of detailed knowledge, experience, and current proficiency can make the leap from specific knowledge to a new process or connection.
I’m not sure the commercial aviation industry should expect any other technical operations to help them understand automation and humans.
But, as a 40+ year computer professional, and SLF, I hope pilots can convince automation experts that skilled and CURRENTLY PROFICIENT pilots will always out perform computers in those truly rare situations that can not be anticipated.