Hi
Volume: It seems to me that you’ve outlined the necessities of improving the training that ALL pilots really should be provided – even though I think you were headed down a somewhat different path, what you said can easily be focused on the necessity of reviewing, revamping, and fortifying the training we provide to all pilots … but particularly to airline pilots.
Originally Posted by Volume
If you have redundant information available, it is quite normal that you concentrate on the most convenient one and ignore the others. It takes a lot of training and discipline to make people use redundancies.
I completely agree … ALL of aviation requires “…a lot of training and discipline…” hence, my recommendation – nee, my urgent recommendation – that we (as participants in an ever-changing industry) MUST receive the necessary training so as to develop and understand what we see, hear, and feel, so as to recognize and use the displays provided and the information presented.
Originally Posted by Volume
If you want redundant information to be noticed, it must "jump" at you.
Certainly, when redundant information does indeed “jump” from one indication to another, that change in the display is likely to draw some attention. The issue is to
train the user to notice that display – even if it doesn’t change, but certainly if it does … even a minor amount.
Originally Posted by Volume
One light of a PAPI changing from white to red might indeed draw more attention, than an indicator moving constantly and slowly along a scale from the white into the red. Hence digital information (and a PAPI is nothing else, although older than the term itself) might be harder to understand when you try to monitor it, but easier to recognize if it changes.
First: IF the brightness of that PAPI light is such that
any change will garner the attention of the pilot (who [i]should]/i] be busy monitoring ALL of the indications and controlling the airplane) it is very likely to be noticed. HOWEVER, such brightness is not typically present
until and unless the distance to the PAPI lights is relatively short and the weather conditions are such that there is little if any obscuration, and, even then, particularly if the airplane is further out on final approach, if the pilot is focusing on some other display or indication where a majority of that pilot’s attention is being focused on that “other” issue (whatever it may be), such a change in the PAPI display may only be recognized when/if the pilot’s attention is again returned to the PAPI display and the pilot recognizes that the display now being seen is
different from what was seen when it was last observed and recognized. “Seeing” something is not necessarily the same thing as understanding the meaning of what is being seen (particularly so when the current display is
different from what was displayed previously). Additionally, pilots are expected to, and must be able to, see, hear, note, analyze, decide, and react to the numerous information sources we all know is present in an airplane cockpit – at any time – and particularly during an approach … either visual or instrument.
Second: It should be obvious that “…an indicator moving constantly and slowly along a scale…” should warrant an increased amount of awareness of that movement, even if the movement is desired. Is it moving in the correct direction? Is it moving at an acceptable rate? Can that movement be immediately stopped/reversed, if necessary or desired? How do you know?
Originally Posted by Volume
If you want changes to be noticed, the indication must change in a very obvious way. If a change in speed indication would obviously "jump" every 5 kts (or make a sound passing a round 5 kts number, different for increasing and decreasing, just like the clicking noise old fashioned electromechanical instruments made), it would be much more obvious to the pilot than a dial passing a certain position (unless that position is a very distinctive one, e.g. the 9 ´o Clock position).
The rate of change of most things of interest to a pilot when flying an airplane (particularly when on final approach), is critical; but if it were true that such changes would be noted ONLY through some “obvious, attention grabbing manner,” it would be necessary to provide a bombarding cacophony of new sounds, changes of sound, flashing lights, lights changing colors, and whatever myriad of other “immediate attention grabbing” features that might be considered “obvious.” In the alternative, I seriously believe that the recognition of “changes” has to be achieved through constant vigilance and constant awareness on the part of the pilot flying the airplane. Some of those changes will be anticipated and be recognized as supportive, and some very well may be indicative of something other than what is desired, and may require an immediate intervention/correction by the pilot. Additionally, the pilot monitoring should ALSO maintain that same amount of vigilance and constant awareness – temporarily interrupted only by necessary checklist requirements or radio calls – and that is both temporarily (not continuously) and then only interrupted (meaning that the conscious effort regularly returns to “vigilance” ASAP). However, this kind of vigilance and needed recognition cannot be achieved in the absence of determined, directed, and meaningful training.
Originally Posted by Volume
An indication designed for quick and accurate reading, an indication designed to set a trend, and an indication designed to draw attention when changing must be designed differently.
I’m not at all sure that the “different” design has not already been achieved and employed. What I’m reading here is, in my opinion, a description of every flight instrument in every airplane.
Originally Posted by Volume
So I think the first thing we must agree on is what a pilot in a highly automated aircraft should do about airspeed. Monitor it? Manage it? Track it? Notice it if it changes? Notice if it is too low? This all required different design of the instrumentation for optimum performance.
Actually,
ALL of these things are required! ALL the time! ALL related to ALL the parameters involved in airplane flying! Airspeed, altitude, rate of climb, rate of descent, heading, pitch attitude, bank attitude, coordination, engine parameters, airplane configuration, and on and on and on……..
Originally Posted by Volume
Reaction time is essential, timing is crucial.
In a great many areas – and very easily, a majority of areas – this is certainly true.
Originally Posted by Volume
In decision making without time constraint it is hard to beat a computer.
Actually, computers do not “make decisions.” They do one of 2 things: 1, (passively) they present information that has been sensed; and 2, (actively) they compare parameters and, depending on the peripherals involved, make adjustments to settings as have been previously programmed, until what is sensed matches what has been programmed.
Originally Posted by Volume
In reacting to a surprising situation never thought of, it is hard to beat humans.
I would agree, whole heartedly … but ONLY when the human(s) we are describing has/have been thoroughly, properly, and completely trained. An unprepared human is very much like a computer without an operating program … the lights may be “on,” but rarely is “anyone home.”