Originally Posted by
safetypee
Manual handling skills in modern aircraft should not be compared with those required in previous aircraft because the need is not the same. Nowadays pilots require a skill set applicable to modern systems, some of this will require manual flight, but more so the cognitive skills to manage advanced systems and the overall task of operating an aircraft in a complex environment.
I'd like to challenge the bolded statement. On what basis do you say that?
I think you meant for the part that follows to answer my question, but it doesn't. All the systems/automation management tasks are indeed there, and require their own (mental) skills to master, bit that's
in addition to the manual handling skills, not
instead.
Who holds the final responsibility for the flight path of the plane? It's purportedly the flight crew. When the plane has an unusual attitude, stalls, enters windshear/severe turbulence, loses air data or inertial sources, suffers certain electrical failures, etc., does the autopilot automatically turn itself on to take control and fix the problem? No, the opposite happens. It's at our feet that the problem ultimately lands. From this premise it follows that the manual handing skills are required 100% as much as in previous aircraft. What is different that would lessen that?
The notion that it is the responsibility of the airplane (and not the flight crew) to fix the handling problem can only exist under the premise that the flight crew are no longer pilots, but drone operators. I'm not saying that this arrangement is invalid, but it needs to be recognized, since it embodies a fundamental inversion of the flow of responsibility between man and machine.
The paradigms of automation interaction:
The past: The flight crew (pilot) is fully proficient in manual handling, as all their habits and skills were developed when manual handling was pretty much all the handling. The rudimentary autopilot is there just to offload effort during a long and monotonous cruise, and if there's any problem the pilot takes manual control with the same readiness (and ease) as an instructor takes over from a first-lesson student. Responsibility flows from machine to man.
The future: the ground crew (drone operator) enters high-level automation commands and the airplane literally flies itself. If any problems occur, it is designed with the capability (and redundancy) to handle almost anything. Responsibility flows from man to machine.
The big problem with the present is that we are
partially on the way to this future reality, without all the necessary pieces in place to make it work. The flight crews barely fly and are uncomfortable with flying in other than the most benign of circumstances (if at all), as their skills and habits are formed on the basis of automation interaction that's a lot closer to "the future" than "the past"; so responsibility flows to the machine. But the machine is not designed to handle problems like the list I mentioned earlier. (Airbuses can maintain control through
some of them only.). ITS capability very easily reverts to "the past," so responsibility flows to man. So, ultimately man and machine both throw the responsibility of handling onto the other if too many difficulties pile up, with no one there capable of catching it. With fatal consequences in recent high-profile accidents.