Are we going soft?
As technology marches inexorably forward and cockpit automation becomes ever more capable (Garmin Autoland?), I suppose it's inevitable that piloting your average modern GA aircraft will become a lot less complex than it used to be. FADEC is available in many trainers now where the throttle levers of old are marked 'power' instead with comments like the one below (from discussion in another forum around the best time to go full fine prior to landing) perhaps understandably justified if your only goal is to train pilots for an Automation Management role in the cockpit of a fly-by-wire Airbus.. Am I the only one a little concerned by this trajectory?
"Obscene"? What "other things"?!?? Just push a button at the start of the runway and fly around Fat, Dumb and Happy, with our eyes firmly inside gazing on all the pretty colours instead of outside looking for traffic (that's ATC's job)? and with our ears finely attuned to a the latest Spotify playlist rather than the sound of the engines and airflow (or the radios) waiting for Garmin Autoland to bring the plane in for touchdown to the amazement of our passengers??
It seems to me that all aeroplanes, no matter how large or small, complex or simple, operate in the same parcels of air that can be everything from benign clear blue skies one moment to ugly storms and icing the next and to the same set of physics, yet the subtle message of cockpit designs like the Icon A5 (to pick but one) and the latest movies and TV shows is that "flying is easy - it's just like driving car!", breeding pilots of the present and future with very little skill or appreciation for the complexities of operating a fast-moving object in three dimensions if something (like a prop hub governor) goes wrong.
"Obscene"? What "other things"?!?? Just push a button at the start of the runway and fly around Fat, Dumb and Happy, with our eyes firmly inside gazing on all the pretty colours instead of outside looking for traffic (that's ATC's job)? and with our ears finely attuned to a the latest Spotify playlist rather than the sound of the engines and airflow (or the radios) waiting for Garmin Autoland to bring the plane in for touchdown to the amazement of our passengers??
It seems to me that all aeroplanes, no matter how large or small, complex or simple, operate in the same parcels of air that can be everything from benign clear blue skies one moment to ugly storms and icing the next and to the same set of physics, yet the subtle message of cockpit designs like the Icon A5 (to pick but one) and the latest movies and TV shows is that "flying is easy - it's just like driving car!", breeding pilots of the present and future with very little skill or appreciation for the complexities of operating a fast-moving object in three dimensions if something (like a prop hub governor) goes wrong.
On that note it is interesting that while initially Airbus had high rates of LOC due to pilot/automation interface like any type it now has rigorous training and theory to get pilots ready for that side of the aircraft. On the opposing side Boeing, esp the 737 has suprizing lack of redundancy which more often puts pilots back in basic flight control which has caused a few recent accidents when the AP drops out at inopportune moments and left the pilot, well piloting, using raw data skills...
The following 2 users liked this post by 43Inches:
10 devices with some form of GPS on them,
Back last century you had to have two independent nav aids of which one was NDB.
What is the redundancy for GPS control?
I had a pitch trim runaway in a G1000 Cessna a few years back flying with a 200-300 hour weekend aero club pilot, at some point he'd been shown how to use the autopilot and because it was a long straight line leg on a flyaway trip I wasn't worried about him doing so, but what amazed me was when the trim started to go full forward reasonably briskly by itself his reaction was to hold the yoke back and try and use the electric trim and trim wheel to stop it. The thought of just turning off the autopilot and/or pulling the circuit breaker didn't even cross his mind. Now that quite probably reflects faulty initial training from whomever had shown him use of the autopilot more than anything else but it does certainly illustrate a potential hazard.
Moderator
Do you really think going from this 1920s engine management system:
To this:
Or this:
To this:
Has made the operator any less competent or increased the risk of accident?
It could be argued that advanced automation, improved technology, simplification and elimination of unnecessary control functions has greatly enhanced safety?
Is the ability to be ambidextrous with separate throttle, mixture and pitch really essential when a modern single lever control system is adequate in a todays aircraft?
To this:
Or this:
To this:
Has made the operator any less competent or increased the risk of accident?
It could be argued that advanced automation, improved technology, simplification and elimination of unnecessary control functions has greatly enhanced safety?
Is the ability to be ambidextrous with separate throttle, mixture and pitch really essential when a modern single lever control system is adequate in a todays aircraft?
601, it is no longer one system, it is now GPS, Galileo, BeiDou, GLONASS, IRNSS, QZSS. Even if your equipment only uses one of those systems the chances of GPS being unavailable are extraordinarily low, it is extremely unlikely to be the satellites themselves in this situation but rather the Unit which is why 2 GPS Units are considered safe. The only real situations where they'd all go down would be some kind of massive Solar Flare which could cause far bigger issues, War in which case you should probably get your ass down on the ground quickly anyway or someone managing to hack and manipulate the entire system so terrorism at its most extreme.
Do you really think going from this 1920s engine management system:
...
Has made the operator any less competent or increased the risk of accident?
It could be argued that advanced automation, improved technology, simplification and elimination of unnecessary control functions has greatly enhanced safety?
Is the ability to be ambidextrous with separate throttle, mixture and pitch really essential when a modern single lever control system is adequate in a todays aircraft?
...
Has made the operator any less competent or increased the risk of accident?
It could be argued that advanced automation, improved technology, simplification and elimination of unnecessary control functions has greatly enhanced safety?
Is the ability to be ambidextrous with separate throttle, mixture and pitch really essential when a modern single lever control system is adequate in a todays aircraft?
However the environment can impact the ability of an operator to carry out a fundamental task, and the competency of said operator can affect their ability to deal with that environment.
Although I've never flown the latter two examples you showed I have regularly driven (and own) things akin to the first two. In my experience the early mechanical systems, although appearing complicated and difficult to modern drivers, make for a simpler and easier to understand operational environment. In contrast a modern environment may present multiple functions per control and an operator is often required to remember each function and/or decipher whats some inane graphic is meant to mean - although the control may require less mechanical effort and whatever it's manipulating will often actually work!
Returning to aircraft; to some extent as the early mechanical systems became more sophisticated what I'd term the 'manipulational' complexity probably exceeded that of modern machines, however as the later systems became more complex they also did more things and so to some extent required greater systemic knowledge and oversight. Thus to my mind while the need for general ability didn't change the environment did, meaning that an operator's skillset needed to moved into different areas. This may (have) suite(d) some more than others.
In time as systems become more self-checking and more automated the operational requirements will further change, and the need for sophisticated skills will probably shift further from the machine operator to the designers and technicians.
To conclude and reiterate in a single sentence; in my view automation etc has simply altered and possibly expanded the risk centre, and the need to be mechanically ambidextrous has now become the need to be cerebrally quick - thus the need for competency overall hasn't changed, it has merely shifted from one skillset to another.
FP.
The following users liked this post:
Got a link to where that figure is reported? I can't find it despite searching for that exact figure. I'd be willing to be the vast majority of those have been in or near conflict zones though if that figure is true.
Thread Starter
I had a pitch trim runaway in a G1000 Cessna a few years back flying with a 200-300 hour weekend aero club pilot, at some point he'd been shown how to use the autopilot and because it was a long straight line leg on a flyaway trip I wasn't worried about him doing so, but what amazed me was when the trim started to go full forward reasonably briskly by itself his reaction was to hold the yoke back and try and use the electric trim and trim wheel to stop it. The thought of just turning off the autopilot and/or pulling the circuit breaker didn't even cross his mind. Now that quite probably reflects faulty initial training from whomever had shown him use of the autopilot more than anything else but it does certainly illustrate a potential hazard.
...............
To conclude and reiterate in a single sentence; in my view automation etc has simply altered and possibly expanded the risk centre, and the need to be mechanically ambidextrous has now become the need to be cerebrally quick - thus the need for competency overall hasn't changed, it has merely shifted from one skillset to another.
To conclude and reiterate in a single sentence; in my view automation etc has simply altered and possibly expanded the risk centre, and the need to be mechanically ambidextrous has now become the need to be cerebrally quick - thus the need for competency overall hasn't changed, it has merely shifted from one skillset to another.
eg. In the AP failure case: Because runway trim was causing the issue (he could see it), it likely didn't immediately occur to the the pilot that the plane nosing down suddenly could be something to do with the AP.
eg. In the cockpit automation case: In the old days, every control was in sight and you could scan a complex panel and simply press the right button from memory. Nowadays less buttons equates to less wiring, but you need to remember where the function you're looking for actually is in the system because you can't (normally) physically see it at a glance. As we all know, it looks simpler but those looks are deceiving. And that can take an already overloaded student quite a bit to get their head around. Some automation systems automatically change pages to try to anticipate what you need to do, but sometimes all that does is get you more lost.
Like lots of things in life, there's likely a happy balance somewhere, but that balance might not suit all pilots all of the time.
Last edited by PiperCameron; 27th Mar 2023 at 02:08.
Thinking back to my GA training in the 60's there was no aircraft systems and failure modes instruction, it was all about stick and rudder handling. Not so long ago a C150 pilot (120 hours or so) landed with a failed generator and had no idea how to proceed to the intended city secondary airport, asked if they had looked at the flight manual emergency checklist, no, wasn't aware it contained one.
The following 2 users liked this post by megan:
I will point out that aircraft of all types flying into Adelaide / SA in the past month (or so) have reported random loss of GPS and loss of ADS-B.
All equipment seems to burst into life shortly after Enigma or Phantom or Warlord (or names of similar ilk) land at Woomera.
Coincidence?
You be the judge.
All equipment seems to burst into life shortly after Enigma or Phantom or Warlord (or names of similar ilk) land at Woomera.
Coincidence?
You be the judge.
The world heat map is yes clustered around the Middle East, but there at multiple red blobs in other parts of the world.
outnabout is anyone reporting these incidents to CASA or the Government? If not and it seems to be so widely known, why not? I don't see any NOTAMs at Adelaide Airport or Olympic Dam mentioning this sort of thing and you'd think that if this was happening so often there would be a massive trail of reports from various Airlines and Operators as there is a fair amount of traffic passing over and near those two?
Not that absolute. There are still plenty of coloured blobs representing jamming and spoofing in other places (continents and oceans) not at war.
And the effects are not localised to the jamming or spoofing area. eg. Aircraft transiting Turkey routinely loose GPS in some cases this affects the aircraft for the rest of the flight, subsequently impacting the ability to conduct a RNP in Europe or Asia.
And the effects are not localised to the jamming or spoofing area. eg. Aircraft transiting Turkey routinely loose GPS in some cases this affects the aircraft for the rest of the flight, subsequently impacting the ability to conduct a RNP in Europe or Asia.
You can never have too much automation. The main thing lacking is ability or capability of the people managing this automation which has exacerbated the problem.
Not denying that there have been a few exceptions to the above statements. But this is no reason not to embrace and fully encourage the use of automation.
Not denying that there have been a few exceptions to the above statements. But this is no reason not to embrace and fully encourage the use of automation.
Thread Starter
You can never have too much automation. The main thing lacking is ability or capability of the people managing this automation which has exacerbated the problem.
Not denying that there have been a few exceptions to the above statements. But this is no reason not to embrace and fully encourage the use of automation.
Not denying that there have been a few exceptions to the above statements. But this is no reason not to embrace and fully encourage the use of automation.
The automation itself isn't the issue (so long as it's working right and giving you the right information) - it promises much. It just seems to me that the further removed a pilot is from stick-and-rudder control of the plane, the longer it takes to regain control (by determining and applying the correct control) in an emergency - yet it seems avionics manufacturers (and others) these days seek to remove pilots from the controls as far as possible, even off the plane altogether if they can.
Not that absolute. There are still plenty of coloured blobs representing jamming and spoofing in other places (continents and oceans) not at war.
And the effects are not localised to the jamming or spoofing area. eg. Aircraft transiting Turkey routinely loose GPS in some cases this affects the aircraft for the rest of the flight, subsequently impacting the ability to conduct a RNP in Europe or Asia.
And the effects are not localised to the jamming or spoofing area. eg. Aircraft transiting Turkey routinely loose GPS in some cases this affects the aircraft for the rest of the flight, subsequently impacting the ability to conduct a RNP in Europe or Asia.
PiperCameron if the automation is making you lazy that isn't the fault of the automation, that is the fault of those doing the training not doing enough to make sure you realise this and that you need to remain alert for problems. If you're with an instructor in some fancy glass cockpit single who isn't taking time during the cruise to drill you or isn't randomly throwing in emergencies then that isn't the fault of the automation, THAT'S THE FAULT OF THE TRAINER!! And whilst it might be young blokes doing the training, it's the supposedly "Tough Blokes" from yesteryears that are creating the training procedures and requirements. Then we have those same "Tough Blokes" come along on forums and ask if everyone else is going soft or not, what a joke.