Good Situational Awareness
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you not exaggerating a little, BPF?
In VFR conditions, everybody is looking out of the window 99% of the time.
Maybe not seeing things you expect them to see, but that's another story.
The only way one can be looking inside the cockpit for any length of time, and not lose control, is if one is on autopilot and those are going to be pretty rare in the PPL training environment, which I assume is where you work.
I often read about people having their head in the cockpit but this never sounds very real - except in very modern hardware.
And a GPS, with its instant presentation of position and the provision of the projected course line, reduces the time spent reading instruments by a big margin
One could certainly write reams about basic airmanship, preflight activities, all kinds of stuff like that, and actually I have written reams and reams on that elsewhere as you probably know, but I wouldn't give it fancy names.
If some bloke flies a plane into a mountain, on a VFR flight which was in solid IMC for hundreds of miles, killing himself and his family in a thunderstorm, with nonworking deice boots which he couldn't care less about, presumably flying VFR to avoid Eurocontrol route charges, without evidently having even looked at tafs metars or any other kind of wx data.... would you say his "single pilot CRM" was less than exemplary?
Maxred - what you describe is not as unusual as it ought to be, but it is a very different issue from "single pilot CRM" or whatever. It is the result of being able to buy any plane and, within one's class or type rating, fly it away, with no mandatory ground school, and with most instructors having no clue either what the knobs do.
When I bought my TB20 in 2002, I never found an instructor who knew what the HSI did. I had to work it all out myself.
This is less common in the USA where insurers mandate type specific training (at this level of hardware, anyway).
There should be some pretty mandatory ground school on modern aircraft systems but we need to be careful what we wish for in this already grotesquely over-regulated activity. The CAAs are hardly in a position to do anything; they are firmly still in the "KNS80= state of the art" era.
In VFR conditions, everybody is looking out of the window 99% of the time.
Maybe not seeing things you expect them to see, but that's another story.
The only way one can be looking inside the cockpit for any length of time, and not lose control, is if one is on autopilot and those are going to be pretty rare in the PPL training environment, which I assume is where you work.
I often read about people having their head in the cockpit but this never sounds very real - except in very modern hardware.
And a GPS, with its instant presentation of position and the provision of the projected course line, reduces the time spent reading instruments by a big margin
One could certainly write reams about basic airmanship, preflight activities, all kinds of stuff like that, and actually I have written reams and reams on that elsewhere as you probably know, but I wouldn't give it fancy names.
If some bloke flies a plane into a mountain, on a VFR flight which was in solid IMC for hundreds of miles, killing himself and his family in a thunderstorm, with nonworking deice boots which he couldn't care less about, presumably flying VFR to avoid Eurocontrol route charges, without evidently having even looked at tafs metars or any other kind of wx data.... would you say his "single pilot CRM" was less than exemplary?
Maxred - what you describe is not as unusual as it ought to be, but it is a very different issue from "single pilot CRM" or whatever. It is the result of being able to buy any plane and, within one's class or type rating, fly it away, with no mandatory ground school, and with most instructors having no clue either what the knobs do.
When I bought my TB20 in 2002, I never found an instructor who knew what the HSI did. I had to work it all out myself.
This is less common in the USA where insurers mandate type specific training (at this level of hardware, anyway).
There should be some pretty mandatory ground school on modern aircraft systems but we need to be careful what we wish for in this already grotesquely over-regulated activity. The CAAs are hardly in a position to do anything; they are firmly still in the "KNS80= state of the art" era.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SA
I used to fly with a guy, brand new $750k, glass cockpit, full Avidyne, full the lot. Zero ability, zero SA. It was a truly remarkable experience 'flying'with him. Analysis showed that he was actually scared, not only of the machine, but the superb avionics, the experience.The aircraft is 3 years old, and has TT of 90 hrs.
He was obsessed with where he was, his 'situational awareness',as he used to preach to me, and used to sit with the maps on his knee, with more information in front of him than the average 747-400 driver.
He never knew where he was, despite the moving maps, the information overload. He also used to argue with me,in flight, that I paid little attention to where I was, never realising that at every momentt, every second, I knew exactly where I was, and of his limitations. We do not fly together anymore, after he panicked in heavy IMC, gave the craft to me, and I flew it on instruments, from the right seat, with all the 'glass dials'on his side. A sobering moment. Never happened again.
My point, even with the highest levels of GPS moving maps, autopilots, glass cockpits et al, UNLESS, as previously posted, excellently, in some cases, SN3GUPPY, SA, is all surrounding, all consuming. Every aspect of the flight.
He was obsessed with where he was, his 'situational awareness',as he used to preach to me, and used to sit with the maps on his knee, with more information in front of him than the average 747-400 driver.
He never knew where he was, despite the moving maps, the information overload. He also used to argue with me,in flight, that I paid little attention to where I was, never realising that at every momentt, every second, I knew exactly where I was, and of his limitations. We do not fly together anymore, after he panicked in heavy IMC, gave the craft to me, and I flew it on instruments, from the right seat, with all the 'glass dials'on his side. A sobering moment. Never happened again.
My point, even with the highest levels of GPS moving maps, autopilots, glass cockpits et al, UNLESS, as previously posted, excellently, in some cases, SN3GUPPY, SA, is all surrounding, all consuming. Every aspect of the flight.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: single pilot CRM. If I was clever enough I'd write stuff like this. But I'm not, so I'll leave that to the folk at NASA Ames and just try to learn from it.
http://flightsafety.org/asw/nov07/asw_nov07_p30-34.pdf
BJ
http://flightsafety.org/asw/nov07/asw_nov07_p30-34.pdf
BJ
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many good posts.
Basically SA is good ground preparation and thinking ahead:
At that point one uses the tools available to reduce workload (ADF, VOR, GPS, moving maps, etc).
Basically SA is good ground preparation and thinking ahead:
- where am I and what am I doing (phase of flight, next phase of flight)
- what is happening around me (weather, radio/traffic, aircraft conditions)
- where am I going and how am I going to get there (weather, navigation, airspace, radio/traffic, fuel)
- what do I do if things change (plan A, B, C - weather, closed runway, aircraft problems)
At that point one uses the tools available to reduce workload (ADF, VOR, GPS, moving maps, etc).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 34
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im a believer that the best VFR flying is the simple stuff, need nothing more than a compass and DI as navigation assistance, flying to a flight plan and using a map. Discipline to maintain a flight log is very important to S.A. as it forces us into it, without keeping the flight log it would be easy for many pilots to drift off into La-La land.
In my opinion the glass cockpit is fantastic for IFR but makes matters worse for VFR due to it being completely unnecessary and just a distraction.
Out of the fleet I've flown, my favourite is the pa28-181 which is just a basic VFR machine with no fancy gizmos or unnecessary technology. Its fantastic to fly but for IFR flight I love having a GNS530 at my disposal, it definitely increases S.A. and having it supplement radio navigation is most reassuring.
Of course what helps with S.A. will vary from pilot to pilot but the concept is simple - if you are meant to be looking out the window that will give you best S.A. but if you are meant to be looking at the dials, better dials will allow for better S.A.
In my opinion the glass cockpit is fantastic for IFR but makes matters worse for VFR due to it being completely unnecessary and just a distraction.
Out of the fleet I've flown, my favourite is the pa28-181 which is just a basic VFR machine with no fancy gizmos or unnecessary technology. Its fantastic to fly but for IFR flight I love having a GNS530 at my disposal, it definitely increases S.A. and having it supplement radio navigation is most reassuring.
Of course what helps with S.A. will vary from pilot to pilot but the concept is simple - if you are meant to be looking out the window that will give you best S.A. but if you are meant to be looking at the dials, better dials will allow for better S.A.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with what most say here, that in order to develop good SA you have to have a quality picture of your environment, position, flightpath and aircraft status. No question.
I don't believe that the story of SA ends with just acquiring it, by doing so you're no longer simply reacting to events but predicting them. The highest level of SA has you not just predicting events but doing something about them too, mitigating the possible negative effects, developing alternative plans and remaining flexible.
With regards to that old chestnut, the GPS. Predictably I disagree that GPS = SA. Competence + GPS ~= SA as Competence + Traditional Navigation ~= SA.
BA did a study a decade ago on glass systems. They concluded that SA was no higher with crew operating EFIS aircraft compared to crew operating conventional instruments. Having gain a considerable number of hours since my last reading, I decided to recently re-read the report. As a result it does somewhat concur with my own experience. To quote a bit of it:
Obviously it isn't entirely relevant to GA, but some of the insights should prove interesting. Report here.
I fear that the training issue is another discussion!
I don't believe that the story of SA ends with just acquiring it, by doing so you're no longer simply reacting to events but predicting them. The highest level of SA has you not just predicting events but doing something about them too, mitigating the possible negative effects, developing alternative plans and remaining flexible.
With regards to that old chestnut, the GPS. Predictably I disagree that GPS = SA. Competence + GPS ~= SA as Competence + Traditional Navigation ~= SA.
BA did a study a decade ago on glass systems. They concluded that SA was no higher with crew operating EFIS aircraft compared to crew operating conventional instruments. Having gain a considerable number of hours since my last reading, I decided to recently re-read the report. As a result it does somewhat concur with my own experience. To quote a bit of it:
Firstly, rushed approaches were occurring as frequently in Glass and Steam fleets despite the extra information on display in the Glass cockpit. Secondly, significantly more hard GPWS warnings were occurring on the Glass fleets and, finally, whilst more navigation errors were occurring on the ‘Steam’ fleets these were mostly recognised and corrected immediately whereas more consequential navigation errors were occurring on the Glass fleets. On inspection the HFR database supported their concerns. Using the ‘percentage positive’ calculation for each of the three SA factors and comparing across the combined Glass and combined Steam fleets gave a very clear indication that Flight Operations were right to be concerned.
I fear that the training issue is another discussion!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA did a study a decade ago on glass systems. They concluded that SA was no higher with crew operating EFIS aircraft compared to crew operating conventional instruments.
Another thing is that a typical airliner (especially one flying a typical BA type of route) has little need for lateral SA because it spends most of its time at ~FL350 and is under tight radar control at the two ends. Anybody who flies IFR in CAS will know how this works. ATC keep you on a very short leash indeed.
This is why airline travel has historically been very safe (in the last few decades, anyway) despite the average 747 jockey knowing his lateral position to no better accuracy than a few miles, until established on the localiser
GA IFR is very different, with very different risks, and the pilot needs to be much more on the ball.
Many military and transport aeroplanes were fitting INS based moving maps, using microfilmed charts, in the 1970s.
I agree that GA SA is a different beast to transport SA mind you, we are much less constrained to specific routes, and more to the point, neither are the other aircraft around us.
G
I agree that GA SA is a different beast to transport SA mind you, we are much less constrained to specific routes, and more to the point, neither are the other aircraft around us.
G
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540, you would be surprised as to how narrow a view of CAT you have limited yourself to There is no point trying set you straight as that is besides the point, suffice to say that airline ops cover a broad range of operational challenges that most GA pilots would be unlikely to be subjected to.
Therefore the notion and elements of SA are identical for CAT as they are for
GA. What is different between the two is the the specific operation of the aircraft and the potential immediate ramifications of lack of SA and probable subsequent error. For example miscalculating track miles to run could be significant for a medium jet, but probably not for a piston prop. Icing would be significant for a piston prop but probably not for a medium jet.
On the whole though, I would surmise that the potential SA traps and pitfalls would be similar between the two camps.
There is no point trying set you straight as that is besides the point, suffice to say that airline ops cover a broad range of operational challenges that most GA pilots would be unlikely to be subjected to.Therefore the notion and elements of SA are identical for CAT as they are for
GA. What is different between the two is the the specific operation of the aircraft and the potential immediate ramifications of lack of SA and probable subsequent error. For example miscalculating track miles to run could be significant for a medium jet, but probably not for a piston prop. Icing would be significant for a piston prop but probably not for a medium jet.
On the whole though, I would surmise that the potential SA traps and pitfalls would be similar between the two camps.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feel free to set me straight, Sciolistes
There is an overlap between piston GA and jet ops, but it is quite small. I'd say that a piston aircraft going into some VFR airport in Switzerland would face the same issues as a bizjet going there. Both cancel IFR some way out. An IFR example might be the piston aircraft going IFR into such an airport (e.g. Lugano LSZL) which again will be similar to the bizjet case (no big-jet airline will be going there; 6.65 degree ILS).
But one cannot compare the general need for SA between a VFR/IFR-OCAS piston operation, and an airliner. The latter flies in CAS (or is under a radar advisory service for those that do bits in Class G) whereas the former has to look after himself, and his biggest challenge is not busting CAS.
I don't suppose I disagree with you all that much but I do think that making very general statements is not educating GA pilots very much.
There is an overlap between piston GA and jet ops, but it is quite small. I'd say that a piston aircraft going into some VFR airport in Switzerland would face the same issues as a bizjet going there. Both cancel IFR some way out. An IFR example might be the piston aircraft going IFR into such an airport (e.g. Lugano LSZL) which again will be similar to the bizjet case (no big-jet airline will be going there; 6.65 degree ILS).
But one cannot compare the general need for SA between a VFR/IFR-OCAS piston operation, and an airliner. The latter flies in CAS (or is under a radar advisory service for those that do bits in Class G) whereas the former has to look after himself, and his biggest challenge is not busting CAS.
I don't suppose I disagree with you all that much but I do think that making very general statements is not educating GA pilots very much.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By common consent, above, SA includes awareness of other traffic to a greater or lesser extent. I think many of us delude ourselves about just how much, or little, we know of it.
The Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) referred to scan problems in its report on the Cirrus/Grob Tutor collision (2 fatalities in the Grob) in 2009.
‘1.18.11 See-and-avoid
Various studies have highlighted the limitations of the see-and-avoid method of preventing mid-air collisions. .
‘1.18.12 Alerted see-and-avoid
‘ . . . tests determined that one second of alerted visual search is as effective as eight seconds of unalerted search . .’
The report is available to download from:
Air Accidents Investigation: 5/2010 G-BYXR and G-CKHT :
An article by a CAA man included: “. . . the visual scan is the ONLY way to spot likely collision hazards”. It’s official, so it must be right. But the same article made clear that visual scan has many limitations.
(A visual search in the absence of traffic information is less likely to be successful than a search where traffic information is provided because, obviously, knowing where to look greatly increases the chances of sighting the other aircraft. Various field trials have shown that in the absence of a traffic alert, the probability of a pilot sighting a threat is generally low until a short time before impact. Traffic alerts were found to increase search effectiveness by a factor of eight (in relation to the ‘alerted’ threat only).
Just how good is the standard unalerted lookout?
To quote from the AAIB report again:
‘Lookout to the front and scan above and below the horizon, then attitude and instruments…. Move the eyes around the horizon in a series of steps (normally to the right initially), scanning up then down at each point…..continue the scan back to the tailplane and then look above and behind over the top and back to the front.’
The AAIB report continued to observe, and quote references to the effect, that a traffic scan takes time – at least one second at each fixation, so from 54 seconds upwards. A study they referred to included these cumulative time periods, in seconds, to react to an observed collision threat:
See object 0.1
Recognise aircraft 1.1
Recognise collision 6.1
Decide on action 10.1
Muscle reaction 10.5
Aircraft lag time 12.1 secs
Is even 54 seconds per complete scan good enough to detect in time a closing threat from, say, your 8 o’clock (only one such glance per 54 seconds, at best)?
Chris N
The Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) referred to scan problems in its report on the Cirrus/Grob Tutor collision (2 fatalities in the Grob) in 2009.
‘1.18.11 See-and-avoid
Various studies have highlighted the limitations of the see-and-avoid method of preventing mid-air collisions. .
‘1.18.12 Alerted see-and-avoid
‘ . . . tests determined that one second of alerted visual search is as effective as eight seconds of unalerted search . .’
The report is available to download from:
Air Accidents Investigation: 5/2010 G-BYXR and G-CKHT :
An article by a CAA man included: “. . . the visual scan is the ONLY way to spot likely collision hazards”. It’s official, so it must be right. But the same article made clear that visual scan has many limitations.
(A visual search in the absence of traffic information is less likely to be successful than a search where traffic information is provided because, obviously, knowing where to look greatly increases the chances of sighting the other aircraft. Various field trials have shown that in the absence of a traffic alert, the probability of a pilot sighting a threat is generally low until a short time before impact. Traffic alerts were found to increase search effectiveness by a factor of eight (in relation to the ‘alerted’ threat only).
Just how good is the standard unalerted lookout?
To quote from the AAIB report again:
‘Lookout to the front and scan above and below the horizon, then attitude and instruments…. Move the eyes around the horizon in a series of steps (normally to the right initially), scanning up then down at each point…..continue the scan back to the tailplane and then look above and behind over the top and back to the front.’
The AAIB report continued to observe, and quote references to the effect, that a traffic scan takes time – at least one second at each fixation, so from 54 seconds upwards. A study they referred to included these cumulative time periods, in seconds, to react to an observed collision threat:
See object 0.1
Recognise aircraft 1.1
Recognise collision 6.1
Decide on action 10.1
Muscle reaction 10.5
Aircraft lag time 12.1 secs
Is even 54 seconds per complete scan good enough to detect in time a closing threat from, say, your 8 o’clock (only one such glance per 54 seconds, at best)?
Chris N
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But one cannot compare the general need for SA between a VFR/IFR-OCAS piston operation, and an airliner. The latter flies in CAS (or is under a radar advisory service for those that do bits in Class G) whereas the former has to look after himself, and his biggest challenge is not busting CAS.
I don't suppose I disagree with you all that much but I do think that making very general statements is not educating GA pilots very much.
A nice adage to hang your hat on is "plane, path, people" (people - traffic, atc, pax, anybody). Ask yourself that any time something unusual happens and you can't go far wrong.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am going to disagree with SNS3 (as we have before).
His mantra appears to be don’t fly unless you are in a perfect state of mind.
I live in the real world.
I fly for business and pleasure. I know that meetings don’t always go well. I know sometimes my concentration is not as focused. I know sometimes I have had a hard week. Far better to accept reality and learn to recognise the signs, set your own limits, and work out what you need to do to perform as well as you can.
There is no substitute for a methodical approach. There are certain things I find I always do. I always take a look at the NOTAMs, I always brief the weather, I always review the route, what frequencies I need, what plates etc.
So for me the next sober moment is when I sit in the cockpit. I run through whether I have correctly completed the pre-flight and have everything I need for the flight itself. If I find I have missed an element it is a warning that something has got in the way; it is a good time to ask why and what I need to do to rectify matters. Sometimes it is the first sign that my mind was else where so I know I need to concentrate that little bit more.
I always tell myself more accidents happen on the ground than any where else. I have been close to a few myself! Too may pilot’s minds are elsewhere when they release the brakes or after they land. It is another good routine to remind myself not too rush and make sure I have assessed any hazards.
It is always interesting to watch other pilots when they take off. There are those with their eyes on the instruments, those with eyes on the instruments and looking forward and those with eyes also swivelling left, right and above. It is a good indicator to yourself whether you are immersed in flying or elsewhere; I know if I am too focused on the instruments or whats up front, I am going to need to concentrate that little bit extra for the rest of the flight.
So for me all of the afore are ways of catching any lack of preparation and far more importantly self assessing whether I am being too sloppy. If I have missed a few things and had to go back and redo them I know I should work doubly as hard during the en route sector to make sure I have briefed each phase of the flight.
IO540 is right on the money with regards to the advantage of a large moving map. It is just such complete nonsense to argue it is a crutch. Of course it is not a lot of good if you don’t understand the system and are working over time to press buttons. It is just the same if you struggle to keep up with an extra engine in a twin, but equally ridiculous to suggest that a second, third or fourth engine isn’t a good thing. In short use what you have, but make sure you know how to use it.
For me the in-flight segment is about two things – what is happening now, and what is going to happen next. We all know there are a host of elements to manage including briefing for the arrival, airspace, traffic, engine management etc.
It is vital not to become too focused on any one element. Whenever my head is working the cockpit I try and remain conscious of whether too much time has crept by since I last looked up – force yourself to look out so you don’t become distracted. Don’t just pay attention to the RT affecting your own call sign but listen to the general chatter – it is a super way of developing a mental picture of traffic and other issues. Ask yourself why a pilot is making a particular request – often it can give good clues about the weather or the landing conditions.
I am not going to bore the pants off you but there is of course a whole host of things you might want to do particularly during a busy IFR flight; doubtless the subject of another thread.
So having caught up on the thread drift will writing, SA has everything to do at one level with following a script – a good script will give you plenty of indicators that you are getting sloppy and focusing too hard or too long on a single element, but it also has everything to do with a developing a feel for the big picture which only really comes with experience and flying with those that can and do!
Finally to return to the never ending thread of glass versus conventional I can only imagine the detractors have never used glass. For me everything I need is on one screen, be it the airport plate, the traffic, the weather, the approach plate with the whole lot overlaid in real time. Yes of course you can put that together by cross referencing various other sources but if you really believe that to be a more effective way of achieving the same goal then I think your understanding of human factors is at best very limited.
His mantra appears to be don’t fly unless you are in a perfect state of mind.
I live in the real world.
I fly for business and pleasure. I know that meetings don’t always go well. I know sometimes my concentration is not as focused. I know sometimes I have had a hard week. Far better to accept reality and learn to recognise the signs, set your own limits, and work out what you need to do to perform as well as you can.
There is no substitute for a methodical approach. There are certain things I find I always do. I always take a look at the NOTAMs, I always brief the weather, I always review the route, what frequencies I need, what plates etc.
So for me the next sober moment is when I sit in the cockpit. I run through whether I have correctly completed the pre-flight and have everything I need for the flight itself. If I find I have missed an element it is a warning that something has got in the way; it is a good time to ask why and what I need to do to rectify matters. Sometimes it is the first sign that my mind was else where so I know I need to concentrate that little bit more.
I always tell myself more accidents happen on the ground than any where else. I have been close to a few myself! Too may pilot’s minds are elsewhere when they release the brakes or after they land. It is another good routine to remind myself not too rush and make sure I have assessed any hazards.
It is always interesting to watch other pilots when they take off. There are those with their eyes on the instruments, those with eyes on the instruments and looking forward and those with eyes also swivelling left, right and above. It is a good indicator to yourself whether you are immersed in flying or elsewhere; I know if I am too focused on the instruments or whats up front, I am going to need to concentrate that little bit extra for the rest of the flight.
So for me all of the afore are ways of catching any lack of preparation and far more importantly self assessing whether I am being too sloppy. If I have missed a few things and had to go back and redo them I know I should work doubly as hard during the en route sector to make sure I have briefed each phase of the flight.
IO540 is right on the money with regards to the advantage of a large moving map. It is just such complete nonsense to argue it is a crutch. Of course it is not a lot of good if you don’t understand the system and are working over time to press buttons. It is just the same if you struggle to keep up with an extra engine in a twin, but equally ridiculous to suggest that a second, third or fourth engine isn’t a good thing. In short use what you have, but make sure you know how to use it.
For me the in-flight segment is about two things – what is happening now, and what is going to happen next. We all know there are a host of elements to manage including briefing for the arrival, airspace, traffic, engine management etc.
It is vital not to become too focused on any one element. Whenever my head is working the cockpit I try and remain conscious of whether too much time has crept by since I last looked up – force yourself to look out so you don’t become distracted. Don’t just pay attention to the RT affecting your own call sign but listen to the general chatter – it is a super way of developing a mental picture of traffic and other issues. Ask yourself why a pilot is making a particular request – often it can give good clues about the weather or the landing conditions.
I am not going to bore the pants off you but there is of course a whole host of things you might want to do particularly during a busy IFR flight; doubtless the subject of another thread.
So having caught up on the thread drift will writing, SA has everything to do at one level with following a script – a good script will give you plenty of indicators that you are getting sloppy and focusing too hard or too long on a single element, but it also has everything to do with a developing a feel for the big picture which only really comes with experience and flying with those that can and do!
Finally to return to the never ending thread of glass versus conventional I can only imagine the detractors have never used glass. For me everything I need is on one screen, be it the airport plate, the traffic, the weather, the approach plate with the whole lot overlaid in real time. Yes of course you can put that together by cross referencing various other sources but if you really believe that to be a more effective way of achieving the same goal then I think your understanding of human factors is at best very limited.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Many military and transport aeroplanes were fitting INS based moving maps, using microfilmed charts, in the 1970s.
But they used to land with large errors a lot of the time, I know, I used to fix 'em.
Whilst on the whole I'm all for making pilot workload easier; just because something is all shiny and glassy and says Garmin on it, it only displays what is fed into it, if it gets crap in, you get crap out. It's just hi tec crap and the danger is that folk who aren't very techy minded will assume that it 'has to be right because it's shiny' rather than wondering why low tech map (which is never wrong) and hi tech gizmo don't match. Just my two pennorth.
But they used to land with large errors a lot of the time, I know, I used to fix 'em.
Whilst on the whole I'm all for making pilot workload easier; just because something is all shiny and glassy and says Garmin on it, it only displays what is fed into it, if it gets crap in, you get crap out. It's just hi tec crap and the danger is that folk who aren't very techy minded will assume that it 'has to be right because it's shiny' rather than wondering why low tech map (which is never wrong) and hi tech gizmo don't match. Just my two pennorth.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always love Guppies posts too 
For me situational awareness is more than just planning its a mind thing which you are either blessed with or not.
One of the best indicators of situational awareness is when the plans go out of the window and you have the sort of mind which can work on the hoof.
Its about being able to pick up your game with situations and to stay ahead of the game.
Its about being able to handle multi tasking and loading and yet still be aware of details which crop up unexpectedly.
Some have to work harder at developing situational awareness others its natural.
Planning etc is about protecting yourself from the biggest killer "overload"!
Situational awareness is something else.
Pace
For me situational awareness is more than just planning its a mind thing which you are either blessed with or not.
One of the best indicators of situational awareness is when the plans go out of the window and you have the sort of mind which can work on the hoof.
Its about being able to pick up your game with situations and to stay ahead of the game.
Its about being able to handle multi tasking and loading and yet still be aware of details which crop up unexpectedly.
Some have to work harder at developing situational awareness others its natural.
Planning etc is about protecting yourself from the biggest killer "overload"!
Situational awareness is something else.
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, for what it's worth, that Guppy & Pace are about as right as it is going to get.
SA is not just about knowing in 3D where you are, it is about being aware of everything around that could affect you in any way. Frinstance, We have just bought a pup, (young dog) situational awareness involves, where is he? Are all the doors shut? Where's the cat? Does he look like he wants a pee, or worse? The dog that is! etc. Flying SA involves eveything from. Have I got enough fuel for this trip? Is the a/c serviceable? Is the correct tank selected? Where is everyone else in the sky, & where are they going relative to me? I know I have right of way but has he seen me & what is he going to do if he hasn't? How far & what direction is the nearest alternate? what was ATC saying? Were they talking to me? Is my pax ok? Where are we exactly? When is sunset? etc. GPS is only a tool to help with one question. Planning just reduces the number of un-answered questions.
SA is not just about knowing in 3D where you are, it is about being aware of everything around that could affect you in any way. Frinstance, We have just bought a pup, (young dog) situational awareness involves, where is he? Are all the doors shut? Where's the cat? Does he look like he wants a pee, or worse? The dog that is! etc. Flying SA involves eveything from. Have I got enough fuel for this trip? Is the a/c serviceable? Is the correct tank selected? Where is everyone else in the sky, & where are they going relative to me? I know I have right of way but has he seen me & what is he going to do if he hasn't? How far & what direction is the nearest alternate? what was ATC saying? Were they talking to me? Is my pax ok? Where are we exactly? When is sunset? etc. GPS is only a tool to help with one question. Planning just reduces the number of un-answered questions.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS is only a tool to help with one question.
How far is it to the alternate,
What other airfields are within range and how do I get to them,
What is the next and the next frequency,
What does the plate for the airfield look like,
Where is the traffic that just called,
What is the weather doing ahead,
What is the wind doing,
What is the outside temperature,
What is my ground speed and airspeed,
What do I need to do regarding controlled airspace,
Where are the danger areas.
I could go on. It is all there for you on current glass displays, if not exactly a simple GPS.
I cant do half of that in real time in my brain so I am glad to have the technology on my side.