Automation dependency stripped of political correctness.
Moderator
if there is required pre-reading
alf5071h (and a couple of others here) has (have) a wealth of knowledge which he (they) make(s) available for the rest of us .. surely a little bit of reading research is a small price to pay for that privilege ?
I'm sure he has better things to do than paraphrase large papers which we can read for ourselves ?
alf5071h (and a couple of others here) has (have) a wealth of knowledge which he (they) make(s) available for the rest of us .. surely a little bit of reading research is a small price to pay for that privilege ?
I'm sure he has better things to do than paraphrase large papers which we can read for ourselves ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's fine, except that despite the fact that he is posting easily the most educated/informed posts on here, few are replying to them due to the language being slightly impenetrable unless you have a PHD in the subject.
Language is about communication.
It matters not that you are correct if nobody is able to understand your idea, and arcane terminology helps nobody on a public forum peopled by those with an interest in the subject but certainly no formal training.
I was not attempting to be rude or lazy, but despite the interest in the subject, I unfortunately do not have time to get a degree in it just to understand the finer points of interesting posts.
The average number of replies to his posts suggests I am not alone.
When I was at school, asking the teacher for a simpler explanation was not considered a bad thing?
Language is about communication.
It matters not that you are correct if nobody is able to understand your idea, and arcane terminology helps nobody on a public forum peopled by those with an interest in the subject but certainly no formal training.
I was not attempting to be rude or lazy, but despite the interest in the subject, I unfortunately do not have time to get a degree in it just to understand the finer points of interesting posts.
The average number of replies to his posts suggests I am not alone.
When I was at school, asking the teacher for a simpler explanation was not considered a bad thing?
Last edited by Tourist; 25th Jan 2016 at 03:13.
Dumbing down is the deliberate oversimplification of intellectual content within education, literature, cinema, news, video games and culture in order to relate to those unable to assimilate more sophisticated information.The term …, meaning: "to revise so as to appeal to those of little education or intelligence".
… It often involves diminishment of critical thought involving the undermining of intellectual standards within language and learning; thus trivializing meaningful information, culture, and academic standards, as is the case of popular culture.
… It often involves diminishment of critical thought involving the undermining of intellectual standards within language and learning; thus trivializing meaningful information, culture, and academic standards, as is the case of popular culture.
We operate in a very complex world; human behaviour is difficult to describe and understand, not that this means a complex solution, but it might require a different approach which currently comes from academia. I regret not having sufficient understanding or the means to communicate this, thus I post opinion and academic references seeking explanatory understanding, through dialogue, two way communication.
One of the industry’s tasks is to translate research into practical applications; the best people to do that are those within the industry, particularly those on the front line who could have unique understanding of how individuals actually operate.
Perhaps the second part of the definition of dumbing down applies to some attitudes in the industry.
Automation Dependency is not a simple cause-effect relationship, that the use of more automation results in a dependency these systems; or that because humans suffer error we should replace them with automation.
Automation is not a dependency as with an addiction, requiring abstinence (fly manually) or a new temperance movement (automate everything), but that it is a 'prosthetic', something which is essential for modern operation, but can be misunderstood or misused.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see how automation can fail to cause a dependency.
Humans require constant practise to be good at anything.
If we expect humans to be able to fly a limited panel raw data non precision approach in a limiting crosswind when the toys fail, then we have to make them practise the same.
The only way I see that humans skills don't fade yet are assisted by computers is if we fly it all ourselves all/most of the time yet have HAL in the background monitoring us and reminding us when we screw up.
That way we are maintaining both skills and capacity.
If Federer didn't hit a ball more than once a week or play a match more than once every six months then he would lose to No 100 on the ladies tour.
Humans require constant practise.
Please Translate This
If Federer didn't hit a ball more than once a week or play a match more than once every six months then he would lose to No 100 on the ladies tour.
Ed
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absence of responses is not always an indication of a lack of engagement, it is just an indication of "absence of responses", period.
Not every post requires an ack or a response, sometimes because the contribution "says it all", and silence is itself, sufficient acknowledgement. Perhaps many more lurk and read, while gaining valuable understanding; such is the value of providing links to others' work.
When complex subjects and views are engaged, a thoughtful response takes time, work and care.
The links to various, apropos documents is both an honest and respectful way of providing information to others engaged in like-minded pursuits. I can think of many such references over the past dozen years or so that have led to primary changes in thinking and perception of what I did for a living over a period of thirty-five years.
A continuance of such collegial ways of discussing complex subjects is welcome and appreciated.
FDMII
Not every post requires an ack or a response, sometimes because the contribution "says it all", and silence is itself, sufficient acknowledgement. Perhaps many more lurk and read, while gaining valuable understanding; such is the value of providing links to others' work.
When complex subjects and views are engaged, a thoughtful response takes time, work and care.
The links to various, apropos documents is both an honest and respectful way of providing information to others engaged in like-minded pursuits. I can think of many such references over the past dozen years or so that have led to primary changes in thinking and perception of what I did for a living over a period of thirty-five years.
A continuance of such collegial ways of discussing complex subjects is welcome and appreciated.
FDMII
Drone reliability
Not sure if this has been posted before but may be interesting reading in this context?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I mean is that even an initially great pilot can't stay great without practise.
You can't practise being a pilot with the automation doing all the work.
Unless you daily/regularly fly raw data/ old school navaids/ no flight directors/ manual thrust etc etc, how can you be expected to be any good at it?
These things are eminently perishable skills.
You can't practise being a pilot with the automation doing all the work.
Unless you daily/regularly fly raw data/ old school navaids/ no flight directors/ manual thrust etc etc, how can you be expected to be any good at it?
These things are eminently perishable skills.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if this has been posted before but may be interesting reading in this context?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absence of responses is not always an indication of a lack of engagement, it is just an indication of "absence of responses", period.
Not every post requires an ack or a response, sometimes because the contribution "says it all", and silence is itself, sufficient acknowledgement. Perhaps many more lurk and read, while gaining valuable understanding; such is the value of providing links to others' work.
When complex subjects and views are engaged, a thoughtful response takes time, work and care.
The links to various, apropos documents is both an honest and respectful way of providing information to others engaged in like-minded pursuits. I can think of many such references over the past dozen years or so that have led to primary changes in thinking and perception of what I did for a living over a period of thirty-five years.
A continuance of such collegial ways of discussing complex subjects is welcome and appreciated.
FDMII
Not every post requires an ack or a response, sometimes because the contribution "says it all", and silence is itself, sufficient acknowledgement. Perhaps many more lurk and read, while gaining valuable understanding; such is the value of providing links to others' work.
When complex subjects and views are engaged, a thoughtful response takes time, work and care.
The links to various, apropos documents is both an honest and respectful way of providing information to others engaged in like-minded pursuits. I can think of many such references over the past dozen years or so that have led to primary changes in thinking and perception of what I did for a living over a period of thirty-five years.
A continuance of such collegial ways of discussing complex subjects is welcome and appreciated.
FDMII
I was merely requesting a bit of help for the hard of thinking such as myself.
Fair enough, it seems I'm the only thick one.
Thread Starter
Unless you daily/regularly fly raw data/ old school navaids/ no flight directors/ manual thrust etc etc, how can you be expected to be any good at it?
These things are eminently perishable skills.
These things are eminently perishable skills.
It should be framed and hung on the wall of every airline chief pilots office and every flight operations inspectors office, too.
Quote from alf5071h:
"Automation is not a dependency as with an addiction, requiring abstinence (fly manually) or a new temperance movement (automate everything), but that it is a 'prosthetic', something which is essential for modern operation, but can be misunderstood or misused."
Quote from Tourist:
"I fail to see how automation can fail to cause a dependency.
Humans require constant practice to be good at anything.
If we expect humans to be able to fly a limited panel raw data non precision approach in a limiting crosswind when the toys fail, then we have to make them practise the same."
I like an academic approach, even when I don't fully understand it - this is Tech Log, after all - but it's useful to draw a conclusion one way or the other, rather than arguing on the fence.
You simply can't do that in an aeroplane. I'm with Tourist on this one.
"Automation is not a dependency as with an addiction, requiring abstinence (fly manually) or a new temperance movement (automate everything), but that it is a 'prosthetic', something which is essential for modern operation, but can be misunderstood or misused."
Quote from Tourist:
"I fail to see how automation can fail to cause a dependency.
Humans require constant practice to be good at anything.
If we expect humans to be able to fly a limited panel raw data non precision approach in a limiting crosswind when the toys fail, then we have to make them practise the same."
I like an academic approach, even when I don't fully understand it - this is Tech Log, after all - but it's useful to draw a conclusion one way or the other, rather than arguing on the fence.
You simply can't do that in an aeroplane. I'm with Tourist on this one.
The quote here by Tourist is the most succinct I have seen on PPRuNe on the subject of automation dependency. Well written.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to an airline from a military and corporate background. What I found there concerns me greatly.
From the quotes during training "this is good as you are ever going to be at handling the aircraft" that I laughed off at the time, but realised was true, to the "minimum standards are acceptable" attitude during 6monthly sims.
I flew in the sim with captains whose patter was awesome, great CRM etc etc, but who simply did not have the handling skills or capacity to fly the aircraft effectively once the toys were broken.
I have no idea how they could continue to operate on the line knowing that an autopilot failure could doom them unless the FO was competent.
I simmed with one who quite simply could not fly a raw data ILS to minimums in bad weather. 3 attempts. He still had autothrust.
I simmed with another who in 5 attempts could not keep it on the runway at vmcg with an engine fail.
These were good guys. The airline had the freedom to pick from the best, yet flying in reliable aircraft which require no skill to operate in day to day usage killed their skill to a level which in my opinion was inadequate to deal with a serious malfunction.
I did not fancy that degradation or skills so I left.
It is worth noting, that the pilots who joined from "crappy" airlines that flew into dodgy little airfields on non precision approaches all the time had far superior skills when they joined our airline, and when jumpseating on one of the old mandraulic fleets my airline had, it was easy to see that their basic skills were still good also.
I now fly a crappy bucket that no decent State would ever allow in their airspace. Raw data manual thrust no flight director every day and my skills are back to a level I am happy with. Ironically, I am paid far more than I was at a legacy airline because there are not many around who can do what used to be called "being a pilot" anymore.
I don't delude myself that I am safer than I was in my Airbus.
Modern airliners are incredibly safe, but that is despite the pilot, rather than because of the pilot. It's the fact that the engineering is so brilliant that piloting is so rarely needed.
At least I know I will never be surprised by the loss of systems that I don't use. I am currently always operating at the lowest level of automation.
I love it!
I think aviation is currently in the difficult final stage where the man machine interface is getting the worst aspects of both.
Humans are monitoring, which is something we are awful at.
Machines are doing all the practise, which is something they don't ever need.
Last edited by Tourist; 26th Jan 2016 at 04:01.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A first known occurrence with Qantas in 2008, then Eva Air in 2012, and was it last year with Lufthansa ... Switch 2 ADRs OFF to regain control.
The navigation systems allowed the aircraft to operate more efficiently, but not necessarily more safely.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
riff_raff, #198; The navigation systems allowed the aircraft to operate more efficiently, but not necessarily more safely.
The argument for autonomous flight has always been the reduction of "human error", regardless of where that human is/was both physically and in time.
The closer we get to actual technical capability, that argument is beginning to look a bit disingenuous. I think the argument for autonomous flight is largely, (and realistically, only) an economic one - it's "cheaper" to eliminate front-end flight crews. Given how these things go, (elimination of Nav's & FE's and now elimination of the value of experience), with automation being the exchange, the arguments will persist and we may indeed achieve a drone-like air transport capability. However, the nature of how incidents and accidents unfold as has been discussed in the thread, (QF32, QF72, riff_raff's example of the EE bay platform - among thousands of other such examples, etc.), make it reasonable to doubt whether human intuition is programmable such that a routine, commercial transport could continuously pass the equivalent of a Turing Test.
But it will definitely be cheaper, although it will be interesting to hear what the insurers have to say.
But that cannot be done in order to achieve reduced risk; that is, a statistically-significant (one stddev) fatal accident rate than the industry has already achieved.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDMII
1. I think you misunderstand the intent.
Nobody wants to make an aircraft that could pass a Turing test.
I would go as far as to say that the exact opposite is the case.
The intent is to remove consciousness and all the problems it brings. The very last thing anybody wants in an autonomous aircraft is a personality.
The mere mention of Turing shows a deep misunderstanding of what people are trying to achieve.
2. You make some statements regarding whether it can be done safer, but have neglected to provide a shred of evidence or research to back them up.
Examples from the past of problems with computers etc are not valid examples for the simple reason that nobody has yet tried to build an autonomous airliner, therefore they are not autonomous.
ie "This Airbus I fly is rubbish! I keep having to help it out!"
An Airbus is designed to always have human pilots. Therefore, humans are part of the strategy for dealing with problems.
We can however point to the many many examples where increased automation has improved flight safety.
In every single instance I can think of, when automation is added to the flight deck flight safety has improved.
TCAS
EGPWS
FADEC
Can you think of an instance where this is not the case?
1. I think you misunderstand the intent.
Nobody wants to make an aircraft that could pass a Turing test.
I would go as far as to say that the exact opposite is the case.
The intent is to remove consciousness and all the problems it brings. The very last thing anybody wants in an autonomous aircraft is a personality.
The mere mention of Turing shows a deep misunderstanding of what people are trying to achieve.
2. You make some statements regarding whether it can be done safer, but have neglected to provide a shred of evidence or research to back them up.
Examples from the past of problems with computers etc are not valid examples for the simple reason that nobody has yet tried to build an autonomous airliner, therefore they are not autonomous.
ie "This Airbus I fly is rubbish! I keep having to help it out!"
An Airbus is designed to always have human pilots. Therefore, humans are part of the strategy for dealing with problems.
We can however point to the many many examples where increased automation has improved flight safety.
In every single instance I can think of, when automation is added to the flight deck flight safety has improved.
TCAS
EGPWS
FADEC
Can you think of an instance where this is not the case?
Tourist, your earlier view appears to be based on a narrow range of experiences – observations, and the gross assumption that the reduced skill is due to automation.
The retention of high skill level requires practice, but even without practice not all skills will be lost (e.g. riding a bike). The vast majority of pilots, including those you observed appear to have sufficient skills to fly safely – undertake the tasks expected in operational situations.
It would be better to consider why those few pilots flew as they did. Perhaps the problem is not with what you observed, but the process of training; why didn’t the trainer/checker intervene, what did the operator know, the interpretation of regulations, what was the organisation’s attitude, and did the regulator have oversight of this. None of which involves automation or dependency.
The regulators normally consider situations that require us ‘to fly raw data/ old school navaids/ no flight directors/ manual thrust, etc,’; this is often based on probability, which is more suited to the certification process, opposed to human behaviour which entails judged risk assessment. A single observation or accident analysis may not justify re training all pilots, particularly if the required outcome cannot be assured. It might be better to teach pilots how to identify and avoid those situations requiring flight with ‘a limited panel raw data non precision approach in a limiting crosswind when the toys fail’ than expect them to retain a rarely used skill. Thus the safety task is to review our expectations of pilots in today’s operations and not in those which we remember.
The nature of modern operations is that there are few cause-and-effect situations; the range of safety intervention requires careful consideration, without basing them on a miniscule data set. This could be aided with a wider view of human performance and use of other sources for evidence such as the process of training and what happens in normal operations.
The retention of high skill level requires practice, but even without practice not all skills will be lost (e.g. riding a bike). The vast majority of pilots, including those you observed appear to have sufficient skills to fly safely – undertake the tasks expected in operational situations.
It would be better to consider why those few pilots flew as they did. Perhaps the problem is not with what you observed, but the process of training; why didn’t the trainer/checker intervene, what did the operator know, the interpretation of regulations, what was the organisation’s attitude, and did the regulator have oversight of this. None of which involves automation or dependency.
The regulators normally consider situations that require us ‘to fly raw data/ old school navaids/ no flight directors/ manual thrust, etc,’; this is often based on probability, which is more suited to the certification process, opposed to human behaviour which entails judged risk assessment. A single observation or accident analysis may not justify re training all pilots, particularly if the required outcome cannot be assured. It might be better to teach pilots how to identify and avoid those situations requiring flight with ‘a limited panel raw data non precision approach in a limiting crosswind when the toys fail’ than expect them to retain a rarely used skill. Thus the safety task is to review our expectations of pilots in today’s operations and not in those which we remember.
The nature of modern operations is that there are few cause-and-effect situations; the range of safety intervention requires careful consideration, without basing them on a miniscule data set. This could be aided with a wider view of human performance and use of other sources for evidence such as the process of training and what happens in normal operations.
FDMII, re autonomous flight. Capability yes; but cheaper, perhaps not.
Consider the safety cases that would be required for the entire supporting infrastructure; will we be able to afford that, let alone ensure equivalent safety as with aircraft. A CS 25 for every element?
And possibly due to a subconscious regulatory bias, which may give credit for human intervention in unimaginable situations, an even higher level of safety may be required for autonomous vehicles. Compare the ‘accepted’ manual landing risk as indicated by operations (IIRC about 10-6), against the higher requirements for an autoland. Even then there are residual risks with triple or dual-dual systems (pitot icing).
Tourist; always love a challenge:
First separate technology from automation; EGPWS, ACAS, technologies have improved safety.
FADEC, automated engine control. 747-8 and 787 had restrictions for Cb related icing, because the FADEC was unable to manage ice crystals. Worst case was that all engines were affected simultaneously, and with ice damage may not restart. Thus the need to avoid the conditions, not practice flying without power.
Consider the safety cases that would be required for the entire supporting infrastructure; will we be able to afford that, let alone ensure equivalent safety as with aircraft. A CS 25 for every element?
And possibly due to a subconscious regulatory bias, which may give credit for human intervention in unimaginable situations, an even higher level of safety may be required for autonomous vehicles. Compare the ‘accepted’ manual landing risk as indicated by operations (IIRC about 10-6), against the higher requirements for an autoland. Even then there are residual risks with triple or dual-dual systems (pitot icing).
Tourist; always love a challenge:
First separate technology from automation; EGPWS, ACAS, technologies have improved safety.
FADEC, automated engine control. 747-8 and 787 had restrictions for Cb related icing, because the FADEC was unable to manage ice crystals. Worst case was that all engines were affected simultaneously, and with ice damage may not restart. Thus the need to avoid the conditions, not practice flying without power.