Dependence on Automation
 

I read this on another forum, posted by a former co-worker (in response to a related article). I thought I'd put it up here for perusal, debate, and discussion.

I think it is particularly germane right now, with the discussions of raising the minimums for Part 121 to 1500 hours (and at least one well known school attempting to thwart it). In other discussions, much has been made of how other countries utilize low-time, ab-initio pilots. Their is often the tacit implication that these low-time pilots are just as qualified as someone with more "real world" experience - a claim I very much dispute and disagree with. Without further adieu, here are my counterparts thoughts on the matter (speaking as on who flies with some of these individuals - the identity of the country has been sanitized, so as to not distract from the actual pertinence of the observations):

The emphasis at the end is mine, but this is another thing which concerns me with even our training here in the US: With even the lowliest of aircraft having a G-1000 panel with technology which causes a B-777 to feel inadequate, are tomorrow's aviators developing the basic airmanship skills they should have, or are we truly breeding an entire generation of "children of the magenta line?"

Discuss...

I have about 1600 hours dual given, half of which is in Technologically Advanced Aircraft. My experience with lower time pilots is that they miss out on a lot of basics because of the automation. Even as I try to get them to focus on the basics of airmanship, they all want to jump into the technology and learn the automation.

My personal opinion: No TAA until AFTER the instrument checkride.

That would be my thought as well. Unfortunately, the aviation universities all seem to be headed down the TAA path. I'm sure it looks better on marketing brochures, but is it really producing the best product?

It's fair to say that a vast majority of all industries are progressing towards increased automation as the practical availability of reliable technology increases. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Increased automation usually lends increased efficiency, safety and allows the operator(s) to conduct more tasks in the same window of time. When it comes to air transportation, I think it's quite safe to say that automation has come as a great benefit. In initial training (private, instrument), however, as you guys have said, that can led to the development of unsafe reliance on automation.

Even training in glass aircraft can be viewed as a crutch in itself. While it's understood that your basic six instruments will relay the same information no matter what the form they're presented in, it's clear that student pilots learning on a glass aircraft will not be proficient in a 6-pack configured aircraft, and vice versa for that matter. Then add the automation element into that, and you can see a huge difference between a student that learned to fly with an integrated autopilot/flight director and one who didn't even have an autopilot.

I'd tend to agree that basic training should be accomplished in a manner that provides proficiency single-pilot without dependence on automation (e.g., instrument training without an autopilot). However, at the same time, these student pilots do need the automation exposure and, quite frankly, automation proficiency because we do know they're going into an industry that does rely heavily on automation.

I've wondered about this outlook:

AF pilot training now with the T-6.. which has some pretty nice looking avionics:

http://koti.welho.com/msolanak/t-6cockpit2.jpg

curious to hear if that's a good or bad thing... maybe it doesn't even matter.. wouldn't imagine they have any less airmanship than before, but I have no idea.

On the civilian side.. if I had to do it, I'd recommend people start out in a J-3 as well as have a diverse aviation experience, whether it is aerobatics, tailwheel, seaplane, glider, etc... just something to be well rounded in aviation... not just the G1000 to Twinstar to CRJ route.

Yeah, there's something to this...
 

I transitioned to glass after about 1000 hrs and learning to fly in a Cub. I did my homework with the manual and a simulator, so the G1000 transition was painless. In fact, I combined it with my multi training, and got the Commercial AMEL in 10 hrs, so going from steam->glass was straightforward, at least for me.

Then after flying only glass for awhile, I did an instrument proficiency check in a steam gauge airplane. I did OK, but I really had to work at it.

My thought when I finished that IPC was "Hmm...if I had never flown on steam gauges before, this would've ended poorly."

If someone gets his instrument training in glass, should s/he be allowed to fly IMC on steam gauges without further training? Right now the regs are mute on this, but I wonder if it'll stay that way.

Lots of arguments back and forth on this one with most agreeing automation changes the workload but as to more tasks in the same window of time.. not sure.

I would like to read more on how automation increases safety, especially with reference to mode confusion, etc.


Automation, like other systems, are just tools which have become for some unfortunately a crutch. Without automation they are befuddled or over-tasked. Normal descents without VNAV, going point to point, understanding energy management requires more than just pushing the button and when not getting what is expected, pushing it a second or third time. While I think automation is great, it can also reducing flying to just a boring event (and maybe that is what some want.)

Good luck at finding an aircraft to rent that has steam guages, I don't think they make them anymore. All the employers I have worked for over the last 14 years use nothing but glass.

Unless you're in a high $$ area most rental aircraft are still steam gauges. True cessna and piper no longer sell steam gauge aircraft, but have you EVER flown at a flight school with new aircraft?? There are a few out there with that type of equipment but expect to pay top $.