|
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 reason many [pilots] are so reliant on automation is because they have never had the proper amount of time or experience to master the purest form of airmanship; flying manually for them can well be a dangerous proposition. Tough lessons learned from personal experience. Often, I'll let them fly manually when asked, however, when tired or simply tired of holding their hand, I'll either say no or make them keep the flight director on. Many senior types with backgrounds in the military {editorial note - not the US military} are no better and sometimes worse than the sharp young guys with little total time. Like many things in life, it simply depends on the individual and situation. When first arriving in [country other than the US], we couldn't get them to land on the center line of the runway; vast improvement has occurred over the last couple of years. On their behalf, they have mastered the CDU/FMC like no other and put my typing skills to shame. My theory is, their intelligence and high relative technical orientation makes the boxes their comfort food in the cockpit. Some Expat. captains will tell them to sit on their hands and leave the damn box alone. However, their technical proficiency is appreciated when time is short. Unfortunately, this trend towards total automation is the reality for most aspiring aviators today. I'm patiently waiting for the first Drone Airliner from Boeing. God help us all. If the [somewhere other than the US] public were truly informed, they would fear the fact that technology can also be used as a crutch. 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. |
Originally Posted by AtlCSIP
(Post 793039)
My personal opinion: No TAA until AFTER the instrument checkride.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Rustee
(Post 793270)
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.
I would like to read more on how automation increases safety, especially with reference to mode confusion, etc. 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). |
Originally Posted by Bashibazouk
(Post 793718)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by ryan1234
(Post 793342)
I've wondered about this outlook:
AF pilot training now with the T-6.. which has some pretty nice looking avionics: the T-6, while having a lot of glass, has little automation, and the syllabus further restricts what the students are allowed to use. There is no auto-pilot. The student hand flies the entire syllabus. You're also still looking at separate gauges for airspeed, VSI, and altitude. It's basically a glass 6 pack. There is a GPS unit with a map display, but we weren't even allowed to use that through much of the syllabus. We were required to maintain our orientation in the training MOAs using the TACAN and ground references. Even moving into the next phase with the T-1A, we weren't allowed to use the autopilot nor the flight director until after the first phase of training. Even moving to my front-line platform, autopilot coupled approaches were rarely flown, and due to issues getting an analog flight director to talk with digital instruments I'd often just turn the thing off. The Air Force is still concerned with producing pilots who were not reliant on automation. |
Originally Posted by bozobigtop
(Post 793822)
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.
|
Not where I live
Originally Posted by bozobigtop
(Post 793822)
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.
One or two glass cockpit airplanes can be found. They may not make a lot of steam gauge airplanes anymore, but there are plenty still around. |
I teach at a flight school that has new 172s with the G1000s installed. We do all of our training, including private and instruments in them. It’s hard enough in the six packs to get a new student to look out side, with the G1000s it’s similar to trying to get a kid to look away from Call of Duty. You ask them where they are and they instantly turn on the autopilot and look at the moving map. Heaven forbid that the GPS fails, they might have to use a VOR or (I’m going to say it) a chart. You can “Fail” these items, but in the back of the students’ minds, it’s still on. It all works by PFM. The dependence on automation is getting harder to over come. I agree that private and instrument should be done in the six packs. Angry Outburst Over.
The WildSmurf |
The sad thing is that students and even pilots who are dependent on automation, don't really know it. They think they are just fine. When I was teaching, we had DA-40s with the G1000 and autopilot. Personally, I only allowed students to use it on a long cruise portion, and even then only once. Other than demonstrating and doing a couple of approaches with the autopilot, they never touched the thing.
That works well for me now. My current plane has no autopilot. That's one of the reasons I wanted to be assigned when I was hired. I knew I didn't have a lot of TT and wanted to keep developing my flying skills. Some day, I'll gladly let the autopilot fly, but for now, I'm happy to have to work and be better at what I do. I just worry that the next wave won't have that same desire, or worse, they won't realize they need it. |
Personally, I only allowed students to use it on a long cruise portion, and even then only once. Other than demonstrating and doing a couple of approaches with the autopilot, they never touched the thing. |
Today's aircraft have "TOO MUCH" information. It's distracting because it is so new and neat. I do agree, it makes lazy and unskilled pilots. The hardest thing to do is make them hard-working and honest. I love the glass and automation, but I came from a background of 3400hrs before I worked full time with it.
|
Originally Posted by detpilot
(Post 794656)
We get in trouble with our leadership for doing that very thing, it's pretty frustrating. I don't think the autopilot should be used until after the instrument checkride.
I am having the same problem with the leadership at where I am located. It’s very frustrating, I just look and shake my head. The leadership here has thousands of hours and has lost the perspective on how the students learn. It’s easy for a person with that much time jump in a G1000 and fly with no problem. Just imagine a new student and how he/she would react. They have no idea what it means and how to use it. They expect the student to just pick it up. It just makes me feel better that I am not alone in this. WildSmurf |
While there is some validity to making sure students know all their equipment, I can't see any reason they would need to use the AP before getting a PPL. Obviously, they have to be able to shoot an approach with the AP (I believe that's in the new Inst. PTS), but that shouldn't take much. What reason do your superiors give for students needing to use an autopilot?
|
Originally Posted by the King
(Post 795219)
While there is some validity to making sure students know all their equipment, I can't see any reason they would need to use the AP before getting a PPL. Obviously, they have to be able to shoot an approach with the AP (I believe that's in the new Inst. PTS), but that shouldn't take much. What reason do your superiors give for students needing to use an autopilot?
WildSmurf |
I found this on another forum, apparently it's from the Indian media blasting pilots who would dare hand fly. I fear the day this attitude comes to the US.
There is great discussion in this thread about the merits of training in glass cockpits. While glass can do some great things for pilot SA, there still needs to the the basic [and proficient] airmanship that backs-up the glass. I'd love to see a prohibition against auto pilots and glass in training aircraft, and get back to teaching new pilots how to FLY the aircraft! What follows, if true, is an indictment of negligence of the Indian government in certifying new pilots. Pilots play with lives by flying manually for 'ultimate kick' Soaring in the sky, pilots at times switch off the automation instruments in the cockpit to fly the aircraft manually. Sounds bizarre! The truth is that they do it to get that 'ultimate kick'. In the process, they compromise on passenger safety. Though 'raw data flying' (the technical term for manual flying) is not prohibited, pilots are not exposed to manual flying, which is normally carried out only on a simulator. It is done to train pilots in case the computerised systems in the cockpit fail. Pilots of various airlines have been found violating the parameters of standard flying procedures. While a senior commander of a private airline admitted that pilots do go for 'raw data flying', Air India director (flight safety) has gone a step ahead and issued a circular cautioning the pilots. The Air India circular stated that there were cases of 'parameter excedence' and advised pilots to stick to the standard operating procedures. There have been more than 40 incidents when flying parameters were breached, said an official familiar with monitoring flight data recorders (FDR). The FDRs, which store flight data including the ways in which the pilots handle aircraft instruments, are regularly monitored by senior airline officers to analyse whether pilots have been following flying rules. In case a breach is noticed, the pilots are summoned and counselled to ensure that passenger safety is not compromised. About two- three years ago, an Indian Airlines aircraft had deviated from its flight path and moved towards the Rashtrapati Bhawan prompting the official carrier to issue an alert. The incident happened because the co-pilot was flying manual. An Air India pilot admitted that during 'raw data flying', parameters have been violated. For example, while landing at the IGI airport, the normal rate of descent of an aircraft should be around 700 ft per minute. But it could shoot up to 2000 ft per minute during manual handling, thereby endangering passenger safety, the pilot stated. This then sets off a chain reaction putting the pilot under tremendous psychological pressure. In the panic-like situation, the pilot might find it difficult to simultaneously adjust parameters like direction and altitude for a safe landing, he said. And then there is the possibility that instead of landing at position 'A' the aircraft might land at place 'B', or instead of runway 29, at runway 27, he explained. In case of automated flying, computers do these jobs for the pilot. At times, the passengers may never get to know about the violation and it is the air traffic control which pitches in to guide the pilot for a safe landing. An air traffic controller pointed out "there have been instances of level busts and sudden rates of descent and climb were noticed which weren't desirable". Former DGCA Kanu Gohain said, "Raw data flying can't be banned. It is part of the training and if pilots are violating the parameters, they should be counselled and sent for corrective training". Capt A. Ranganathan, an aviation expert, stated that manual flying should be normally tried on simulators. "It can be practised once in a while at airports with low air traffic density but certainly not at busy airports such as Mumbai or Delhi," Ranganathan said. A senior commander of a private airline said 'raw data flying' should be done rarely since passenger safety is involved. "But the pilots should also be comfortable with manual flying, what if the onboard computers fail," he said. He also conceded that manual flying should be tried on simulators as at times things could really go out of hand. Aviation experts pointed out that the purpose of complete automation was to enhance safety features, besides saving the pilot from fatigue or any other distractions and making the cockpit less crowded. The automation inside the cockpit includes flight director, auto thrust and auto pilot, the job of which is to direct flight, control climb, descent, direction, speed and other aspects. A senior instructor pilot admitted that younger pilots pester them for 'raw data flying' while some seniors flaunt their skills by completely switching off automation. |
Wow, just wow...
|
Wow...that's unbelievable. Not sure how a pilot is going to remain proficient at raw-data if they never do it. I don't see much point in flying cruise portions (with people walking the cabin, and only needing to hold altitude and heading) but flying a descent or climb is good for keeping your brain sharp. Maybe I'm misinformed, since I fly a turboprop with no AP, but I thought we were certified to fly an aircraft through all phases of flight within ATP (or, at the very least, Commercial) standards.
Smurf, my best advice is to keep teaching your students the same way, but add in a little more about the G1000, even if it comes during the prep for the stage check. If the student is good and prepared, it shouldn't be a problem for him or her to pick up the glass system stuff. After all, there's no substitute for a good, basic foundation of skills. You may only have to show them once. |
Originally Posted by the King
(Post 795958)
After all, there's no substitute for a good, basic foundation of skills. You may only have to show them once.
The WildSmurf |
You know what I miss most from my 121 regional airline days?
Turning all the damn automation off and hand-flying the River Visual 19 @ DCA. Sometimes, a guy/gal just needs to be a pilot...period. |
Not sure if one is available for the G1000, but Garmin has free downloadable simulators for their associated units. These have been very helpful to my students by doing ground with just the sim software so they can focus on just learning the box without the pressure of flying the airplane or the associated cost of running the aircraft.
When they do instrument x-c's on them I have fly it/program it on their own on the sim first so that way they are much better when we fly it. |
First Jobs
The biggest problem I see, (Note: I am not, nor have been a CFI) is that many first jobs, other than flight instruction, are in steam gauge AC. Barons, Aztecs, Navajo's, etc. If your lucky like I was, you could be flying Lear jets down to mins on the sixpack. I think all students need to learn "old school", plenty of time for the glass later. This automation is, while progress, I fear to the detriment of the next generation of Pilots, and ultimately the flying public.
|
Originally Posted by fjetter
(Post 796127)
Not sure if one is available for the G1000, but Garmin has free downloadable simulators for their associated units. These have been very helpful to my students by doing ground with just the sim software so they can focus on just learning the box without the pressure of flying the airplane or the associated cost of running the aircraft.
When they do instrument x-c's on them I have fly it/program it on their own on the sim first so that way they are much better when we fly it. I have NO experience with any of the Garmin products and the few times I saw them in flight - well...I was too busy flying the airplane to really grasp the automation. I heard about the FREE downloads available and got the Garmin 430/530 User Manuals and Simulators. I'm hoping to impress my new bosses with my basic knowleedge :) since he specifically complained about some of the pilots having been flying for quite a few months and knowing hardly anything about the GPSs :o Btw - the information available from these Garmin units in incredible and the G1000 system is just out of this world! USMCFLYR |
Once you learn one Garmin, you've learned them all. Started with a 430, and when I started flying larger stuff, the 530 was a piece of cake. Transition to a G1000 was also really easy. They are nice products, but are way too much for new students. As mentioned before, students end up looking at the shiny displays the entire flight instead of what's right out the window. And that's a shame, because I always thought everything looks nicer from a few thousand feet up.
|
Originally Posted by the King
(Post 796832)
Once you learn one Garmin, you've learned them all. Started with a 430, and when I started flying larger stuff, the 530 was a piece of cake. Transition to a G1000 was also really easy. They are nice products, but are way too much for new students. As mentioned before, students end up looking at the shiny displays the entire flight instead of what's right out the window. And that's a shame, because I always thought everything looks nicer from a few thousand feet up.
USMCFLYR |
All the GPS functions are the same across the whole line-up of Garmin Products. What takes time is in the G1000 the Com/Nav functions change slightly, but are easy to pick up. Then there's the expansive features such as the Vertical Profiles(that show up on the PFD and set up in the FPL menu vs. a VNAV page) and all sorts of cool trip planning features. It really can be "too" much information for your day VFR types, but hard IFR, there's not much info you can't get access too assuming you have full XM weather, and charts
|
Originally Posted by Ewfflyer
(Post 796891)
All the GPS functions are the same across the whole line-up of Garmin Products. What takes time is in the G1000 the Com/Nav functions change slightly, but are easy to pick up. Then there's the expansive features such as the Vertical Profiles(that show up on the PFD and set up in the FPL menu vs. a VNAV page) and all sorts of cool trip planning features. It really can be "too" much information for your day VFR types, but hard IFR, there's not much info you can't get access too assuming you have full XM weather, and charts
Ewfflyer - how could I outline a box of airspace though if I wanted to on the 430/530 series? I know most SUAS is already displayed - but usually it is huge chucks of airspace (Warning Areas for example) and local units further break that airspace into many smaller areas. Accept for using Suer Wypts to define the airspace and then linking them together as a flight plan, I didn't really see another way of sequencing. Any ideas? USMCFLYR |
On the main page (the second one in NAV) if you push the right iknob it will display a cursor. If you forget, the knob says PUSH/CRSR. You control the cursor with the same knob (big part for right/left, small part for up/down). Once you've moved the cursor into an area of airspace (like a shelf of a Bravo, MOA, etc) you can push ENTER and it will display stats for the airspace including altitudes and what kind of airspace it is as well as the name.
You can do the same thing to ID airports, navaids and the like. I often scan ahead of my route and if I see something I'm unfamiliar with or need to know if I'll be in or under a Bravo, I'll highlight it and check. Takes just a few seconds. And when you get done, you just push the knob and it will re-center the map on your aircraft. |
Originally Posted by the King
(Post 797064)
On the main page (the second one in NAV) if you push the right iknob it will display a cursor. If you forget, the knob says PUSH/CRSR. You control the cursor with the same knob (big part for right/left, small part for up/down). Once you've moved the cursor into an area of airspace (like a shelf of a Bravo, MOA, etc) you can push ENTER and it will display stats for the airspace including altitudes and what kind of airspace it is as well as the name.
You can do the same thing to ID airports, navaids and the like. I often scan ahead of my route and if I see something I'm unfamiliar with or need to know if I'll be in or under a Bravo, I'll highlight it and check. Takes just a few seconds. And when you get done, you just push the knob and it will re-center the map on your aircraft. Was this is response to my question? If so....you misunderstood my question. An example of my question would be - flying along the east coast - you'll see airspace out over the water called the W-72. I do know what you speak of - that I could activate the cursor and scroll it over the area and it would highlight it and tell me that it was the W-72. But my question would be if I was assigned a certain area within the W-72 - how best to outline that particular area defined by Lat/Long? Additional note. After all that study of the 430/530 I find out that they are getting rid of the aircraft with the 530 and the others have a 496 - which I've never looked at. AH! Study early - Study twice as they say :D:eek: USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 797335)
Additional note. After all that study of the 430/530 I find out that they are getting rid of the aircraft with the 530 and the others have a 496 - which I've never looked at. AH! Study early - Study twice as they say :D:eek: USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by ryan1234
(Post 797339)
getcha one of those Garmin 696's .... Those things are pretty freakin' cool.... fits like a kneeboard
Unfortunately - I am in Pt Mugu today just taking a look at the facilities and aircraft and I can say with *certainty* that a 696 would NOT fit in that cockpit! Hummmm....did it get smaller over the years or have I grown??? (No need to answer :o) USMCFLYR |
USMCFLYR, yes, I did mistake your question. Not exactly sure how you would accomplish your goal. I might have to do some research.
|
Originally Posted by the King
(Post 797554)
USMCFLYR, yes, I did mistake your question. Not exactly sure how you would accomplish your goal. I might have to do some research.
So far the only solution I came up with was using the USer Waypoint feature to input the Lat/Long in as separate legs of a flight plan and then the Map display would show the first leg as Magenta and the other legs as White, but it would build a box to be displayed on the Map page. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - ------------- That seems very time consuming though and I won't have a lot of time. It will be better if the points are already define by the airspace on the Map page because then I could use the cursor to drop a waypoint and then link them together. Just playing with ideas on how to use this which may be all academic now that the plane has the 496 in it rather than the 430 like I thought. :( USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 796018)
You know what I miss most from my 121 regional airline days?
Turning all the damn automation off and hand-flying the River Visual 19 @ DCA. Sometimes, a guy/gal just needs to be a pilot...period. Of course the 9-osaur doesn't have any automation, so I didn't have to click it off. I loved flying that airplane. It is one of the last true stick and rudder airliners. A 2 axis autopilot with no auto level off, no autothrust, no VNAV, no RNAV, no autobrakes, no FADECs, and the only glass on it was the glass covering the steam guages. :p It was extremely valuable for me to be able to fly the DC9. Helped keep my skills tuned, as their really isn't any automation to rely on. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:42 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands