N5139

Good morning,

Just wondering if the seasoned veterans of the industry wouldn't mind providing some insight. Technological advances in the development of avionics has been tremendous in the past forty years, as has a dramatic increase in air traffic. In your experience, would you say that automation in the cockpit has led to a decrease in the skill required to command a transport-category aircraft, or just allowed us to operate in a "tighter" environment that requires more attention than ever (also enabling better decision making)?

Line experience and a familiarity with one's operation is an invaluable skill set, but I'm just wondering how much things have changed from operating larger aircraft in "green needles" with DME to the RNAV environment. In my very inexperienced (2 years on the job at a commuter) opinion, I'm starting to see that airline flying has very little to do with stick and rudder (albeit very necessary when needed) and more to do with the ability to efficiently make decisions based on numerous sources of information (fuel, weather, comfort, operational demands, duty requirements, you name it). I don't intend for this thread to turn into a "pilotless aircraft" argument for the above reasons, but I just want to get a feel for what it was like before RVSM, Q routes, etc.

Thanks!

E1Out

Wow, that's an AWESOME question! I'm really interested in hearing what the veterans have to say about it as well.

I've got a tiny bit of perspective on this - having been truly lucky enough to have started on the ATR-42 with only a VOR and ADF to navigate... Then going to the B1900 with a KLN90B GPS and no autopilot... Then going to the full glass ERJ (and at first I HATED the automation - and still do, to an extent)... Then to the MD-88, which I personally view as a 1960's VW Van, retrofitted with "Kit" from Knight Rider (basically old school with some very advanced twists)...

I can't wait to hear some of the responses. I've always wondered the same thing.

8-capt

I fly one of the "old" 40 yearold aircraft,that has 3 crewmembers. I will tell you that a box will never replace that 3rd set of eyes in the cockpit.
Automation is good only to a certain extent.

ewrbasedpilot

As someone who's flown the B-727, and now all the "new" 737 variants at CAL (B737-300/500/700/800/900/900ER) the new technology is indeed wonderful but can become daunting at the same time. While the 727 required your attention at ALL times, you tend to get very complacent on the new gens. Old technology makes you "think", whereas the new technology makes you "program". Visualizing a holding pattern with steam gauges vs seeing the holding pattern drawn out for you. The new gens tell you when to climb, descend, slowdown, speedup, put your flaps up or down, etc., whereas you had to KNOW when to do things in the older planes. Every now and then though, the computer will tell you something and throw your whole thought process out, meanwhile you start getting behind the eightball...versus on the older planes you "just flew it". It's nice to have the new gens, but flying the older planes was a blast........ JMHO

theman

I agree ewrbasedpilot.....my first jet was the 727 and it has definitely made me a better pilot and decision maker....a fms is a great tool, but i think it leads to complacency.... you can train a monkey to follow a flight director...

727C47

I've flown the DC-3,the CV340,and the 727 all sans glass and FMS, (the props sans autopilot !),I have always felt wonderfully in sync with my ships,I have just learned glass et al with my new position,and at first blush it seems it will make things easier, hand flying the LAX STARS ,with just VOR/DME in the 727 in WX was work!!!! not to mention the DYLAN3 into EWR, following the yellow brick road will be a nice change of pace.

Led Zep

Good question. I don't who coined this phrase, but it goes like this:

"Automation makes the hard stuff easy and the easy stuff hard."

Led Zep

There have been a few times in the sim when they are training us to fly something the "automated way". Ironically, it would have much easier and much less heads down to just fly it in raw data. Sometimes the automation can create more work than necessary.

N5139

Thank you all for your replies thus far!

One of the reasons I ask is my concern for our profession. The training and experience required to be a solid crew member is just as extensive as many other fairly-compensated professions (if not more), but I feel like we're in a fishbowl. I get a lot of questions from "outsiders" about automation and try to explain to them that hands-on flying has never really been the main duty of an airline pilot. This isn't to say that those skills aren't critical (as I worry that those without "primitive panel" experience will rely too heavily on the pink bars), but that our jobs revolve around the ability to think on one's feet and execute good decision making. As some of you have stated, good decision-making is cultivated by intimate understanding of the aircraft and the operation, among many other variables.

It just irks me when I hear other pilots tell me that this job is incredibly easy and mind-numbingly boring, citing intentions to move on to a more "challenging" career. In my perspective (maybe due to inexperience), you aren't doing your job if you don't find some challenge in this line of work.

As someone with former law enforcement experience, I see a lot of similarities between our jobs and that of a Secret Service agent on a protection detail. Most of the time, we're focused on efficiency and smoothness of movement (negotiating favorable runways, minimizing fuel burns, getting shortcuts, etc.), which takes a moderate level of skill. However, we are expected to be able to successfully manage an engine fire at V1, pick through thunderstorms, and make "gray matter" decisions when those occasions arise (akin to a USSS agent drawing his/her weapon or covering the protectee).

This, of course, doesn't even take into account the fact that the automation can throw you for a complete loop as well.

CE750

Ain't that the truth, and some systems are better than others... for example I prefer the MD11's to the Airbus, even though they're very similar in many ways, but something as simple as Auto-Thrust vs Auto-Throttle or the Implementation of VNAV and Approach Phase/mode on both makes the Douglas far better in terms of SA and workflow.

as an aside, one thing I find very sad is today's pilots (those getting into flying now), in many cases have never flown a true steam gage plane, and have very limited experience with RMI/ or RB and flying VOR or ADF approachesl; or flying an ILS and using a chart and the Compass Locator / OM to keep up with their location. I think this makes for weaker SA and weaker overall instrument skills. I recently went to a flight school in AZ to check out the place for a friends son and the new Cessna 172's they have were all GPS/Glass equipped... these kids learn on this, then go to an RJ and to an Airbus never having flown steam.. I think I'm a better pilot for it that I've spent 1/2 my time with an RMI and a chart..