Airline Pilots Rely Too Much On Automation, Says Safety Panel 270
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Nearly all people connected to the aviation industry agree that automation has helped to dramatically improve airline safety over the past 30 years but Tom Costello reports at NBC News that according to a new Federal Aviation Administration report commercial airline pilots rely too much on automation in the cockpit and are losing basic flying skills. Relying too heavily on computer-driven flight decks now poses the biggest threats to airliner safety world-wide, the study concluded. The results can range from degraded manual-flying skills to poor decision-making to possible erosion of confidence among some aviators when automation abruptly malfunctions or disconnects during an emergency. 'Pilots sometimes rely too much on automated systems,' says the report adding that some pilots 'lack sufficient or in-depth knowledge and skills' to properly control their plane's trajectory. Basic piloting errors are thought to have contributed to the crash of an Air France Airbus A330 plane over the Atlantic in 2009, which killed all 228 aboard, as well as a commuter plane crash in Buffalo, NY, that same year. Tom Casey, a retired airline pilot who flew the giant Boeing 777, said he once kept track of how rarely he had to touch the controls on an auto-pilot flight from New York to London. From takeoff to landing, he said he only had to touch the controls seven times. 'There were seven moments when I actually touched the airplane — and the plane flew beautifully,' he said. 'Now that is being in command of a system, of wonderful computers that do a great job — but that isn't flying.' Real flying is exemplified by Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, says Casey, who famously landed his US Airways plane without engines on the Hudson River and saved all the passengers in what came to be known as the 'Miracle on the Hudson.' The new report calls for more manual flying by pilots — in the cockpit and in simulations. The FAA says the agency and industry representatives will work on next steps to make training programs stronger in the interest of safety."
They're sometimes required to fly on autopilot (Score:5, Informative)
There are a couple of parts of the flight where the pilot is required to use the automation. The biggest is during cruise in what's known as RVSM airspace, where the vertical separation minimums are reduced from what was standard before RVSM was implemented. There, if your autopilot quits, ATC will send you down below the RVSM floor. RVSM is in use above some altitude in the 48 states and on transAtlantic routes. (I don't recall the exact altitude.)
The other is in flying an instrument approach to very low altitudes, known as a category III approach. IIRC, those must be flown on autopilot in order to continue below category III minimums.
Re:In the SIMULATOR? (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of expensive to put them in an empty commercial plane just for training. That's why they usually have a more experienced pilot in charge who can take over if necessary. And the argument of having them fly a plane that's not full goes against the "every life is precious" philosophy that most western countries embrace. Sooner or later, they have to make the leap.
Re:In the SIMULATOR? (Score:5, Informative)
What alternate sensors, that aren't already in use? GPS? Far less reliable than pitot tubes, due to weather, and that's just one example. Come on, practical engineering please, and not crackpipe dreaming....
And the systems to see the broken engines would be powered by what? Also, the emergency maneuvers have to be programmed in, based on human experience. Humans also have the advantage of being able to generalise and abstracting, able to adapt from one situation to fit into another situation more or less on the fly.
Hudson landing, until the pilot activated the APU, the flight computer was crippled.
Let's face it, automated cars is a fundamentally easier to solve problem, due to far fewer variables and complications, and weaker forces involved.
Re:In the SIMULATOR? (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) need at least 1,500 hours of practical, i.e. non-simulator flying experience before they can become one. A commercial airline pilot (level below ATP), needs at least 250 hours. And that's not to say "... in his lifetime ...", there are even more restrictions.
Yes, they usually do ALSO train in simulators, but the hours required here must be actual plane-flying.
The problem with long-distance flights is though that most of the time there is really nothing to do for pilot once the plane reaches the cruising altitude and auto-pilot is on (even on smaller planes). You have to watch the skies, the instruments, listen to radio - and that's it. Most of the work is done during take-off and landing (approach).
Re:Why put the automation in if not to use it? (Score:5, Informative)
That veteran pilot was a passenger that just happened to be on the plane. 99% of pilots would not have been able to pull it off. So what should we do about that?
That's not exactly the full crux of what happened. The DC10 had two pilots and one engineer. There was another pilot who happened to be a flight instructor that happened to be a passenger and he went up to the cockpit to assist when the plane lost hydraulics. From my understanding the instructor provided assistance by controlling the throttle but didn't take over. Could the crew have handled themselves? Who knows [wikipedia.org].
Dennis E. Fitch, an off-duty United Airlines DC-10 flight instructor, was seated in the first class section and, noticing the crew were having trouble controlling the airplane, offered his assistance to the flight attendants. Upon being informed that there was a DC-10 instructor on board, Haynes immediately invited him to the cockpit, hoping his instructional knowledge of the aircraft would help them regain control. Upon entering the cockpit and looking at the hydraulic gauges, Fitch determined that the situation was beyond anything he had ever faced. . . Haynes, still trying to fly the airplane with his control column while simultaneously working the throttles, asked Fitch to work the throttles instead.
Re:self-flying planes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In the SIMULATOR? (Score:4, Informative)
One of the more frequent causes for a deadly airplane crash is a spatial disorientation of the pilot. The vestibular system is distorted in flight and if the visibility is low, there is no chance for a human to determine the current position in space without instruments.
Re:The real problem with the Air France crash (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why put the automation in if not to use it? (Score:4, Informative)
NASA has actually conducted tests with special flight control software that can fly the aircraft using only differential engine power, even in some cases with an engine inoperative. It performed beautifully, much better than a human pilot could. But this is just one of the many unexpected things that can happen to an airplane (and extremely rare at that). You can't program everything into the systems, you still need basic on the spot common sense surprisingly often. As an airline pilot, I can't tell you how many times I've had to keep the plane's automation from doing something completely stupid because of some malfunction in the software.
People often cite the statistic saying that most accidents are caused by pilot error, but those don't include the huge number of malfunctions of automation that were corrected by the pilots and therefore did NOT end up in the statistics.
Re:self-flying planes (Score:4, Informative)
Except the problem is false sensor readings can't be handled by a pilot either. Trusting your human senses just doesn't work with piloting, and has been the cause of any number of light plane and several major jetliner accidents too.
When sensors on a plane malfunction, you can't just look out the window and know what's wrong. Similarly there's a lot of concern about exactly the type of deferrence you suggest - co-pilots that, due to their culture, feel unable to question or overrule perceived bad decisions of the captain.
It's a complicated problem and is not easily explained as laziness on anyone's part.
Re: self-flying planes (Score:5, Informative)
What ^ he said.
I've flown VFR on a dark night with no visible horizon. It's an unsettling feeling when there's a lit road in the distance, at an angle to the real horizon. Your eyes naturally attune to the road, and tell your brain the aircraft is banking. Your inner ear says you're level. After a few moments, that part of your brain that handles balance starts to freak out and throw its hands up in disgust with the conflicting information.
It takes willpower to trust that the artificial horizon on the attitude indicator is indeed correct, despite that voice in the back of your head whispering that it could be broken and you should trust your eyes instead.
Re:self-flying planes (Score:5, Informative)
Pilots are not permitted to fly more than 100 hours per month.
Citation required. I'm a pilot and I know of no such limitation.