What do you trust more, "the automation" or the pilot?

[righthandman]

The reason for asking this question is that I am not at all impressed by the majority of the "new generation" of pilots being churned out by these Aviation College Programs.

Accidents will never go away completely no matter how much you try; that's why they are called accidents. Also pilots (people) will always screw up no matter how good they are; it's called having a bad day. To minimize it as much as possible of course, good training will help. But you need people that have SOME skills, SOME talent, SOME common sense for gosh sakes.

Yes I know the pilot working well WITH the automation is the ideal. And yes I know "the automation" has to be programmed correctly for it to work as designed (and yes I know sometimes version xx.yy of the software will have glitches) but based on... as I said... the Next Gen of pilot's being pumped out these days, I have shifted my own personal trust more toward the automation than the pilot skills of some of these younger pilots; although I still would not sit into a pilotless plane! So what say you?

[SunWuKong]

I trust the pilot skills combined with a smart use of the automation, if, depending the failure, the automation is still available.

[iflyforpie]

The reason for asking this question is that I am not at all impressed by the majority of the "new generation" of pilots being churned out by these Aviation College Programs.

Why?

The BCATP of the 1940s was the epitome of a pilot puppy mill, yet this formed the foundation for post-war flying in Canada.

Take a look at accident statistics from the past and they would seem to disagree with you. Everybody goes on about Colgan Colgan Colgan (one of only a handful of fatal airline accidents in North America in the last decade) when far more experienced pilots lost larger aircraft for dumber reasons far more frequently in years past.

The reason why pilots from 40 or 50 years ago are so good are because of a) the experience they've accumulated in those years and b) the fact that the lackluster or dangerous pilots have either killed themselves or got out of aviation.


As far as the original question, I trust both. I would not want a pilot flying manually IFR for long legs, but I would not want a fully automatic aircraft.

[righthandman]

In response to "Why" (do I now trust the automation to save the day) for iflyforpie:

Well from personal experience this is typical:

Student plugs in some numbers into their iphone for some performance/navigation calculation (for example) and STILL manage to come up with the wrong results, no wait... not just the wrong results... simply OUTLANDISH results.


For the flying portion... how hard is it to memorize a few essential items on a simulated forced approach, on a precautionary landing, on a VFR diversion, on entering a hold...(I could go on and on and on)?

I would say of the ones admitted (need to have credit card and a pulse) about 3 in 30 have what it takes = 17% if you don't know how to use an iphone but approx. 10% in my way of calculating it if you know what the hell you are talking about! As I said, I could go on and on but my blood pressure would rise.

[Meatservo]

I hear what you're talking about. The concern I have with the (over)availability of automation isn't that it doesn't work well with the pilots being trained in modern times. iflyforpie makes reference to the pilot training programs of WW2, well, he is right about them being puppy mills, BUT the lack of easy automation made it necessary to have a lot more theoretical knowledge than we do nowadays. If pilots weren't able to master the groundschool, they washed out. Well, it's the same thing now, but who can fail to master the groundschool now?

I'm sure the majority of people in flight schools are every bit as intelligent as they were in the early days of aviation. But I do believe that public school was better; the "high school dropouts" they talk about joining up and becoming pilots were still capable of mastering the ground training programs. I'm talking about navigation specifically: there are people who are quite successful pilots now who I am sure are simply not intellectually capable of mastering the trigonometry necessary (or even the spacial concepts) to triangulate position based on star shots, for instance.

I went to a college in the early 90's and of the 45 or so students enrolled, only about 15 graduated, and this attrition was mostly based on the unsuccessful students' inability to achieve high enough scores on the groundschool stuff. I haven't kept in touch with the school I went to, but I wonder what their attrition rates are now.

As automation progresses, it becomes easier to master something that in the past was something of an arcane art. The easier it becomes to do something, lower the average intelligence of its practitioners. You guys want to talk about the prestige of being a pilot not being what it was, this is why. Planes have almost always had some kind of auto-steering technology available, but when it has become safe for the navigation technology to be based on the same system that soccer moms have in their doge caravans, how smart do you need to be to succeed at learning how to use it?

Maybe you don't need to be particularly intelligent to be a pilot these days, BUT, usually more intelligent people (and I'm grossly generalizing here) are also more responsible, diligent, and self-aware than less intelligent ones.

So my answer to the first question is, if the intelligence and education level of pilots was stable, every advance in automation would result in increased safety (and it has!). But my concern is that as aeroplanes are made easier to fly, industry pressure causes correspondingly less qualified applicants to succeed where they wouldn't have in the past, and this has a detrimental effect on safety. I guess what this means to me is that, by the time they have managed to fully automate an airliner, don't count on the "pilot" to bail you out if something goes wrong with it!

[rotateandfly]

I would say it all depends.
On bigger equipment i would have to say automation is a smart way to free up capacity to be used for dealing with the problem at hand. Especially if you're in big trouble, i.e. smoke in the cockpit I would definitely have the AP fly as long as possible while trying to isolate the smoke source. Same thing goes for everything else, if you're flying the airplane you're just not as up to speed or able to crosscheck what the other guy is doing in an emergency as you are with your hands free!

[FOX69]

righthandman, you made me laugh: I remember being the subject of almost the exact same rant over 15 yrs ago: "You college weenies and your GPS, blah blah blah..." Now I'm the old grouch "No texting during taxi... turn that damn iphone off!"

But seriously, being an automation ninja is a big help in a sophisticated flight deck at a busy airport.

[Meatservo]

If I had a student or for that matter a co-pilot who "texted" during taxiing I would trow him out of the cockpit and refuse to fly with him again.

[FOX69]

Well nobody's dumb enough to admit it: "Yes I am checking my messages, almost done, be with you in just a sec..." The usual answer is "No, was just trying to find my pen, that I dropped, way down into my flight bag..." They're very crafty, that's why we call the FO's, not co-pilots.

[trey kule]

I dont think youth has changed to much since I learned to fly in the 60's. We knew it all. We were invulnerable, and thought we could fly anything with wings...coupled with all the common sense of a horny pit bull at a puppy mill factory.

What has changed is that primary (or ab initio) training was just that. We were taught just the basics. told we had a license to learn.

Today, the aviation colleges are promoting regulations, procedures, and knowledege that cannot be assimilated properly because of a lack of experience...and then the industry is putting these graduates right out of school into airplanes that are sophisticated .
The result is a whole bunch or CRM issues which are being swept under the rug by expecting captains to be trainers, instructors, and mentors, And not expecting out newly minted first officers to be a productive working crew member. The simple fact, is they dont have the experience.

So automation is the answer. Yes there will be accidents. But it will evolve and continue on.
The pilot of the future is going to be a far cry from the pilot of the past or even the present.
Button pushing backups, not decision makers,making less than a good looking cocktail waitress.

just saying is all....

[The Old Fogducker]

A quote from one of my mentors and instructors at Flight Safety Houston ... "a serviceable autopilot will always fly better than you can." At first I was taken aback, until I finally became properly trained in automation use, and it can certainly concentrate on the task far, far better than a human ever can.

The key word in his statement is "serviceable" and the next from my previous sentence is "trained."

Understanding the proper functioning of automation, how to set it up, what it is capable of, learn to keep your hands off the thing and not screw it up, and how to troubleshoot the systems and write intelligent snags beyond "AP U/S .... just doesn't seem right" is super-important. If it doesn't work properly, write it up and get it fixed.

Whether I fly an airplane via inputs to the yoke, or by turning a knob, I could care less .... I provide an input ... the airframe responds.....therefore, I'm flying the airplane.

The Old (knob twiddling) Fogducker

[Joe Blow Schmo]

This would depend on what part of the world we're talking about. In Canada I'd trust both. Generally by the time a pilot has reached the cockpit of an airline he has usually acquired quite a lot of varied experience. Scaring himself a few times and generally learning how to fly. And equally importantly he's probably been in command of something and has had to make decisions on his own.

In some other parts of the world. Not so much. So I really hope the automation doesn't malfunction.

[Gino Under]

Personally, I don't think we have a 'safety' issue in Canada (with airplanes falling out of the sky due to pilot incompetance or lack of ability with automation). I think we may have to focus our attention outside Canada for any good examples of either. I also realize, there are those among us who..... I'll leave that for now.

I somehow don't see that's what's going on (in Canada) right now and of those aircraft that have gone down in Canada in recent times, certainly don't think for a minute they had anything to do with automation specifically. But then, someone more informed than me can feel free to give me a Canadian example.

For years now, we've all been advised to "optimize the use of automation". Great. Speaking for myself, I haven't flown with, found or discussed this issue with anyone who could even begin to define or explain where that "optimum" lies. So, I'm thinking we're left to our own imagination and comfort level to determine what's "optimum". I'm thinking it depends on what aircraft you're flying and how the aircraft specific FCOM 'recommends' you use the automation. Added to that is the individual's own level of comfort and understanding of the automation. In fact, Airbus and Boeing (as well as other OEMs) expect you to take full advantage of their automation and manage the flight. Borrrrrring!

I trust automation. I'm all for automation and I use it to its optimum, always. Mind you, it's MY optimum.

Now, as for the issue of manual flying skills.....

Gino Under

[teacher]

The automation is only as good as the pilot who programed it.

[The Old Fogducker]

Actually, only as good as the output of the training and checking program that turned out the pilot that programmed it.

OFD

[loopa]

In response to "Why" (do I now trust the automation to save the day) for iflyforpie:

Well from personal experience this is typical:

Student plugs in some numbers into their iphone for some performance/navigation calculation (for example) and STILL manage to come up with the wrong results, no wait... not just the wrong results... simply OUTLANDISH results.


For the flying portion... how hard is it to memorize a few essential items on a simulated forced approach, on a precautionary landing, on a VFR diversion, on entering a hold...(I could go on and on and on)?

I would say of the ones admitted (need to have credit card and a pulse) about 3 in 30 have what it takes = 17% if you don't know how to use an iphone but approx. 10% in my way of calculating it if you know what the hell you are talking about! As I said, I could go on and on but my blood pressure would rise.

As Sully says, we need to attract the youngest and brightest. The kind of people that score for perfection and are the same kind of demography shooting to be our future doctors and lawyers. Because becoming a pilot can literally be as easy as in a slacker who graduates with bad study habits, a DUI, bad influences, and has rich parents, and is somewhat fascinated by the idea of putting an airplane into the sky, not passion, just fascination... (no offense to anyone who has had one or more of the above mentioned).

I think what you speak of right hand man is correct, but I feel that there are a few factors affecting why automation would be more trusted than pilot's. In my opinion it has both to do with how flight training is governed, and the type of people it attracts. Like I said, if we attract the same type of demographic that are shooting to go to Oxford, Harvard, or go to med school, or what ever other important achievement there is, I think aviation would be a better place. Why? Simple. We would have smarter people attracted to doing the job. Another factor in the way schools are pumping students out has to do with how Transport Regulates their requirements towards the achievement of a pilot license. To begin with, why are there so many flight schools in Canada? I think if we start there, the rest of the why's and how's get answered. If we had a few, top notch, well regulated schools, that just like the top universities/colleges had a waiting list, and a tough requirement to get in, probably more than a half chunk of the people that are actively flying today would be cut out and not even allowed to begin flight training. Imagine if all the schools we had were Seneca, Confederation, and MFC? How many students could they realistically pump out? Not as many as are being pumped out today I'm sure. This would in my opinion definitely incorporate a system where they raise their entrance requirements, and are now, very vary of the candidates in their selection process. On a side note, there would no longer be any of this "look at me, I'm better than you cause I have a degree from xx College, and you're just a flying club graduate."

On the subject of regulating flight schools, why is it that some flight schools teach the flight test, and the other's teach safety? Making most students feel like it's a better idea to go to the flight school that teaches the flight test because they save money? Again... the attitude towards aviation due to the people it attracts.

You should see how the schools regulate students in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Becoming a pilot is still a tough education, and is highly prestigious. Becoming a pilot in Canada has become as simple as, well I'll write that exam until I pass. Perhaps it has to do with the more relaxed north-american attitude. We tend to be more relaxed and forgiving here about our procedures than the other continents. I'd like to think that the states is the same. But I don't know, as I'm not involved in American aviation.

I think that if you solve the flaws in TC's Flight Training regulations, and make it harder for people to become pilot's, it may revert to trusting the air crew again. But do you see that happening in a capitalist system where money makes all the calls? I sure don't think so. I would like to think that a big reason behind why there are so many flight schools in Canada is because of "something" related to the money making business. Though I'm not a flight school owner, and always hear that flight school's don't make any money. Then why the waste of land and airport square feet? There's got to be a catch!

In the meantime, I think we need to stick to weeding out applicants using the exact methods of discrimination that are used today. Though that doesn't go to say that there aren't flaws in our process of elimination methods either.

Just a rhetorical point, what is to say air crew in the old days were any better? Remember Tenerife? Wasn't the captain one of KLM's most regarded employees?

[Tim]

I have shifted my own personal trust more toward the automation than the pilot skills of some of these younger pilots

and where exactly was your skill level when you were fresh out of school? how much trust did your skippers' place in you? this sounds like another bullshit 'the kids these days...' rant to me.

[righthandman]

I have shifted my own personal trust more toward the automation than the pilot skills of some of these younger pilots

and where exactly was your skill level when you were fresh out of school? how much trust did your skippers' place in you? this sounds like another bullshit 'the kids these days...' rant to me.

TIM... My point (rant as you call it) is mainly directed at the substandard level of intelligence and/or education of the INCOMING "whiz kids" PRIOR to their training process. No matter how hard I/you try, you can't teach common sense for example. If you only saw what I see you'd know what I mean.

I can tell you for a fact I was better prepared to do the training and had better results to prove it, all through my learning process. And I consider the "learning process" to be ongoing even after 7000+ hours...

[iflyforpie]

TIM... My point (rant as you call it) is mainly directed at the substandard level of intelligence and/or education of the INCOMING "whiz kids" PRIOR to their training process. No matter how hard I/you try, you can't teach common sense for example. If you only saw what I see you'd know what I mean.

I can tell you for a fact I was better prepared to do the training and had better results to prove it, all through my learning process. And I consider the "learning process" to be ongoing even after 7000+ hours...

So what you are saying is, you had better education when you came in, and you had common sense, which is why you are a better pilot.

So in order to produce better pilots, we need to educate them better before they start being pilots, and somehow give them common sense.... which can't be taught.

So really in your opinion (and it is only an opinion) there is no way that this generation could ever achieve the greatness of piloting that previous generations did, even though there are no new mistakes and we only stand on the shoulders of those who taught us.


What poppycock and balderdash. Honest aviation authors like Alan MacNutt do much to dispel your myths about seemingly infallible veteran pilots and make for some pretty funny reading too...