Who Thinks This is a Good Idea?

[5x5]

Here's an interesting news item from AVwebFlash. I've added the highlighting to emphasize the statement that I think is really misguided. It's not the aircraft handling itself that needs to be simplified, but the skill of the pilot making the correct inputs at the appropriate time that needs to be amplified. Filling the sky with idiots isn't the answer to anything but Diamond's desire to sell more airplanes.

DA42 Fly By Wire Progress


In Austria, a Diamond Aircraft DA42 twin has been flown with digital fly-by-wire systems to demonstrate active electronic control that the company hopes will one day be widely applied in light aircraft, changing how people fly. In the test aircraft, most functions are manipulated by the digital system, including both the flight and engine controls. The system can control basic flight safety by limiting flight parameters like pitch, bank and airspeed, but can also react to environmental disturbances like turbulence. Researchers and Diamond hope it will evolve to eventually provide automated takeoff and landing, and Diamond imagines similar systems could ultimately reduce the skill level required by the pilot, making flying more accessible to more people.

Researchers located in several countries have contributed to the project, which has scaled down the system's weight size and expense for application in light aircraft. The system's hardware and software have been designed with redundancy and to recognize internal component failures. When failures are detected, the system automatically reroutes commands through different electronic paths to different actuators, bypassing critical failures. The hardware and software were developed in Germany. The system was tested in simulation in the Netherlands. And flight tests were performed with a final prototype in Austria. The project is designed to develop maximum levels of onboard automation. Project researchers hope their work will significantly reduce the accident rate of small airplanes by creating an onboard system that will permanently and constantly assist pilots in the control of small aircraft.

[Shiny Side Up]

Diamond imagines similar systems could ultimately reduce the skill level required by the pilot, making flying more accessible to more people.

At what point where the skill level of the pilot is decreases sufficiently that we cease to call him one?

[Cat Driver]

It won't sell unless they put a full screen texting system in it so the people flying in it have something to do.

[Masters Off]

Perhaps they're trying to do something similar to Airbus, limiting the attitude of the aircraft.
When it comes to Autoland, well, I can see that being a whole nightmare of paperwork and a bit of a pipedream.

But hey, if cirrus says you don't have to worry about spinning anymore (chute happens,)
Then what if Diamond says..you don't have to worry about know what a spin is...or a stall...or a spiral dive...or skid, slip, or anything other than a 15 degree banked turn or straight and level, climbs and decents no more than 10 degrees up and down. Gee, that almost sounds like getting on an airliner, sitting in row 32G beside some fat guy, with the little pretzels and flat coke for $10. What's the fun in that?
Would diamond serve flat coke on their mini-airliner too?

[Beefitarian]

making flying more accessible to more people.

Isn't that why they started putting steering wheels in airplanes? There was that one that didn't have rudder pedals either.

[Siddley Hawker]

For those that may be multitaskally challenged - you know, those that require permanent and continual monitoring of aircraft control - I think I'll invent a little mechanical arm that comes outta the center pedestal and scratches the pilot's ass.

[CID]

For what it's worth I don't think it's a "bad" idea. Automation and technology has improved aviation over the decades just like any other mode of transportation.

Do you still want to set the ignition timing then crank your engine by hand before you drive to work every day? Do you like that power steering and power brakes and heated seats and Bluetooth?

The outdated romantic notion that aviation must stay "pure" is always challenged by the new gizmo on the market. Everyone said that GPS was bad because nobody would be able to navigate but it has revolutionized air travel making it MUCH easier to navigate. Operators are running regular scheduled service to place that had spotty coverage at best in the "old days".

There are plenty of airplanes out there for the purist who wants direct connection from stick and rudder. Nobody is mandating fly-by-wire but the article is right. Automation is a good thing. Increased automation over the years is proportional to the increase in aviation safety. And that's no coincidence.

It's interesting that this comes just a couple of weeks after Embraer released their vision for single pilot airliners.

[Meatservo]

Well, GPS was supposed to enhance the navigational capabilities of aircraft that were assumed to have good pilots in them, and that is in fact what they do. There are things you can do now that you couldn't before, like finding a camp in the tundra in the winter in overcast skies and two miles visibility. A welcome side benefit is that the idiots are getting lost less too. It's not supposed to be implicit permission to be an idiot and forget the principles of navigation, which are so tied into situational awareness I'm not sure where one starts and the other leaves off.

I feel the same way about this. I used to know an instructor who was afraid to instruct in tailwheel aeroplanes because he didn't know how to do it. I offered to teach him myself, and he wasn't interested, claiming that he didn't need to know it and he'd rather not expose himself to the risk of doing something that he saw as being unnecessarily tricky. I walked away from that conversation thinking to myself that if you aren't skillful enough to even be able to learn how to fly a taildragger, I don't think you should be flying ANY aeroplane. In fact, if you're so stupid that you lack the basic ability to master a light plane, I don't want you to be flying over my neighbourhood at all. Physically handling the plane is the LEAST challenging part of being a pilot. I say again, if you're too stupid to master the basic handling of a small aeroplane, stay away from them. In fact, you probably shouldn't even be driving.

[Masters Off]

There is, on average 50 Stall-spin accidents in the USA per year, for general aviation accidents. Training has a large role to play, yet the cost of training is expensive, so people find ways of doing less of it. Watching some cadets come out of their private training course last summer, their favourite words were 'direct-enter-enter'. I took one flying without a GPS, he was horrified.

It's an interesting thought. Some guys like the thought of autopilot and making things easy. They like flying doctor-killer airplanes, and don't really care to get dirty when the time comes to it.
On the other hand, there's a few guys who would love that SuperCub, and could hit that 2000ft or less strip patch all day long, never using more than an ASI, Altimeter and compass (and only because they have to!)

What's the answer?
Well, it will happen. Technology does that, it will continue to automate some of the crafts that we fly. However, we don't all fly Cirrus and Diamond aircraft. So, those guys who like their hand prop Champs can stick to those. Conversely, the guys who embarrass automation and could care less about how the thing handles, well here's a potential Christmas present.

I know guys like Cat and the Colonel offer courses to learn how to get better hands and feet, and teach you to understand your airplane better, and that, I believe, is the best thing to combat the automation. Now if we could find a way to get some of these doctor-killer-airplane-flying pilots to take a few hours in Cats texas taildragger 150...then we could get somewhere.

[Cat Driver]

I know guys like Cat and the Colonel offer courses to learn how to get better hands and feet, and teach you to understand your airplane better, and that, I believe, is the best thing to combat the automation. Now if we could find a way to get some of these doctor-killer-airplane-flying pilots to take a few hours in Cats texas taildragger 150...then we could get somewhere.

Flying a light tail wheel airplane is nothing more than basic flying skills.

When I learned to fly we only had tail wheel airplanes to learn on and it did not take any more time to learn than it does with a nose wheel airplane.....but you did learn how to control direction with the rudder.

By the way the minimum time for the P.P.L. was thirty hours.....many of us received our P.P.L. in the minimum time.

Oh,, by the way I sold the Texas Taildragger several years ago.

[kevinsky18]

Ummm don't we have something like this already? It's called an autopilot and can be found in almost all light singles these days. I'm pretty sure you can get one even in a 172.

I know this is not exactly what they are proposing here but this is the difference I see. Autopilot you hit a AP button and the autopilot takes over and flies the plane. You know it's controlling all the inputs.

This new proposed system you don't hit a button it comes on automatically and lets you move the controls in various directions giving you the impression you're controlling the plane but really it's the computer.
In other words this is the Guitar Hero of aviation. You don't really need to master the skill set just sort of flail your arms in some similar goofy motion and you're now a super star, or top gun pilot.

I do see the plus in this. It will save lives, it will make aviation more attractive to beginners, and hopefully that will translate into lower insurance and operating costs.

I wonder if Wilbur and Oroville would look at us all today and grimace at the fact that we need airspeed indicators, compass and other fancy extras to go flying.

[Masters Off]

Cat, perhaps that's a suggestion to update your website then. Looked like a nice plane.

And I grew up in the era of glass cockpits, fiberglass and composite. I have more time in tail-draggers than I do nose-wheels. My minimum time to licence was 45 hours, I also obtained mine in the minimum time. I didn't touch a GPS until past my first 1000 hours.

I believe how you go through this industry, and the learning you do is your choice. I have friends who've only ever flown a 152 in the circuit at the home airport. I left the day after my licence and never really looked back. Did I take a hard way into the industry, doing 702 Aerial Work? I think so. Did I get paid a lot less, probably. Will I regret it? Never. I'm still not sure what all those fancy buttons do on the garmin or autopilot, to be honest.

I guess what I'm suggesting is, if you want to learn the airplane, learn everything you can about how it flies, you can find a way to do that. If you want to autopilot and GPS direct everything, well, you can do that too. And there's nothing I can do to stop you... Or your stall-spin to final next week. I leave that to the supposed-to-be-guily puppy mill flight schools that are all about profit. They punch out students who can't speak english, land an airplane one wheel at a time, or know any other navigation than that damn Garmin.

[5x5]

Do you still want to set the ignition timing then crank your engine by hand before you drive to work every day? Do you like that power steering and power brakes and heated seats and Bluetooth?

Advancements that introduce more comfort are much different than automating tasks so that less skilled people can undertake a given endeavour that entails certain risks.

Automation is a good thing. Increased automation over the years is proportional to the increase in aviation safety. And that's no coincidence.

I'm not certain that because two things are happening at the same time that there is an actual causal relationship.

And I still say that automation that removes the need for a pilot to understand the relationship between the environment and the required inputs to deal with them will ultimately lead to more accidents, not less. Are you really a pilot if you are basically just along for the ride? I think that makes you a passenger.

[dashx]

I guess back in '68 it was still appropriate to have two pilots even in a "spaceship"......

Daisy Daisy give me your answer tr

[iflyforpie]

They already made a plane that fit the 'aviating for dummies' bill..... 75 years ago. It's called the Ercoupe. You can't stall it or spin it. You can land it at any speed and any crab angle. You drive it on the ground with a wheel just like you drive it in the air.

It never caught on... even through several incarnations well into the dumbed down nose dragger era of today. They are usually bought because of price, low maintenance and operating cost, and their relative uniqueness rather than their safety attributes.

The thing is that there are a couple of them in the trees not very far from where I write this. The easiest flying aircraft in the world can still be brought down by poor decision making. Poor decision making can also bring down the pilot with the best hands and feet (like Sparky Imeson, Scott Crossfield, and Steve Fossett).

[CID]

5x5 are you saying it didn't take more skill to drive a car before electric starters, power brakes, power steering, auto ignition timing, automatic transmission, etc? I disagree. Those technological developments brought automobiles to MANY more people.

With respect to safety and automation, it's long been well known through research that not only are most accidents caused by human error, most of those errors involve failure to operate the aircraft within it's published limitations or outside normal operation procedures. It's been proven that the more critical tasks that you leave to human decision making rather than to unemotional and highly accurate computers, the more accidents will be observed.

Training is a huge factor in reducing accident rates but automation eclipses the effects of training for accident prevention. How else can you fathom the reality that the number of people who die each year in airline accidents has been steady over the last couple of decades while while airline traffic has increased ten-fold?

It's a romantic notion that things like GPS simply allow well trained pilots to expand their capabilities but you're just burying your head in the sand if you don't agree that it also allows less capable navigators capabilities to go where they couldn't go before due to incompetency.

[Shiny Side Up]

Training is a huge factor in reducing accident rates but automation eclipses the effects of training for accident prevention.

No it doesn't. Take untrained drivers and put them on the highway, put untrained people and let them try it with no training and see how many come back. You'll probably have a similar rate. Your perception is common though, since automation is often a far easier route than for the consumer than training is.

[CID]

Who's talking about completely "untrained" people? When I mentioned training it was in the context of advanced training or continuing training. The concept of adding completely untrained operators in the mix is absurd.

[Shiny Side Up]

No, you said:

automation eclipses the effects of training for accident prevention.

To which to get the most graphic example of why it doesn't I used the one with untrained people. With different levels of training though, it still doesn't hold true. Automation never eclipses training when it comes to improving safety,no matter the level of skill or experience we're talking about.

[shimmydampner]

This is a farce. Dumbing down the very basics of flying won't make it more accessible to more people, as it will still be cost prohibitive for the average person. And why should flying be more accessible anyway? From what I've observed, the average weekend warrior barely has the wherewithal to aviate, navigate and communicate at the same time. Do we really want to fill the sky with even more, less capable aviators relying on their machine to keep them safe rather than bothering to develop a modest amount of actual skill and ability?
Sure, automation may be a contributing factor (along with other improvements) to improving airliner safety. But we aren't talking about a highly complex airliner here. We are talking about a basic trainer, as in, it doesn't get any more basic than this. Generally speaking these are aircraft designed to be as forgiving and easy to fly as possible. They are made with the intention of teaching a person the basics of attitude, power and wiggling the flippers at the aircraft's extremities. If a person is too incompetent to learn these simple lessons well enough not to hurt themselves, the answer is not to build an aircraft suited to that incompetence. The answer is to not let them fly!

[Shiny Side Up]

Debating in this manner is unproductive

Indeed, especially since you a) didn't read what I had to say, and presumably got outraged half way through and b) now apparently are arguing counter to your previous statement. Lets be clear though:

Training is an ongoing process. Nothing - not even automation - trumps it in terms of its effectiveness in improving safety. You in your previous post were arguing otherwise, and now you have flipped your position. Which do you hold? Are you in fierce agreement or disagreement of what I just bolded above. Did you get this far through reading this post?

[CID]

Shiney Side Up, I really don't know how you reached those conclusions. I feel as if you're just trying to draw me in to some vortex of illogic.

And sorry to burst your bubble. Automation is overwhelmingly the primary reason for the improvements in aviation safety over the years. Is it any wonder that the least automated aircraft (in the GA segment) also have the highest accident rate? Every automated process in a modern airliner reduces the workload and the probability of incorrect action immensely. It's just a fact. Are you perhaps taking this too personally?

[5x5]

5x5 are you saying it didn't take more skill to drive a car before electric starters, power brakes, power steering, auto ignition timing, automatic transmission, etc? I disagree. Those technological developments brought automobiles to MANY more people.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Upgrades and developments that increase comfort (power brakes and steering) and ones that add convenience (electric starters, automatic transmissions, computerized ignition systems) make driving more enjoyable and comfortable but don't change the basic activity nor the skill required to perform it. As for the increase in the number of vehicles, that is directly related to disposable income worldwide and in North America specifically, the system of roadways and housing placement designed around having cars. Driving itself - steering, accelerating and braking - hasn't changed since Henry Ford.

What Diamond is saying is that they aren't just going to make things easier or more comfortable, but actually eliminate the need for a pilot to do it - e.g. auto land and auto takeoff. The reason small aircraft accidents still occur is that this segment, generally, has the least skilled pilots with the lowest level of training. Introducing actual automation like Diamond is suggesting will only allow the limited skills developed through training to atrophy following training. And I'm not sure that's a good idea.

[Shiny Side Up]

I feel as if you're just trying to draw me in to some vortex of illogic.

Not my intention, but I think we do have some clarity here.

Automation is overwhelmingly the primary reason for the improvements in aviation safety over the years.

You are right that it has been the primary cause of an increase in safety, which I feel is unfortunate since it has been the focus point of improving safety rather than improving training. It is well proven that better training - I won't say increased since quality of training is the primary factor here rather than quantity - is always effective in increasing safety. It also, unlike automation, doesn't give diminishing returns. With introducing automation we've seen effectively how, through out user skill levels, as long as we still have a user we are still not eliminating key issues of flight safety. Effectively we've went as far as we can with automation without eliminating the operator altogether.

The main way to think about the issue is that while automation does increase safety, it only can increase it as a function of the user's training allows, so returns on safety are still dependant on skill training. Hence the example of the unskilled user since the automation can only increase safety for example as a product of the user's skill level, the safety gained by automation in such an equation is still nil. Suffice to say you can have safety with lots of training and no automation, or you can have some safety with little training and lots of automation, or in best case a combo of lots of training with a level of automation which maximises its returns.

The goal of the system suggested by the article in the opening post is that automation can possibly make for a serious reduction in training or user skill which is a grossly false assumption given what I've argued above.

Is it any wonder that the least automated aircraft (in the GA segment) also have the highest accident rate? Every automated process in a modern airliner reduces the workload and the probability of incorrect action immensely. It's just a fact.

But its also a fact that GA users in general also have the lowest training levels and experience levels, and ignores all of the other factors involved (including but not limited to the safety of multi crew operations, the conditions of the aircraft involved and the aircraft typical missions) In point, we have no direct data which points to the returns automation has on changes to this rate. It is however well proven with lots of data on how improving training changes this rate, as an example see MU-2.

[Cat Driver]

Automation sure did not increase safety on AF447.