GA Automation is Good

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
A counterargument to "Children of the Magenta" for us flivvers

"There are no published accident data that report or demonstrate that use of automation or technology by private pilots systematically causes lots of us to misuse or over-use technology, since there are no cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders installed in most light aircraft to collect such data. So when writers and ranters talk about private pilots over- or mis-using cockpit technology in light aircraft, they are only repeating their own biases and opinions, because they have no data to back up their rants. Hence they default to citing a handful of airline accidents. In fact, given the steadily and substantially decreasing accidents in GA during the same period in which advanced technology and automation began to enter the light aircraft fleet in large numbers, the data seems to suggest that just the opposite phenomenon may be going on."
Article Here...
http://airfactsjournal.com/2015/11/automation-technology-flying-light-aircraft/
 
Flying tv screens is boring and lame. Maybe safer, maybe, but still boring and lame.:lol: Less tv and dials, more windows(or open doors.) If I need to be there I'll drive or buy a ticket.
 
Modern avionics certainly add to your situational awareness. I suppose like anything else in the plane, you need to stay current and proficient.
 
How many accidents, incidents, and scary stories back in the good old days started with being lost? How often were the pilots getting lost people we'd think of as being experienced and having good pilotage/navigation skills?

Seems like a screen on the panel that can tell me exactly where in the world I am at all times can't possibly be a bad thing. Yet everyone always talks about what if it fails?

Well I guess if my panel mount GPS, ipad, iphone, and VOR all fail at the same time... and I loose contact with ATC... and I can't see any airports around... and holding the same course I was on doesn't work.... yeah that all might be a problem. This would seem to be an extremely unlikely thing though, I'm more worried about stuff like say... the engine...
 
Hmm, a bunch of VFR pilots.

Try F'ing up a hold using the GPS, and then using a VOR. See which one you get out of faster. VORs don't auto sequence without telling you.

The article's logic is stunning. "We don't know, therefore it's OK." And they use that argument to refute statements by much more experienced pilots. Sure looks like wishful thinking. No competent person makes safety decisions by requiring proof something is unsafe. That's backwards.

My experience is that the GPS ALWAYS needs a backup. Especially IFR (and yes, even if it's not required for WAAS).

Try putting yourself behind a G1000 with a hood on and fly a coupled ILS approach, and count the number of times you ask "why did it do that?" Extra demerits if you bust regulations such as flying the GPS while inside the FAF.

Having seen multiple instances of that from an experienced instrument pilot proficient on a G500 in one flight where I was safety pilot, I'll assert that that blog is wildly FOS.
 
Last edited:
The ADF ,loran and what was considered state of the art ,are being replaced by new technology. Change comes hard to some people. For the pilot that likes to fly low and slow and admire the scenery the new glass ,could seem a waste.
 
From the moment I learned to fly, 2+ decades ago, I have loved and embraced every new technological advance.

First, it was LORAN. I remember the first plane I flew with LORAN, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. That was the end of looking at water towers!

Then it was GPS. My first one was a marine model, and I had to enter the lat/lon for every airport. Finally, I had something that I could take from rental to rental!

Then, it was a Lowrance B&W aviation model. Hot damn, it even had a rudimentary moving map. I was flying a space ship!

Then, the awesome AvMap, with its glorious full color map. They kept promising that "XM weather was coming", and I fell for it for a few years.

Then, the Garmin 496, a HUGE step backwards from AvMap. It's postage stamp sized screen sucked hind teat, but that on board weather changed EVERYTHING about flying! No more did we fly up to a wall of clouds and wonder which way to turn! Now, we saw the precipitation 400 miles away, and made a 1 - degree course correction that allowed us to miss the weather entirely.

Then, ANR headsets! OMG, those first Lightspeed 15s were fragile things, easily broken (but always fixed, for free, by Lightspeed). I've owned every pair of Lightspeed's since then, including their new flagship, the PFXs. To say ANR changed everything about flying is an understatement. I used to arrive fatigued, with a headache, after most flights. Since ANR, I have none of that.

Then, Android smartphones. We instantly had back-up GPS in our pocket, all the time! Fantastic!

Then, tablets! I quickly bought an iPad. Within 72 hours, both Mary and I, used to Android, despised the thing. We sold it on Ebay, bought an Android tablet, and have used Garmin Pilot with ADS-B traffic and weather since it came out in 2012.

Then, finally, in 2013 we made the jump to glass, tearing the entire panel out of our RV-8 and throwing it all away. Since then we have flown behind a 10.5" GRT Avionics EFIS, with synthetic vision and the ability to set up a HITS (Highway in the Sky) approach to any runway in America -- even grass strips.

Now, some here have wondered why two VFR pilots would want glass. All I can say is "go fly with it". You will never again wonder!

Pre-glass vs. Post-glass, the situational awareness alone is worth the cost. Here are just a few reasons:

1. A 10.5" artificial horizon! That's almost like looking at the real horizon, in hazy or dark night conditions.

2. Synthetic vision! We often fly to new airports. I can't even count the number of times we couldn't see the airport until we were practically on top of it, due to ground clutter, haze, scattered clouds, darkness, etc. Now, there is a balloon floating over the virtual runway, on a 10.5" screen. The runway is ALWAYS visible.

3. Night flying. I'm night current, for the first time in 18 years. Flying with an EFIS removes 90% of the stress of night flying, because the daytime world is still visible! It is an incredible comfort, enhancing safety.

4. Engine data, airport data, wind data, weather, etc. -- is ALL available.

Technology rocks! Now, I'm looking at buying the new wireless Lightspeed Tango headsets. :)
 
Last edited:
The primary support for his thesis seems to be that since obtaining data on this subject is impossible (no CVRs, FDRs, etc in light airplanes), the problem must not exist, and trends seen by experienced instructors don't count because they're not official statistics.

When I first started training people in Garmin 430/530-equipped airplanes, I thought I could be an "airplane" instructor...these guys had trained in the avionics at the FBO, but when they bought an airplane that wasn't an Archer or Seminole, the FBO's instructors didn't want their money anymore.

I flew glass cockpits made by Collins and Honeywell, no Garmin, but had experience in the types in which they needed training. I verified with them that they were proficient in their Garmin stuff, including a couple of specific operations, and off we went.

Turns out they didn't have a clue...intercept a radial? Can't figure it out on the Garmin, can't get the HSI to show a VOR. Transition to a missed approach? Wander around in the general direction they were headed on the approach staring blankly at the Garmin.

It went downhill from there.

I'd like to say that was an isolated case, but I regularly see pilots who can't determine what it is they just told the automation to do.

Yeah, GA pilots probably aren't going to crash because they have to do a visual approach without a glideslope, but there were certainly other mitigating factors. It's a symptom of the same problem...getting into a situation that's beyond what they've always been able to rely on the automation for, not knowing how to make the automation do it, and not knowing how to do it without the automation.
 
Last edited:
I find that nothing gets pilots I'm safety piloting for in trouble faster than a G1000 doing something unexpected. I always find myself questioning what leg got sequenced, and on many occasions I found that it was not doing what I wanted or expected it to do. If I don't like what the autopilot is doing, I'm likely to disconnect and start flying a plate or point on the horizon.

I love the automation and the ability to offload some of my work on autopilots and navigation systems. What remains critical is to maintain a healthy skepticism towards what the automation and information displays are doing or showing me, and to constantly second guess these systems.
 
I am currently in school for a type rating in a Citation that has Garmin 5000. This is one of Garmin's first attempts to provide a flight deck for a Part 25 business jet. I'm week 2 into the 3 week initial course and have spent the last 5 days learning the avionics which so far has included 2 full sim sessions and 5 computer based learning sessions. I'm honestly still completely overwhelmed.... This is after flying EFIS for the last 15 years on a few different platforms, and also experience with Garmin 430,530 and 1000. What I've concluded so far with this system is that it's way too much information and way too automated. My sim partner and I have spent the last 2 days trying to right our wrongs (mostly due to inexperience with the system) and figure out " what the hell is it doing now!". If a pilot doesn't know this G5000 system 100% in-and-out I can safely say it would be dangerous more than it would be helpful. There is so much going on and so many things that HAVE to be monitored that it takes a pilots attention away from other duties and procedures. The touch screen controllers are so sensitive and easily 'touched wrong' that you find yourself doing things you didn't know you did. I'm curious to see how in the world it will be safely used in turbulence. The avionics manufacturers are trying harder and harder to take the pilot out of the equation and this system is a good example of that... On the flip side it really does amazing things. I think that synthetic vision might be the biggest, most important innovation the aviation world has seen yet. It will change the whole way we fly IFR and will minimize IFR and CFIT accidents by huge percentages. I think it's a safe bet to say that if the crew that crashed the Hawker the other day had syn vision they would be alive today barring any mechanical issues they could have had. The situational awareness of the system is amazing. If you ever got lost or ran into a mountain with this system you should have your @#% kicked.
So to make a point about the OP I think the new avionics systems have their place in aviation but it's a catch 22 in the fact that nobody is going to actually look out the window anymore. I really think the work saved by automation gets eaten up by higher monitoring attention, remembering exactly what the system will or will not do in different phases of flight, fixing pilot induced programming problems that are easy to induce and I think the biggest problem is how easy it will be to become complacent and counting on the automation to do all the things us pilots used to do.
Pilots fail and automation fail.. Put the two together and what do you have?
 
hkyplr18 said:
I am currently in school for a type rating in a Citation that has Garmin 5000. This is one of Garmin's first attempts to provide a flight deck for a Part 25 business jet. I'm week 2 into the 3 week initial course and have spent the last 5 days learning the avionics which so far has included 2 full sim sessions and 5 computer based learning sessions. I'm honestly still completely overwhelmed.... This is after flying EFIS for the last 15 years on a few different platforms, and also experience with Garmin 430,530 and 1000. What I've concluded so far with this system is that it's way too much information and way too automated. My sim partner and I have spent the last 2 days trying to right our wrongs (mostly due to inexperience with the system) and figure out " what the hell is it doing now!". If a pilot doesn't know this G5000 system 100% in-and-out I can safely say it would be dangerous more than it would be helpful. There is so much going on and so many things that HAVE to be monitored that it takes a pilots attention away from other duties and procedures. The touch screen controllers are so sensitive and easily 'touched wrong' that you find yourself doing things you didn't know you did. I'm curious to see how in the world it will be safely used in turbulence. The avionics manufacturers are trying harder and harder to take the pilot out of the equation and this system is a good example of that... On the flip side it really does amazing things. I think that synthetic vision might be the biggest, most important innovation the aviation world has seen yet. It will change the whole way we fly IFR and will minimize IFR and CFIT accidents by huge percentages. I think it's a safe bet to say that if the crew that crashed the Hawker the other day had syn vision they would be alive today barring any mechanical issues they could have had. The situational awareness of the system is amazing. If you ever got lost or ran into a mountain with this system you should have your @#% kicked.

So to make a point about the OP I think the new avionics systems have their place in aviation but it's a catch 22 in the fact that nobody is going to actually look out the window anymore. I really think the work saved by automation gets eaten up by higher monitoring attention, remembering exactly what the system will or will not do in different phases of flight, fixing pilot induced programming problems that are easy to induce and I think the biggest problem is how easy it will be to become complacent and counting on the automation to do all the things us pilots used to do.

Pilots fail and automation fail.. Put the two together and what do you have?
Click to expand...


Is this the Sovereign+?
 
MauleSkinner said:
The primary support for his thesis seems to be that since obtaining data on this subject is impossible (no CVRs, FDRs, etc in light airplanes), the problem must not exist, and trends seen by experienced instructors don't count because they're not official statistics.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Because we don't have an effective means of collecting data on the problem, therefore, there must not be a problem.

I will agree that it is hard to quantify. Who knows how many GA accidents happened because of gadgets and automation? Answer: no one.

I can only relate personal experience.

Just this week as I was flying the 170 across Arkansas heading back to Virginia, I was just getting settled into the first leg of the flight. I was messing around with the ipad, checking weather and updating my route. I just happen to glance up to see a very nice Bonanza at 10 o'clock zipping along right in front of me. We were both at exactly the same altitude and he passed within 500 feet in front of me. Judging by his lack of any action, I suspect he never saw me. I can't blame him - I wasn't doing any better at paying attention. Had I been going just a knot or two faster or he just a little slower, it could have been a very different outcome....and no one would have ever know it was because we both had our heads buried in our panels/gadgets.
 
They are terrific, once you know how to use them. But they are computers with 10's of buttons and 100's of different states. To really know what they are doing takes many hours. I know just learning a first generation KLN90B IFR/GPS took me numerous hours. I first read the manual start to finish. A lot of information that I didnt undertand, but it got me started. What really got me to "know the box" was going on a long cross country, putting the plane on autopilot, and turning every knob and discovering every combination and permutation of the device. Even then, I was discovering obscure functions after several 100 hours of flying with it. A sim helps, the manual helps, but you really need to go on those long cross country flights with hours of knob turning and discovery. It's a real problem that needs to be addressed.
 
Jaybird180 said:
A counterargument to "Children of the Magenta" for us flivvers

"There are no published accident data that report or demonstrate that use of automation or technology by private pilots systematically causes lots of us to misuse or over-use technology, since there are no cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders installed in most light aircraft to collect such data. So when writers and ranters talk about private pilots over- or mis-using cockpit technology in light aircraft, they are only repeating their own biases and opinions, because they have no data to back up their rants. Hence they default to citing a handful of airline accidents. In fact, given the steadily and substantially decreasing accidents in GA during the same period in which advanced technology and automation began to enter the light aircraft fleet in large numbers, the data seems to suggest that just the opposite phenomenon may be going on."
Article Here...
http://airfactsjournal.com/2015/11/automation-technology-flying-light-aircraft/
Click to expand...

I don't think it really takes a major study to bear this out. Information is always a good thing.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Is it certain that NMAs (near mid-airs) are up or REPORTING of NMAs are up?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter because they were still misses. There is also the question of what constitutes a near miss. If a "near miss" is whenever 2 aircraft get within a distance of 1/4 mile or so, I can certainly see the statistic going up even higher as ADS-B traffic info fills more cockpits. If you get a call from a controller without it, unless you spot them quickly, you maneuver away and you never close the distance. With ADS-B traffic, you look down, you see their predictor line isn't intersecting, and you judge you'll pass clear, so you don't alter course, and you pass safely within Near Miss territory even if you never saw them to avoid them.
 
MAKG1 said:
If the gadgetry really were increasing "situational awareness," both should be down.
Click to expand...

Why? Very few people actually have any real traffic systems in their planes yet. However almost everybody has some form of GPS in their cockpits. Until people get serious about traffic awareness, this is going to happen.
 
Dav8or said:
Why? Very few people actually have any real traffic systems in their planes yet. However almost everybody has some form of GPS in their cockpits. Until people get serious about traffic awareness, this is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it can happen even more with traffic systems and still be safer depending on how one defines a near miss.
 
Last edited:
I'm a huge fan of new technology and automation in the GA cockpit. The reason it is causing so much trouble for people is federal regulation, manufacturer liability and low volume production. Due to these factors, the technologies that could really help us are slow to get adopted, and evolve at a snail's pace compared to non aviation tech.

Because of the huge expense of developing a new "box" and the regulations placed upon them, manufacturers have to sell the same box for decades with little to no change. In addition, to try to coerce aircraft owners into buying them at all at such high prices, they try to be Swiss Army knives and do everything. The result is incredibly complicated devices with horrible, outdated user interfaces. End result is the user getting lost in the device and not being able to find their way out.

In all fairness, the root of the problem is the terrible, antiquated ATC system we have to deal with. If engineers and designers could have a blank sheet of paper and do what they wanted with ATC and in the cockpit, IFR flying would be dirt simple and likely a 10 hour endorsement instead of a whole other license. Alas, it is what it is and we have to deal with it.

In the mean time, I wish there were a way to strip away the regulations and put a cap on the liability so that manufacturers could lower the costs to us and get wider spread adoption of things like TCAS, SVS, and FLIR and also not be pressured to make complicated Swiss Army boxes. What if we stepped back to the old days when each box was dedicated to a task and displays weren't cluttered full of data to the point where you're not sure what to focus on? Maybe a little less multi function buttons and drop down menus would go a long way to keeping eyes outside the cockpit and/or focused on aircraft control?
 
Jaybird180 said:
I revise my statement and say that I disagree with your assessment that NMAs are UP. Looks like the trend is DOWN to me in that link.
Click to expand...

Not since 2009.

If you look at the left side, yes it's down. Until 2009. "Critical" near misses hit a minimum of 6 in 2006, and were 24 in 2014. That's a factor of four increase.

Part 121 near misses hit a minimum of 8 in 2008, to 34 2014.

All categories except "unclassified" have increased by at least a factor of two in that time.

And if you read the associated text, it's clear what a "near miss" is. For instance, a "critical" near miss is one where evasive actions were not possible due to proximity (its example is 100 feet).
 
There is a link to download the csv or excel data. Anyone handy with charting?
 
Dav8or said:
I'm a huge fan of new technology and automation in the GA cockpit. The reason it is causing so much trouble for people is federal regulation, manufacturer liability and low volume production. Due to these factors, the technologies that could really help us are slow to get adopted, and evolve at a snail's pace compared to non aviation tech.

Because of the huge expense of developing a new "box" and the regulations placed upon them, manufacturers have to sell the same box for decades with little to no change. In addition, to try to coerce aircraft owners into buying them at all at such high prices, they try to be Swiss Army knives and do everything. The result is incredibly complicated devices with horrible, outdated user interfaces. End result is the user getting lost in the device and not being able to find their way out.

In all fairness, the root of the problem is the terrible, antiquated ATC system we have to deal with. If engineers and designers could have a blank sheet of paper and do what they wanted with ATC and in the cockpit, IFR flying would be dirt simple and likely a 10 hour endorsement instead of a whole other license. Alas, it is what it is and we have to deal with it.

In the mean time, I wish there were a way to strip away the regulations and put a cap on the liability so that manufacturers could lower the costs to us and get wider spread adoption of things like TCAS, SVS, and FLIR and also not be pressured to make complicated Swiss Army boxes. What if we stepped back to the old days when each box was dedicated to a task and displays weren't cluttered full of data to the point where you're not sure what to focus on? Maybe a little less multi function buttons and drop down menus would go a long way to keeping eyes outside the cockpit and/or focused on aircraft control?
Click to expand...

:rofl: You're not incorrect in where the problem lies, but the fault lies with us aircraft owners and pilots not wanting to pay for what it takes to run a better system. What you suggest is the path of NextGen, which is being introduced in stages, and the cheapest of the stages, ADS-B, what we the owners are responsible for, and look at the resistance. In order to have a 'self directed ATC', everybody has to have the equipment for it, and that will include some very expensive equipment, figure it will be a $100k in every plane.

The reason we have the system we do is because it is the most cost effective way we have to manage the NAS by spreading the big communal cost across the entire tax base rather than burdening it all on each user equally.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
In order to have a 'self directed ATC', everybody has to have the equipment for it, and that will include some very expensive equipment, figure it will be a $100k in every plane.
Click to expand...

You sort of missed part of my point. The new systems that would need to be installed in our planes should not have to cost anywhere near $100,000. Closer to $10,000. However, in reality the way things are now, you might be right. It likely would cost $100,000 and that is the problem with new tech in GA.
 
Pre-rant: I was an avionics guy. I've been an IT guy a long time. I started with LORAN, Doppler, coupled approaches, etc., as a maintainer. Been flying for 40+ years. . .

The new stuff has great capability, absolutely phenomenal. It also has terrible user interfaces. G1000, et al suck to use. They are just the pits, and about as user hostile as is imaginable. yeah, yeah, blah, blag, blah, proficient, blah blah know your equipment blah, blah. . .nonsense. . .

Guys (and ladies) it isn't supposed to be that counter-intuitive. How many us IFR do everything on ForeFlight first, then muck about with the 430/530/1000/Aspen, etc? Yes, Garmin and the rest are constrianed by the FAA approvals, not all their fault. But I don't really care whose fault it is. The UIs bite. . .

In 5 years, we'll look at this stuff like we did the old LORAN with oscilloscope views; obsolete, ancient, awkward. Distracting, labor intensive, and crying out for a new model.

I've sat next to another pilot in a G1000, and watched him not watch not much of anything else for the next 3.0.

So, it is fun to play with, great to have, but very, very goofy to use.
 
Dav8or said:
You sort of missed part of my point. The new systems that would need to be installed in our planes should not have to cost anywhere near $100,000. Closer to $10,000. However, in reality the way things are now, you might be right. It likely would cost $100,000 and that is the problem with new tech in GA.
Click to expand...

If they cost $5k people would *****. Look, you want to live under a system of market capitalism based on consumerism, you have to be ready to pay the price. People love the concept until they realize there is nothing about it in their best interest.
 
cowman said:
How many accidents, incidents, and scary stories back in the good old days started with being lost? How often were the pilots getting lost people we'd think of as being experienced and having good pilotage/navigation skills?

Seems like a screen on the panel that can tell me exactly where in the world I am at all times can't possibly be a bad thing. Yet everyone always talks about what if it fails?

Well I guess if my panel mount GPS, ipad, iphone, and VOR all fail at the same time... and I loose contact with ATC... and I can't see any airports around... and holding the same course I was on doesn't work.... yeah that all might be a problem. This would seem to be an extremely unlikely thing though, I'm more worried about stuff like say... the engine...
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
Most people resist change, it is just human nature. add to that extreme machoism that a lot of pilots suffer from and there you go.
A lot of arguments say that it is not fun, well guess what, fun is relative and what is fun for one is different than what it is for another.
Cheer up and fly what suits you :yesnod:
 
White Bird said:
:yeahthat:
Most people resist change, it is just human nature. add to that extreme machoism that a lot of pilots suffer from and there you go.
A lot of arguments say that it is not fun, well guess what, fun is relative and what is fun for one is different than what it is for another.
Cheer up and fly what suits you :yesnod:
Click to expand...

A moving map or a nearest button is nice, pilots droning along for hours watching TV maybe not so safe. Never mind not fun. Why not stay home and fly the software sim?:lol:
 
I don't know anyone who drones along in VFR watching the screens, most are looking out the windows since that's where the view they are paying a buttload of money for is. In IMC, I much prefer watching in the world go by in real time 3D animation.
 
Henning said:
I don't know anyone who drones along in VFR watching the screens, most are looking out the windows since that's where the view they are paying a buttload of money for is. In IMC, I much prefer watching in the world go by in real time 3D animation.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised. A lot of folks drone along VFR simply to get quickly from one place to another and they don't want to talk to ATC. Those folks aren't there for the view.
 
White Bird said:
A lot of arguments say that it is not fun, well guess what, fun is relative and what is fun for one is different than what it is for another.
Cheer up and fly what suits you :yesnod:
Click to expand...
This...

We all don't have the same idea of what is fun.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You'd be surprised. A lot of folks drone along VFR simply to get quickly from one place to another and they don't want to talk to ATC. Those folks aren't there for the view.
Click to expand...

They won't look out the window without the TV screen either then, in fact they'll be head down more keeping keeping track of things on needles and dials.
 
ff51b09b0560fb30da4cf2464df5e36c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top