Too much technology

[DaytonaLynn]

I heard a news report today that FAA and NTSB are looking at the technology in the cockpit now. They are saying pilots are not getting proper traing for the newer technology. The warnings, alarms etc are causing pilots issues because it takes them longer to react and/or decide what issues are.

What are the thoughts of members here about this?

As a fairly low hour pilot, 150 hours, I can see thevissuesv in my lack of tome and knowledge, but where does the pendulum swing in favor of the pilot?

 

[Henning]

The pendulum swings when the pilot learns the equipment. One beef I have, and this applies on boats more so than planes, is that every damn beep sounds the same and there is no annunciator panel to tell me what it's about. At least the gear in my plane only has a couple of places to look and then something is written there. On the typical bridge I have a dozen or more places I have to look and often what the issue is is not made obvious.

 

[ChitDisturber]

It's a quick fix, button pushing, law passing and more gadgets are a easier "solution" then teaching SOLID fundamental skills (pilotage / stick and rudder) and exercising common f@cking sense.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I heard a news report today that FAA and NTSB are looking at the technology in the cockpit now. They are saying pilots are not getting proper traing for the newer technology. The warnings, alarms etc are causing pilots issues because it takes them longer to react and/or decide what issues are.

What are the thoughts of members here about this?

As a fairly low hour pilot, 150 hours, I can see thevissuesv in my lack of tome and knowledge, but where does the pendulum swing in favor of the pilot?

They're insane.

"The warnings, alarms etc are causing pilots issues because it takes them longer to react and/or decide what issues are."

If the equipment that is presenting the warning or alarm is removed from any given scenario, how does that resolve the underlying problem causing the alarm - except perhaps to hide it from view again?

It is better that it should take a few moments for a pilot to figure out what the equipment is alerting them to (or decide to make a precautionary landing to sort things out) than have the FAA or NTSB insert themselves into a realm over which they should have no business: how prepared a pilot is at any given time to handle optional equipment installed at the discretion of the aircraft owner.

I can just see the NTSB recommending that the FAA issue regs that require I be tested at each BFR in knowing where to look on my WingX app for my current estimated altitude AGL...

 

[MAKG1]

The pendulum swings when the pilot learns the equipment. One beef I have, and this applies on boats more so than planes, is that every damn beep sounds the same and there is no annunciator panel to tell me what it's about. At least the gear in my plane only has a couple of places to look and then something is written there. On the typical bridge I have a dozen or more places I have to look and often what the issue is is not made obvious.

You know, I've noticed this. There is significant human factors research going into aircraft, but these are generally for airliners. In spam cans, the human factors are often terrible. Ever try to turn the floor-mounted trim wheel on a Warrior with an overweight passenger? One of the Warriors I have access to requires one to choose between wearing the shoulder harness and switching the tanks (the solution is obvious, but the choice should not be necessary).

And owners go through even less thought. Mount an iPad on a yoke? Not a good idea. And you don't want it in the center of your field of view either.

 

[MAKG1]

It is better that it should take a few moments for a pilot to figure out what the equipment is alerting them to (or decide to make a precautionary landing to sort things out) than have the FAA or NTSB insert themselves into a realm over which they should have no business: how prepared a pilot is at any given time to handle optional equipment installed at the discretion of the aircraft owner.

Are you SURE about that?

A ground proximity warning is a case where you don't want anyone "thinking." You want takeoff power (or even full power -- better to burn up a turbo/turbine than to hit the ground) and a pitch up immediately. Same deal for some traffic alerts.

It is indeed possible to get alarm saturated, and the resulting freeze up can indeed kill. Pilots are really, really bad people to be making that decision. NASA is doing work on this, but not to my knowledge for GA. Who would you have make these design decisions? Pilots? Pilots generally don't build airplanes, and those that do have a less than stellar record at flight deck design. Example: John Denver crash.

 

[Henning]

I think the solution to the 'technology overload' is an annunciator panel.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I remember seeing an interview with Vietnam era fighter pilots saying they shut warning stuff off(including SAM alerts) because it was distracting from trying to stay alive. I know what my equipment preference is for, I don't know what is the safest for the lowest common denominator pilot.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Are you SURE about that?

Absolutely. Your comments below are interesting but address design aspects, not usage training. The thread subject appears to be about lack of training due to "too much technology" not "poorly designed technology."

A ground proximity warning is a case where you don't want anyone "thinking." You want takeoff power (or even full power -- better to burn up a turbo/turbine than to hit the ground) and a pitch up immediately. Same deal for some traffic alerts.

It is indeed possible to get alarm saturated, and the resulting freeze up can indeed kill. Pilots are really, really bad people to be making that decision. NASA is doing work on this, but not to my knowledge for GA. Who would you have make these design decisions? Pilots? Pilots generally don't build airplanes, and those that do have a less than stellar record at flight deck design. Example: John Denver crash.

Ironically since the FAA is looking to make changes to Part 23 that would in theory allow more technology to get installed faster and cheaper into small planes, pilot owners are likely to be finding themselves doing even more cockpit layout design in coming years. This appears to be the case of one part of the FAA not really groking the consequences of other changes other parts of the FAA is being asked to implement.

(The cause of the John Denver crash had multiple causes; yet warnings from high tech devices don't seem to have been a factor.)

 

[frfly172]

I happen to like the warnings.i now get a verbal message I am at 500 ft.,get an audio stall warning,terrain warnings. And messages when at my waypoint. The warnings are only as good as the pilot using them,how many gear ups do we still hear about?

 

[MAKG1]

.
(The cause of the John Denver crash had multiple causes; yet warnings from high tech devices don't seem to have been a factor.)

Unless you consider a fuel selector to be "technology" and a "user interface." It is both, though people often presume technology is always electronic.

Human factors are about perceptions and the ability to perform actions, and it doesn't matter much whether it's "high tech" or not. Electronics allows the opportunity to make a long-existing problem much worse. It is not a new problem. Another big deal was the conversion of audio interface to visual for four-course navigation. It's a similar problem -- a human has a problem distinguishing more than one sound at a time, so using that for navigation was not the best idea.

 

[Velocity173]

Well if the OP is referring to the story that was on the news tonight, it wasn't about not knowing how to use the technology, it's in over reliance on technology. Specifically they were commenting on pilot's over use of the autopilot.

This is nothing new. We've talked about this before on POA and I think most people agree that automation is good but there needs to be a good mix of hands on flying to stay proficient.

 

[tehmightypirate]

To me it's not warnings and announcements, those are always useful or at the very worst unnecessary; it's the amount of button presses and mental process to setup equipment that can detract from situational awareness. Obviously the equipment gives us that back tenfold if we set it up right and know how to do it efficiently but, yes, in that regard we are getting fairly dependent. That said, in a perfect world with no failures this isn't a problem. The only catch in my mind is getting to know your equipment well and practicing using the equipment to solve problems and knowing how to solve problems your equipment makes for you. After learning to fly the G1000 I quickly learned when to say "not now electronics" and just fly the plane. Deal with the buttons, autopilot, and whatever else later.

For example, pitch trim failures. Constant blaring "trim!" "trim!". Just pull the autopilot breaker and be done with it. Level it out and find a time when you can troubleshoot later.

 

[rich0]

Seems to me the article was taking issue with a lack of basic piloting skills - you have two pilots in the plane so that one can be the "autopilot" while the other figures out how to fix the problem. I would think that the solution would be more simulator training in abnormal situations or normal situations without autopilot.

Really - the only reason that we put pilots in planes is so that when all the automated equipment fails they can still fly the thing. If they can't actually fly the planes under those circumstances then we might as well get rid of all the pilot-caused errors and expense and just have the computers fly the airliners completely. I'm not suggesting that is really the solution - but rather that if the whole reason for having pilots is so that they can look out the window and fly the plane, then we better make sure they know how to look out the window and fly the plane.

I don't think General Aviation suffers the same set of problems. Plenty of problems there, but over-reliance on automation probably isn't a big one (at least, not in the 172M I'm learning in!). As far as getting rid of certification requirements goes, it would be nice if the seatbelts could be modded in the plane I fly so that they actually stay fastened...

 

[Henning]

Well if the OP is referring to the story that was on the news tonight, it wasn't about not knowing how to use the technology, it's in over reliance on technology. Specifically they were commenting on pilot's over use of the autopilot.

This is nothing new. We've talked about this before on POA and I think most people agree that automation is good but there needs to be a good mix of hands on flying to stay proficient.

That's a different issue, that's not being confused by the alarms, that's not being able to handle the cause of the alarms.

 

[dmspilot]

I don't think General Aviation suffers the same set of problems. Plenty of problems there, but over-reliance on automation probably isn't a big one (at least, not in the 172M I'm learning in!). As far as getting rid of certification requirements goes, it would be nice if the seatbelts could be modded in the plane I fly so that they actually stay fastened...

Do you mean where the shoulder harness connects to the lap belt? I recently figured out that looping the shoulder harness under the seat belt and then connecting it helps.

 

[RJM62]

Reliance on technology to do what human brains used to do breeds complacency, whether in the cockpit or anywhere else.

-Rich