Does Automation Make Pilots less Proficient - Assignment Example

Does Automation Make Pilots less Proficient? Name: Institution: Date: Does automation make pilots less proficient? Introduction The piloting of a commercial aircraft comprises of engaging in multiple tasks in a real-time setting hence requiring pilots’ attention, as well as cognitive resource allocation. Pilots have to engage in cockpit task management since they cannot perform all the tasks requiring their attention at the same time (Flin, O’Connor & Crichton, 2008). Consequently pilots have to prioritize the tasks from the most important to the least important and allocate resources basing on the prioritization. However, things have changed with advances in automation in the aviation industry. Automation is applied for many reasons such as marketable safety as well as economic benefits like enhanced reliability, fuel saving, reducing crew complement, ease in maintenance support, reduction of crew training time, and enhanced cross-crew qualification (Dismukes, Berman & Loukopoulos, 2007). Despite the obvious benefits accruing from automation, there are many challenges or risky situations that have jeopardized aircraft safety leading to accidents and incidents as a result of automation. This proposal discusses the challenge of automation in aircrafts and the effects it has on the proficiency of pilots. Does automation make pilots to be less proficient? The purpose of the proposal is to highlight the imminent danger that lies within automation and bring to the attention of all stakeholders on the importance of further research being done to come up with solutions to the problem. This proposal has a vast audience and targets all stakeholders in aviation including engineers, the government pilots, cabin crew attendants, station controllers, aircraft manufacturers, and even the passengers themselves. All the stakeholders mentioned are affected with aviation safety and incidents or accidents affect their careers or further training. The government is concerned about the safety of its citizens and has a mandate to protect them. The report comprises of the problem section that defines the issue at hand and why it is being discusses; the objectives section outlines the why the research is being carried; and the solutions sections gives recommendation suggesting solutions to the problem that has been defined. Problem Advanced technology available to flight crews has to great extent enhanced aircraft efficiency, as well as improved safety while at the same time leading to reduction of workload in the course of critical phases of the flight. However, the gains resulting from application of automation have occasioned unanticipated side effects that unfortunately compromise safety. A lot of research has dwelled on pitfalls and challenges of autopilot or flight deck automation and the proper manner of developing flight deck technology. Automation has brought about new challenges that comprises of reduced situation awareness, flight crew workload, degrading of fundamental piloting skills, reduced situation awareness, and incompatibilities of the cockpit systems and Air Traffic Control System (Kanki, Helmreich & Anca, 2010). Manual flying skills are important and their degradation can be illustrated in reduction of two flying skills, that is, the cognitive skills and psychomotor skills. The psychomotor skills are observable through the physical act carried out by the pilot on controls to launch the aircraft in space or change its course. The cognitive skills are not obvious but are necessary actions that are done by the pilot to monitor, predict and plan future and current aircraft states and trajectories needed to attain navigation objectives. Degradation in cognitive and psychomotor skills is issue very critical in the case of failure of automation. Due to degradation of operation skills pilots takeover the automated task inappropriate, incorrect or inefficient manner once automation fails. This inefficiency has led to near miss events, incidents and catastrophic accidents where precious lives have been lost. In case of malfunctioning of automation pilots have often communicated human errors that have led to incidents and catastrophic accidents. The disconnection of autopilot has often led to wrong reaction from the pilot when he or she takes over. This illustrates degradation in manual skills. Pilots are often caught off-guard in case of failure of automation. Consequently, automation has resulted into accidents following a lull or miss action of the pilots in case of a malfunction. The challenge of automation emphasizes the manual skills on the part of the pilot in case of incidents. The proficiency of pilots has been questionable in case of failure of automation hence the question as to whether automation make pilots to less proficient. Objectives This proposal report emphasizes the need to evaluate the application of automation in aviation by reviewing incidents and accidents resulting from human error in case of automation failure. The aviation industry has to be aware of the setbacks that are brought about as a result of automation. The issue of proficiency of pilots has come into the picture following errors committed by pilots hence increasing the risk following disengagement of automation. Ideal solution has to bridge automation with manual skills and allow active interaction of the pilot with the system. The importance of manual skills for pilots in the wake of automation cannot be overemphasis. The reaction of pilots in case of a malfunction of automation highlights the essence of cognitive and psychomotor skills for pilots. The analysis of aircraft data often had pilots of automated aircraft show large deviations from the assigned courses, as well as aircraft state parameters and larger deviations from bank and pitch attitudes as compared to pilots of conventional flight deck aircraft. The vast differences have been witnessed during the landing and approach phases. These disparities have to be dealt with in order to ensure that risk is not increased in effort to automate the system. Automation has to partner with other agents during the flight and it should not be seen as taking over the situation. Complacency of the pilot has to be dealt with by ensuring they are engaged with the system and know what to do in case of malfunctioning of automation. Relying of programmed actions without verifying the entered data can lead into accidents or incidents that would have been avoided. The panic mood exhibited by pilots in case of an incident shows the degradation of manual skills that should be applied in such cases. Training has to emphasize the importance of manual skills. Solution Pilots have to maintain their flight skills as well as their ability to maneuver aircraft manually in the standard set by the PTS. The manual skills should not be lost with the advent of automation. Automation has to complement the process instead appearing to takeover. It is of essence that of aircraft with automation to disengage from time to time the automation and fly the aircraft manually with the aim of maintaining their stick-and-rudder proficiency. Some major airline suggests that crews have to practice their instrument approaches within fair weather conditions and apply autopilot in case of bad weather conditions and monitor parameters of the flight. Proper automation management needs a thorough understanding on the manner in which the autopilot interacts with the rest of the system (FAA, 2009). An advanced avionic aircraft provide enhanced safety as well as increased situational awareness. Without a clear strategy of information management, these technologies make it easy for unwary pilot to lull into complacency as a passenger in command. There is increase in risk when pilots are unable to monitor the systems. Failing to check outcomes of processes and being unable to monitor the systems make the pilots to be detached from the aircraft operations. This complacency led to the catastrophic aircraft accident in Colombia in 1999. A multi-engine aircraft managed by two pilots hit the face of Andes Mountains. The aftermath examination of the FMS showed that they had entered incorrectly one degree into the FMS hence placing the aircraft off the intended course by 60 nautical miles (Harris, 2012). They had in their possession all the required tools to monitor and manage their flight but instead they resigned to the fate of automation to manage and fly itself. The system followed the programmed prompts hence leading the aircraft into the mountain where multiple deaths were reported. The pilots created their own hazard when they failed to manage the system. It is risky when pilots completely rely on automation in managing flights. The aircraft was unable to out climb the mountain owing to the course set by the pilots on the programme. Pilots have to be engaged in planning a realistic flight route in order maintain situational awareness. Pilots have to be ready to verify computer data entries in the course of the flight instead of completely relying on automation even when there is malfunction. Automation has its own benefit in enhancing efficiency and safety but is important to understand the entire system before enjoying the benefits (Rottger, Bali & Manzey, 2009). The essence of manual skills has to be emphasized in training and during flights and hence avoiding the incidents of human error in case of malfunctioning of automation. Automation has to be integrated in the system while ensuring the pilot remains active instead of being a complacent passenger. References Dismukes, R.K., Berman, B.A., & Loukopoulos, L.D. (2007). The limits of expertise: Rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents, Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Harris, D. (2012). Human Performance on the Flight Deck, Melbourne: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2009). Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, New York: Skyhorse Publishing Inc. Flin, R., O’Connor, P. & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the Sharp End: A guide to Non-Technical Skills, Aldershot: Ashgate. Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R.L. & Anca, J. (2010). Crew Resource Management (2nd edition). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rottger, S., Bali, K., & Manzey, D. (2009). Impact of automated decision aids on performance, operator behavior and workload in a simulated supervisory control task, Ergonomics, 52 (5): 512-523. Read More