Opinion: Is automation causing manual ﬂying skill degradation?
2017 was claimed as the safest year in Commercial Jet Aviation in terms of casualties. Aircraft design and the operational use of automated systems have been continuously improved and advanced to assist the pilots in the "Man - Machine" environment. Maybe even to a point, where we might start to consider: Is the automation on the ﬂight decks today, a “nice to have”, or has it become a “need to have”? What happens when automation fails? Are the pilots actually able to maintain their manual ﬂying skills, and manage attention when juggling concurrent task demands?
During the Asiana 214 flight in San Francisco (U.S.) on July 2013 - where Boeing 777 impacted the ground before the runway - the ﬂight deck was occupied by three pilots. Yet, no one questioned the aircraft state, in regards to the automation mode selected, before it was too late. The lack of understanding the automation selection and the transition to manual ﬂying were acknowledged as a fatal cause of the accident.
Despite highly experienced pilots, the actual ﬂying hours of manual ﬂying turned out to be signiﬁcant lower. An airline policy of recommending automation ﬂying, due to cost efﬁciency seemed to play a role in how much manual ﬂying was conducted. FAA report after the accident stated: “Concern in future Flight Safety issue of Man- Machine, due to the over reliance on Autopilot and Automation.” The FAA estimates that automation is used 90% of the time, leaving only 10% for the manual ﬂying. But does the automation ﬂying actually lead to motor skill degradation, or are there also other factors at stake?
In a NASA study from 2014, “The retention of manual ﬂying skills in the automated cockpit”, 16 active 747-400 pilots were tested on the following parameters: 1) Hand - Eye skills: Instrument scanning and manual control 2) Cognitive skills: Navigation and failure recognition, diagnosis. The ﬁnding proclaimed: “Pilots sometimes struggled to maintain the cognitive skills that accompany manual ﬂying such as awareness of the aircraft's position and recognizing instrument system failure”. The conclusions were:
- Hand - Eye skills: If initially well learned, are reasonably well retained after prolonged use of automation.
- Cognitive skills: Such as navigation and failure recognition and diagnosis, are prone to forgetting and may depend on the extent to which pilots follow along when automation is used to ﬂy the aircraft.
So this study suggests, that if you have been trained properly in your manual ﬂying skills, they will not decay, but some “rustiness“ might occur.
It seems, however, that cognitive skills of monitoring and situation awareness are more dependent on our state of mind. Do we actively monitor, as in continuously checking the aircraft position in regards to the automation, or do our thoughts wander when automation is selected?
The NASA study revealed that during ﬂights with automation, pilots' thoughts were unrelated to task 20% of the time. This could suggest that for a human it can be hard to engage to the monitoring part during all the time. Our mind starts to drift, we get bored. In this state, a transition into manual ﬂying due to failure might be challenging. When automation failures occur, we might end up being too busy ﬂying the aircraft, not leaving room for the cognitive process in regards to navigation, failure recognition and diagnosis, that are vital in this situation. So this could lead to a conclusion that more manual ﬂying is necessary for us to maintain both the motor skills and especially the cognitive skills associated.
This is not news to us that several accidents and incidents have led to changes in training organization around the world, where Upset Recovery and “automation surprise” now has become a part of the training in the simulator. However is it sufﬁcient to train every 6 months, or are both the cognitive and manual skills something we should have a chance to train more frequently? One could, of course, argue that pilots could do it every day on the job. Looking at it from an isolated point of view, that might be true, but maybe there is more to the equation. Do the context in which we work leave room for training of manual skills?
With rising demands in aviation, more congested airspace and airports have followed. Reduced separation and RNAV approaches in the majority of airports. Requiring automation, more precision, and less time to take up the airspace. Alongside is following effective crew rosters, maximizing the use of the crew, causing fatigue issues. The high demands for pilots, providing ﬁrst ofﬁcers fresh from the ﬂight school, and fast track upgrades for captains to be. Inexperience in terms of manual ﬂying hours, but competent in the automation - the magenta children. And then there is of course the policy of the airline in concern. Do that actually encourage pilots to ﬂy manually or not? This do not rule out the choice of ﬂying manually, but this might be some of the factors in a decision of whether or not, to do so.
The question might be: When should we ﬂy manually? How often is required in order to maintain the manual and cognitive skills? On an approach into London, with a new First Ofﬁcer? On the Non-precision approach at night? With reported cross winds close to aircraft limit? Or when your weekly duty hours are passing 45 hours? So has the automation become more of a “need to have” than a “nice to have”?
From my point of view, it has, but mainly as a consequence of the development in today’s aviation. I see a point in the FAA concern, but maybe even more in the ongoing growth of the industry. Are we closing in on the limits of human capabilities with the continuing sophistication and enhancement of automation? Though it might make it easier for us in the daily operation, but are we capable of coping in recognizing the system failures when automation fails? As a CRM Instructor, I ﬁnd this topic a good platform for discussions in the classroom. My belief is, that creating the awareness, sharing thoughts and ideas on how to address the issue might help us in the future. So if you are a pilot, what are your thoughts?
Gitte Furdal Damm is an experienced flight captain with a demonstrated history of working in the airlines/aviation industry. She is also the owner and CRM Instructor at About Human Factors, providing courses within aviation, such as Initial CRM, Recurrent CRM, Conversion Courses, Commander Upgrade, Teaching and Learning and individual coaching to pilots.
Several killed after two small planes collide mid-air in California
Two small planes collide while trying to land at Watsonville Municipal Airport in California...
Korean Air to build loyal wingman drone for South Korea's air force
South Korea’s Korean Air announced winning a bid to build a loyal wingman drone for the country’s air force....
New ultra-low-cost carrier Canada Jetlines receives Air Operating Certificate
Canada Jetlines, the new Canadian startup airline, has received its air operating certificate (AOC) from Transport Canad...