Pilots Really "Six Figure Professionals"?

[flyover]

That's a tough claim to back-up. Overall technology (construction techniques) has improved. Maintenace oversight has been increased. Maintenace training and techniques have improved. Things have been learned from past accidents (explain how automation has anythign to do with Doppler Radar, Windshear detection and avoidance equipment/techniques, etc.). Training (CRM) has improved vastly. And, yes, "automation" has been introduced.

I'd wager it's a combination of ALL of those things ... not solely automation that has driven saftey upwards. It also speaks volumes for pilot professionalism and the human being itself that during probably one of the worst downturns the industry has seen safety has risen. Not many other professions can claim that and it was/is human beings doing that, not automation.

For all the advances of "automation" it all only works right if you have smart, properly trained folks running/overseeing it. An AP will only do what it's told ... better hope what it was told is correct.

I do however agree with you that automation will probably get here but it'll be a while off (100 years or so?). We're rapidly reaching the end of the mathmaetical equation (can't remember the name) that predicted how fast computers could get. In other words we're reaching a plateua of technology. It's the natural order of things.

I didn't say it was solely due to taking decision making out of the process. I said there was a correlation. During my time as a line pilot there were two areas that caused the most loss of life. One was attempting takeoff with ice on the airplane, the other was attempting to takeoff and land in a thunderstorm.

The icing issue was handled by taking judgment out of the equation and distilling the process down to tables and decision trees.

The other has been more difficult. It is very hard to get line pilots to stop operations with thunderstorm on the field. So microburst alerting systems have been installed and pilots have been trained in how to escape their bad decisions. This is one area where there is still too much reliance on pilot judgment and as a consequence you get at least 3 fatal air transport crashes last year, an A-340 completely destroyed in Toronto, a CRJ runs off the end of a runway in Wisconsin after shooting an approach through a thunderstorm, etc etc.

Of course automation does not necessarily preclude the need for pilot judgment. That only occurs if proper "decision making" capability is built in. I definitely could argue that a computerized system would do a much better job of making terminal area go/no-go decisions regarding thunderstorm activity as the current job being done by line pilots is not that great.

I was talking to a line pilot the other day who had burned up both engines on his jet in a windshear escape manuver. To get to that point he had decided to shoot an approach through a thunderstorm between the marker and the runway. And he felt it was a good decision, nothing learned at all from the experience. In fact he was quite proud of his heroic save even though shooting an approach through a heavy thunderstorm was in violation of his company guidance and good sense. He argued that two airplanes in front of him had done it so it was OK for him to do it. And this guy is a respected, long-time check airman. Clearly there is an issue here of good judgment.

B767pilot almost makes my case by claiming that current operations call for a great deal of "good" decision making. Anything that relies heavily on minute to minute decision making is by definition risky. The truth is there are very few critical decisions for line pilots to make today (hence the high level of safety). Flying is very routine with almost every thing decided in advance. One of the few really critical decisions left is the V1 go/no-go and it is consistently botched on the line because it is impossible to make good split-second judgments with a fire bell going off in your ear. A fully automated airplane could definitely do a better job with this critical go/no-go call.

I know this is a sore point for most pilots today but the history of airline safety improvement is heavily tied to the amount of judgment and stick and rudder skills that have been removed. Even CRM was introduced in response to bad decision making as a way to give captains more information AND give their cockpit crewmates more influence in couterbalancing poor judgment on the captain's part.

And yes all the other things too. Today's airplanes are better/safer in every way than their predecessors.

 

[B767Driver]

B767pilot almost makes my case by claiming that current operations call for a great deal of "good" decision making. Anything that relies heavily on minute to minute decision making is by definition risky. The truth is there are very few critical decisions for line pilots to make today (hence the high level of safety). Flying is very routine with almost every thing decided in advance.

I know this is a sore point for most pilots today but the history of airline safety improvement is heavily tied to the amount of judgment and stick and rudder skills that have been removed.
And yes all the other things too. Today's airplanes are better/safer in every way than their predecessors.

I believe you've missed my point.

No question that automation has improved the level of aviation safety commensurate with all of the aformentioned points.

However, the management of the entire operation has become very complex, requiring a high level of human interface to 'grease the skids' and allow the process to run efficiently. Management of the automation, airplane servicing, passenger safety and satisfaction issues, legality of plane and crew, etc. Each flight presents it's own complex series of events...that must be managed individually.

Automation is an awesome tool to help the captain perform his duties...weather it be calculating crew duty times or flying an approach...but the human interface, and all of the decisions required of it...in my opinion and experience...will be the best and most desirable way to coordinate the complex multitudes of situations surrounding such a dynamic environment.

Good decision making is an attribute that is difficult to come by. That's why we need top notch people in the cockpit. People who have sound judment and abilities to consistently make good decisions. A continuous program for improving human DM and judgment is also critical.

An example from one of my last flights.

We needed two more seat belt extensions...and more ice from catering...for a 38 minute flight. A computer program might have put the flight into a cue for proper servicing channels taking an hour or so for the service to occur.

I was able to run downstairs and get the seat belt extensions from another flight...and the captain made the decision to launch without getting more ice. The flight left on time with minimal disruption to schedule, service and comfort. A computer making these decisions might not have done so well, potentially delaying the flight until the objectives were met by an understaffed service crew.

Thousands of these scenarios occur daily. The human interface is most likely the best and most efficient way to carry the scenarios to the most logical conclusions.

Not everyone has the capability to make sound decisions...and that will lead to inconsistencies in operations. Hence the need to bring high quality professionals into the field.

My point is that just because automation is increasingly being found in the cockpit...it really doesn't diminish the importance or the challenge of the job of the pilot. It's more than just pushing, pulling and turning.

 

[B767Driver]

. The truth is there are very few critical decisions for line pilots to make today (hence the high level of safety). .

I should start keeping track of the mistakes due to automation found by proper supervision by the pilot interface. The automation is dutiful...but dumb. It will only perform if properly directed. I would say that the crew direction of the automation requires critical decisions.

To say that there are very few critical decisions for line pilots to make is an idiotic statement. I could start a list that I'm sure would reach a thousand. The high level of safety is being achieved due to the sheer professionalism of the men and women moving the mail everyday and adhering to procedures, policy and standard operating practice. That is, to me, pretty amazing.

 

[wheelsup]

computers are great at making those 0/1, yes/no decisions. Fire prior to V1? Abort. Fire after V1? Go.

Pretty simple.

How about this one? Flameout on #1, fire on #2. Computer thinks "fire" and kills #2. Oops.

Yes, obviously programming will take care of that but the point I'm trying to make is that there are endless scenarios involved in everyday flying. I think one would find it impossible to program every single event or possible event.

This in some way resembles the "trained" vs. "learned"/"experienced" agrument for low time civilian pilots in the cockpits of transport category aircraft.

 

[flyover]

I should start keeping track of the mistakes due to automation found by proper supervision by the pilot interface. The automation is dutiful...but dumb. It will only perform if properly directed. I would say that the crew direction of the automation requires critical decisions.

To say that there are very few critical decisions for line pilots to make is an idiotic statement. I could start a list that I'm sure would reach a thousand. The high level of safety is being achieved due to the sheer professionalism of the men and women moving the mail everyday and adhering to procedures, policy and standard operating practice. That is, to me, pretty amazing.

Well you underwhelmed me with your ice and seatbelt extension example. If that makes your list of "a thousand" don't bother.

And you may have misunderstood my point. The automation of today is to the automation of tomorrow like the early mail runs in biplanes are to today's jet transports. You are flying what, 25 year old technology, and trying to tell me that has anything to do with what we'll see introduced in the next 25 years?

And you are calling "adhering to procedures, policy and standard operating practice" decisions. That is not the definition I'm working with at all. Those things are the antithesis of decisons or judgment calls. Operations that are spelled out in careful detail like instrument approach minimums, crosswind limits, EGT limits for start, etc. etc. etc. are not decisions or judgment calls. It does speak to professionalism to adhere to these things, but it has nothing to with judgment or decision making. Talk to someone who has spent any time supervising pilots and flight operations. The problem areas are almost always where decisions or judgment is called for and solutions invariably involve removing the need for judgment or decision making. The airline you are most familiar with underwent a total change in philosophy from "it's the captain's call" to a "procedures, policy and sop" airline and in the process became a safe and professional operation.

If you decide to compile all the "mistakes due to automation found by proper supervision by the pilot interface" you would need to compile all the "mistakes due to improper supervision by the pilot interface." In my experience I've seen very few mistakes made by an autopilot but instead found it to almost always be improper inputs from said "pilot interface". Not that I've ever done it. And it is a good thing to have a pilot around to catch his/her own mistakes.

I think we're arguing over apples and oranges. You seem to think that I think current airplanes and the ATC system are ready to go fully automated tomorrow. Obviously they're not. But by the same token, I think the systems of tomorrow will continue to advance safety by removing the aspect of human error in the same way we've done since aviation started.

And it will be painful to pilot's egos just as it always has been. Sorry.

 

[flyover]

computers are great at making those 0/1, yes/no decisions. Fire prior to V1? Abort. Fire after V1? Go.

Pretty simple.

Not so simple at all. About 90% of "fires" are actually bleed leaks in the engine cowling. So take a heavily loaded international wide-body at max takeoff weight and give the captain a fire warning 20 knots before V1. In virtually all cases it would be much safer for the captain to continue the takeoff and by contrast any attempt to abort will at the very least substantially damage the aircraft and lead to passenger injuries as they evacuate an airplane with fires in the main gear. At worse they're off the end with loss of life.

This is the kind of thing that will be automated on future aiplanes and taken out of the realm of a "decision" by the captain. I will be very surprised if Boeing doesn't address it on the 787 and 747-8. I know they are getting tired of seeing perfectly flyable airplanes turned into hull losses off the end of a runway. And it's all because of calling for a "decision" from a pilot. One that the pilot has neither the time or information to make.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

I work in auto financing. And we use computers to auto decison most accounts. But we use human decsioning to back up most of the computers more questionable determinations.

For example the other day this women with a 750 FICO score was trying to but a Lexus. About 6 months previously she refied her house and didn't make her payments for 2-3 months. Not out of the ordinary for refi's because they needed the pay off info.

Well the computer declined her because of her mortgage delinquency. All the computer saw was delinquency but didn't take into consideration the reason why. That is why like airplane automation and loan decsioning their will ALWAYS be a need for human judgemental skills. Computers are abosulute in their programming and can't reason. Humans can.

B767Driver...a 38 min flight in a 757/767? Where to where?

 

[B767Driver]

And you are calling "adhering to procedures, policy and standard operating practice" decisions. That is not the definition I'm working with at all. Those things are the antithesis of decisons or judgment calls. Operations that are spelled out in careful detail like instrument approach minimums, crosswind limits, EGT limits for start, etc. etc. etc. are not decisions or judgment calls. It does speak to professionalism to adhere to these things, but it has nothing to with judgment or decision making. .

I couldn't disagree more. Operating within the above confines is the basis for good decision making skills. I bet there is a dozen checklist items on my checklist that bears the response, "As Required". This requires the pilot to assess some condition and make a determination as to what response is required/desired.

I know you don't believe that these are critical decisions arrived upon by the crew...but I sure do. I would think most professional pilots would agree.

I may not be as advanced in my thinking to understand the intuitive nature of next generation technology, as you are prognosticating, but to throw out a statement that crews don't make many critical decisions is...crazy talk.

 

[flyover]

I know you don't believe that these are critical decisions arrived upon by the crew...but I sure do. I would think most professional pilots would agree.

I may not be as advanced in my thinking to understand the intuitive nature of next generation technology, as you are prognosticating, but to throw out a statement that crews don't make many critical decisions is...crazy talk.

Yep, you are right. I don't define the "as required" answer on a checklist (which always has accompanying guidance as to which position the switch should be in) or whether to wait on ice for the galley as critical decisions. If you do, we are speaking two different languages. But that's OK too.

 

[SeanD]

I work in auto financing. And we use computers to auto decison most accounts. But we use human decsioning to back up most of the computers more questionable determinations.

For example the other day this women with a 750 FICO score was trying to but a Lexus. About 6 months previously she refied her house and didn't make her payments for 2-3 months. Not out of the ordinary for refi's because they needed the pay off info.

Well the computer declined her because of her mortgage delinquency. All the computer saw was delinquency but didn't take into consideration the reason why. That is why like airplane automation and loan decsioning their will ALWAYS be a need for human judgemental skills. Computers are abosulute in their programming and can't reason. Humans can.



B767Driver...a 38 min flight in a 757/767? Where to where?

I would guess ATL to MCO?

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

I would guess ATL to MCO?

Thats what I figured. DAL puts a 777 on that route too.

:insane:

 

[flyover]

I would guess ATL to MCO?

Nope, that's longer. Probably ATL-SAV.

 

[jtrain609]

flyover,


Check it out. The reason why you're wrong on this one is because your point of view is as an operator, a client; not the guy working behind the scenes. I, as an IT professional, have a bit of a different view of computers. Once you start working on the back end of them you start to realize their drawbacks, none of which you see. You see great programming and magical results, I see places where endless loops bring computers to a halt. And this happens every day to computers around the world. If a program gets to the end of it's code and can't find a solution it returns to the top with the same data and ends in the same solution; there is no solution, run the program again.

That's a very serious problem, and something that will never be overcome. That's because computers don't, can't and will never think for themselves.

Your experience tells you that computers will make things safer and that humans just screw things up. I can tell you that you're experience is wrong because I was the guy that was involved in putting the computer and the program together and I'm well aware of it's limitations.

Trust me you don't want to take the human element out of what we do.

 

[Malko]

flyover,


.......Trust me you don't want to take the human element out of what we do.

JH hit the nail on the head. The computer is only as smart as the person operating it.

This coming from the mainframe guy sitting in front of multiple cpu's, 15 lpars, and terabytes, upon terabytes of data.......


If I don't do my job, many of you won't get your groceries tomorrow. Good thing I have all this automation working for me.

 

[meritflyer]

One of the theories behind pilots having wage decreases is that they were over-paid from the beginning. Pilots that used to fly over mountains and at night 60 years ago were paid a very healthy sum because of the increased risk. Since aviation has become so seemingly safe, pilots have been viewed as a commodity. Management and aviation experts believe this is attributed to advances in aircraft technology, not pilot training.

Viewing the pool of pilots which is in existence today, there is no problem with attracting "capable" individuals to man aircraft systems and controls. This is apparent by the pay for training/job programs companies have put together. Isnt it great that companies dont even have to pay for your training anymore? This appears to have definately contributed to the decline in wages. Any time you have organized labor in large numbers, unfortunately they are the first ones to get hit with wage cuts in times of financial downfall.

One way to increase pilot pay and demand is for aviation to set academic standards that must be achieved in order to sucessfully become an airline pilot.

Some talk of days where pilots were equal to docs and lawyers. Well, docs and lawyers have tough academic standards to adhere to at all times during schooling. Both have a required and diffucult curriculum that must be met prior to consideration. Both also have entrance exams which are quite difficult. This is meant to "weed" out the weak and keep the strong. Call it academic Darwinism if you will. Do pilots experience any of these academic hurdles prior to matriculation? In aviation, any Joe can walk into their FBO and begin training to be an airline pilot. If they fail or have a hard time, no big deal so to speak. A little more money and practice and they'll be up to par right? Not so, in my opinion. The FAA writtens are a joke and most of the checkrides are too (notice I said most).

Tougher academic standards, more rigourous testing throughout training, and more difficult checkrides for anyone seeking a commercial certificate. Like medical school, only a low percentage get accepted. After completion if your medical school grades were so-so, you dont get a neurology residency.. you may get a psychiatry residency.

Why should flying large, transport category aircraft be any different? Your applicant pool to the airlines would be much smaller and more competitive instead of Gulfstreamers and JetU grads being placed in positions where money got them, not academic standards.

 

[Airdale]

With our current level of technology, flying "cars" won't happen. They will always need an airport. And why take a flying car to an airport when you can just fly a plane?

Sure would be nice to be able to hit a button and magically take to sky when stuck in rush hour traffic, but until human's figure out how to defy gravity aside from our current laws of physics, it won't happen.

Navigating the sky through weather is dangerous, not everyone can do it, especially in a flying car.

 

[mattyt98]

Not so simple at all. About 90% of "fires" are actually bleed leaks in the engine cowling. So take a heavily loaded international wide-body at max takeoff weight and give the captain a fire warning 20 knots before V1. In virtually all cases it would be much safer for the captain to continue the takeoff and by contrast any attempt to abort will at the very least substantially damage the aircraft and lead to passenger injuries as they evacuate an airplane with fires in the main gear. At worse they're off the end with loss of life.

This is the kind of thing that will be automated on future aiplanes and taken out of the realm of a "decision" by the captain. I will be very surprised if Boeing doesn't address it on the 787 and 747-8. I know they are getting tired of seeing perfectly flyable airplanes turned into hull losses off the end of a runway. And it's all because of calling for a "decision" from a pilot. One that the pilot has neither the time or information to make.



I truely hope that this decision is left in our hands but I think that there needs to be improved traing when it comes to these "emergencies" We all know how hard it is to say go anyway when that master caution starts blinking or worse but as you say an aborted takeoff with that much kinetic energy in an airplane is dam near impossible to stop safely. But having the little boxes tell me that I cant make that decision I dont think so. Just my opinion!

 

[averyrm]

Herreshoff, $5 bet about that "computers will never think for themselves." Call me in 60 years, I'll buy the drinks.

 

[jtrain609]

I'll take that bet, but they won't be by definition 'computers.' You've gotta think up a new word because a computer is just something that runs lines of code and crunches numbers.

 

[averyrm]

Silicon life forms then? Something with lights and gizmo's is gonna be smart later.