Avionics Human Factors

Pilots were (and still are) over using automation, resulting in too much head-down button-pushing. The result was (is) an increase in situational awareness errors and loss-of-separation in particular. One flight crew got so absorbed entering a simple runway sidestep that they landed without a clearance. As the presenter advised, sometimes its better to reduce the level of automation for a given task. He summed it up nicely-were pilots, not automation managers; fly the plane first and keep up those manual skills.

dboyd

Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

ColumnArt_Web

Key Takeaways:

Modern cockpit avionics offer advanced navigation but foster automation dependency, which can degrade basic piloting skills and situational awareness.
NASA studies and historical examples demonstrate that over-reliance on automated systems leads to a loss of manual proficiency and mental disengagement in pilots.
Pilots are encouraged to actively engage with flight data and maintain manual flying skills to counteract the risks associated with passively following automated guidance.

See a mistake? Contact us.

General aviation cockpit tech has made amazing advances. New avionics commonly boast large screens and that easy-to-follow magenta line on the moving map with myriad other features. A 172 can navigate from takeoff to touchdown. The right software on an iPad can as well, for much less money. We no longer chase ADF needles, center VOR-tuned OBS needles, figure cross-wind corrections, mentally calculate distances, etc. Just follow the magenta line.

Advanced avionics have likely improved safety. A research study showed a decreased fatal accident rate for instrument private pilots in IMC over the 2002-2011 period, although improved training has also likely helped. Drawing on NASA research, I’ll focus on the downside of newer avionics as it relates to IFR flight and illustrate the point by a comparison of the Garmin GTN 750 with its prehistoric antecedent, the GNS 430.