Aeronautical Decision-Making

Results of the Study practices” and procedures have remedied some of the earlier When pilots who had flown EFIS for several years were problems with automation. required to fly various maneuvers manually, the aircraft parameters and flight control inputs clearly showed some Pilots must maintain their flight skills and ability to maneuver erosion of flying skills. During normal maneuvers, such as aircraft manually within the standards set forth in the PTS. It turns to headings without a flight director, the EFIS group is recommended that pilots of automated aircraft occasionally exhibited somewhat greater deviations than the analog group. disengage the automation and manually fly the aircraft to Most of the time, the deviations were within the practical test maintain stick-and-rudder proficiency. It is imperative that standards (PTS), but the pilots definitely did not keep on the the pilots understand that the EFD adds to the overall quality localizer and glideslope as smoothly as the analog group. of the flight experience, but it can also lead to catastrophe if not utilized properly. At no time is the moving map meant to The differences in hand-flying skills between the two groups substitute for a VFR sectional or low altitude en route chart. became more significant during abnormal maneuvers, such as accelerated descent profiles known as “slam-dunks.” When Equipment Use given close crossing restrictions, the analog crews were more Autopilot Systems adept at the mental math and usually maneuvered the aircraft In a single-pilot environment, an autopilot system can greatly in a smoother manner to make the restriction. On the other reduce workload. [Figure 2-23] As a result, the pilot is free hand, the EFIS crews tended to go “heads down” and tried to focus his or her attention on other flight deck duties. This to solve the crossing restriction on the FMS. [Figure 2-22] can improve situational awareness and reduce the possibility of a CFIT accident. While the addition of an autopilot may Another situation used in the simulator experiment reflected certainly be considered a risk control measure, the real real world changes in approach that are common and can challenge comes in determining the impact of an inoperative be assigned on short notice. Once again, the analog crews unit. If the autopilot is known to be inoperative prior to transitioned more easily to the parallel runway’s localizer, departure, this may factor into the evaluation of other risks. whereas the EFIS crews had a much more difficult time with the pilot going head down for a significant amount of time For example, the pilot may be planning for a VHF trying to program the new approach into the FMS. omnidirectional range (VOR) approach down to minimums on a dark night into an unfamiliar airport. In such a case, the While a pilot’s lack of familiarity with the EFIS is often pilot may have been relying heavily on a functioning autopilot an issue, the approach would have been made easier by capable of flying a coupled approach. This would free the disengaging the automated system and manually flying the pilot to monitor aircraft performance. A malfunctioning approach. At the time of this study, the general guidelines autopilot could be the single factor that takes this from a in the industry were to let the automated system do as much medium to a serious risk. At this point, an alternative needs of the flying as possible. That view has since changed and to be considered. On the other hand, if the autopilot were to it is recommended that pilots use their best judgment when fail at a critical (high workload) portion of this same flight, choosing which level of automation will most efficiently do the pilot must be prepared to take action. Instead of simply the task considering the workload and situational awareness. being an inconvenience, this could quickly turn into an emergency if not properly handled. The best way to ensure Emergency maneuvers clearly broadened the difference in a pilot is prepared for such an event is to carefully study the manual flying skills between the two groups. In general, the issue prior to departure and determine well in advance how analog pilots tended to fly raw data, so when they were given an autopilot failure is to be handled. an emergency, such as an engine failure, and were instructed to fly the maneuver without a flight director, they performed Familiarity it expertly. By contrast, SOP for EFIS operations at the time As previously discussed, pilot familiarity with all equipment was to use the flight director. When EFIS crews had their flight is critical in optimizing both safety and efficiency. If a pilot is directors disabled, their eye scan again began a more erratic unfamiliar with any aircraft systems, this will add to workload searching pattern and their manual flying subsequently suffered. and may contribute to a loss of situational awareness. This level of proficiency is critical and should be looked upon as Those who reviewed the data saw that the EFIS pilots who a requirement, not unlike carrying an adequate supply of fuel. better managed the automation also had better flying skills. As a result, pilots should not look upon unfamiliarity with the While the data did not reveal whether those skills preceded aircraft and its systems as a risk control measure, but instead as or followed automation, it did indicate that automation a hazard with high risk potential. Discipline is key to success. management needed to be improved. Recommended “best 2-27