Carr cites multiple examples of crashes that can be attributed to "deskilling" of flight crews who rely too heavily on autopilot (55). However, he also acknowledged that overall commercial air travel is much safer than it was in the past. If pilot errors are responsible for a large percentage of plane crashes, should we find ways to increase manual flight time so that human pilots have more practice and greater opportunity to transfer explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge? Or does it make more sense to move in the opposite direction--to work toward reducing human involvement even further, eventually shifting to crewless flights?
Pilots need more practice to be able to have the confidence in flying a plane. It's simple, "practice makes perfect." They can have all this knowledge in their heads about how or what should be done to operate a plane, but as autopilot systems take over, the pilots themselves are losing their ability to put that knowledge into action. It's as if their skills are as fluffy and untouched as the clouds they watch the plane fly past. Yes, statistics can prove that autopilot systems have made air travel safer, but we allow our lives to rely too heavily on a computer system. That's why I believe it's crucial to have a knowledgeable pilot with hands-on experience in the cockpit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that pilots need more practice. I think pilots should have to go through more practice with no autopilot at all. They would become like pilots of the past because they would have better understanding of how the plane moves and flies. Once a pilot had the skills to fly whatever plane without assistance, then autopilot could be added to make an even safer flight. Autopilot should be the assistant, not the pilot. You are totally correct in saying that pilots are losing their skills. Flying a plane has become more like playing a computer game. Autopilot is great but pilots should definitely learn how to fly safely without it.
DeleteI agree that pilots should be the main one in charge of the plane and that autopilot should be there as help and backup in difficult situations. With more training and practice, pilot errors could be greatly diminished as they become more knowledgeable of the aircraft. Then if autopilot was ever put into control, the pilot would be much more likely to be able to assist if the autopilot was to fail.
DeleteI believe that because using autopilot has made commercial flying safer, we should continue using it. I do not agree that we should remove humans entirely and shift to crewless flights. I believe that pilots should be there to take over in case the autopilot fails.
ReplyDeleteWhen I took in Pre-Engineering, we briefly studied aerospace engineering. We practiced "flying an air vehicle" on a flight simulating software program. I believe that pilots should be required to practice on a more advanced version of this software that features real-life flying scenarios. I believe that this would give them enough confidence to recover a plane should the autopilot ever fail.
I agree that planes should always have pilots. I think that pilots should have to fly manually or be in a simulator for a certain amount of time every year even after they get out of school just to keep their skills up to date.
DeleteI agree completely with your statements. Too much is at risk for the passengers to have a pilot who, when auotpilot may fail, cannot safely proceed with their flight. It is scary to think that if I am on a plane I cannot be sure if the pilot can successfully fly the airplane without auotpilot.
DeleteI agree that as flying becomes more and more automated, human pilots do not have to use as many of their “skills.” Many people try to find the easiest way out of doing things, and that is no different for pilots. If they are given the opportunity to use autopilot the majority of the time, they will. By doing this, they are not exercising their abilities. We as humans believe that nobody- nothing- can do anything as well as us. It is the same for flying an aircraft. While we should not fully trust a computer to fly a plane, it is very useful in helping. The pilot himself should know what to do in an emergency situation, and that is why I believe pilots should have more practice solving problems such as the few talked about on pages forty-three through forty-five. As the famous saying goes, practice makes perfect.
ReplyDeleteIt scares me to think that one day planes could rely exclusively on technology to fly. My great uncle is a pilot and once had a terrifying situation that caused him to be the only living or nonliving "thing" that saved his plane from a destructive crash. While flying over Colorado my Uncle's plane got struck by lightning, causing all of the computers to crash. The only thing he had at this critical moment were his flying skills and his knowledge about the job. Having had plenty of manual flying practice my Uncle was able to save his plane, his passengers, and his life. This story, for me, solidifies my opinion that pilots should continually have manual flying practice and that we should always have a human pilot on board, no matter how good new technology gets.
ReplyDeletePilots should have a mandatory evaluation every few months to test their skills. They need to be able to take off, fly through various conditions, and be able to land with expertise. Automation cannot account for every weather pattern or situation that a human can in a split second situation. Automation has made pilots, in a sense, lazy and desensitizes their skills. If a pilot is to fly a plane they need to be at their best for the safety of the crew and the passengers. Although autopilot is very safe and proven way to go about flying I agree with the idea that pilots should be more involved manually with an airplane and practice as much as they can.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement. It would be incredibly irresponsible and honestly insane for us to remove the pilot and the crew from the aircraft. While autopilot is a very successful mode of flight as Carr pointed out, it can and will fail. It is our responsibility as humans to be prepared for these occurrences. It is very important for pilots to be involved as much as possible, so that when trouble occurs they are fully capable of resolving the conflict.
DeleteI definitely believe that there should be more opportunities for human pilots to practice and improve their manual flying skills. I think that autopilot should still be used, but the pilots who are simply monitoring the activities of the computer while in flight should be completely capable of taking over the plane if something were to go wrong. It baffles me that multiple plane crashes Carr discusses have happened because the pilot was unable to correct the errors occurring in the plane solely resulting from the fact that the autopilot had always been there and they were not prepared to handle an emergency (55). Pilots simply become overwhelmed and perform life threatening acts that could have potentially been avoided if they would have had extra time practicing manual flight instead of constantly relying on the autopilot.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of a crewless flight almost seems a bit ominous; there would be no one in the cockpit, just an all knowing computer that is supposed to do everything perfectly without any mistakes or errors? While some might find the idea of having a crewless flight appealing, even computers make mistakes. I would feel safer and more secure with an actual human pilot that has the experience and the skill to manually fly the plane in case of an emergency. If there were increased chances for a pilot to hone in on their manual flying skills, I believe that the possibility for a crash due to pilot error would decrease.
I think that planes should always have piolets. Sometimes things happen that a machine might not be prepared to deal with. These occurrences, while rare, can still happen. This is why it is necessary to have a piolet on board. Because of this, I think that piolets should have more time to practice flying.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think that pilotless plane would be beneficial to have in a hostage situation. If a terrorist goes up in a plane full of passengers, they are typically able to make the piolet do whatever they want. But without having a piolet to hold hostage, what would the terrorists be able to do in that situation? They would not have any control over where the plane could go or where it would land. When the plane did land at its correct port, they could have security waiting at the door to take control of the situation. I think that having planes completely reliant on autopilot would drastically decrease the amount of airplane hijacking.
Pilots have mandatory ground schools once a year to keep their type rating in the aircraft they fly. They run through common malfunctions and finish with simulations that are too dangerous to perform in the actual airplane (double engine failure etc.)They are tested at the end of these schools to make sure the pilots are still safe and competent in the aircraft. The systems are in place for pilots to do well.
ReplyDeleteI believe this particular chapter had some bias of information. The example on page 45 I'd have to attribute to disorientation or panic. I find it incredibly hard to believe for 3 minutes neither pilot through sheer ignorance, was unable to push the stick forward.
The common denominator in all of these stories is still humans. A computer doesn't panic. However, I believe there are too many variables for a totally unmanned aircraft. Autopilot works very well when nothing goes wrong. I don't think at our current level of technology that we will see a completely unnamed commercial aircraft.
I agree with your assessment about the variables. It will be a very, very long time before a computer is able to account for every possible outcome. There will always be situations in which a snap decision is required, situations that will require a human's ability to problem solve on the fly - so to speak.
DeleteMy uncle is a pilot for Boeing and he has always told me how much practice it requires to be a great pilot. The pilots do have a lot of training and they are very capable of doing almost any maneuver before they get the job. Most plane crashes are freak accidents that the pilots do everything they can to try and save the passengers. Some inexperienced pilots may not fare well in stressful situations such as a large amount of turbulence or a down draft. With more experienced pilots the technology does not need to or should eliminate the pilot from the cockpit. Airplane companies solely relying on technology would be doomed if a plane crashed with no pilot. The company would surely be sued for huge amounts of money and people would never trust a pilotless plane for a long time.
ReplyDeletePersonally as someone who hates flying, the idea of a crewless flight terrifies me. What if something were to go wrong and plane crashed, could a pilot have stopped the crash? Who would the blame go to, those who checked the plane, the airline, those who made the self-flying program, or those who installed the programs? Carr did a wonderful job at focusing on pilot failure, but what about all the times that the pilots saved lives?
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I believe we should either increase manual flight time or require pilots to take periodical flight test that checks their reflexes and knowledge. That way we as people and passengers know that our pilot has the skills necessary to save lives in an emergency.
I absolutely agree Kat! I do not enjoy flying at all but the idea of having both autopilot and of having an actual trained professional aboard in case of emergency helps ease my fear and discomfort. I don't think that I personally could ever ride in a solely technology-based aircraft, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is unsafe. I definitely think that with the way that we are headed now it is almost guaranteed that airplanes independent of human pilots used for public transport will be introduced, but I do not think that the trained pilot should be taken out of the equation completely. The amount of pilots needed will be cut down significantly but the profession should still exist and those pilots should take frequent tests and refresher courses to keep their skill at peak.
DeleteAs technology becomes more prominent in this world flying companies will, in the vein of Adam Smith, learn more towards automated flying in order to maximize revenue. I'm sure they will make it look nice and pretty by having certain planes that do have a pilot and crew, but they will simply be a token of the past. The fact of the matter is, antiquities are valuable but not valuable enough to lose money over. The rest of their flights will have little in the way of human piloting. The less that they have to pay workers, the more money they get per flight.
ReplyDeleteSo, it makes sense for flight companies to move more towards automation in a capitalistic mindset. However, from a social/humanistic standpoint it is moronic to allow a giant chunk of self-flying metal loose in the sky with hundreds of captives. Don't even get me started with the legal repercussions of just one fault on part of the autopilot. With one crash the company would be bankrupt from all the lawsuits.
From any standpoint; be it legal, social, moral, capitalistic, or humanistic. Complete automation in airplanes is still a distant future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou have to think about operator error too. Just as the autopilot is fallible, so is the pilot. More practice and preparation MIGHT help this, but the likelihood of a pilot making a mistake is just as great as the autopilot making a mistake. So we just play the blame game (which was glancingly addressed in the book and in earlier questions, I believe), so that we don't have to come up with an actual solution. Personally, I find comfort in the fact that there is a trained pilot and computerized pilot both acting in tandem to fly across the world, because we add the strengths of both, and augment their weaknesses. But I also think that we should work to achieve a completely automated flight. It's simpler, it reduces costs, and it removes the fear of pilot screw-ups. Of course, it also opens up the door to other potential hazards, like hacking, in which case it would be nice to have a pilot that could wrest control from the hacked system. Win some, lose some.
ReplyDeleteAutopilot and the more sophisticated readings that the computers can manage much quicker than the pilots are the reason that airplane accidents have dropped off so heavily in the past years. However, I believe that it is the pilot's and the company's responsibility to place competent, skilled pilots in their cockpits despite the availability of autopilot. It isn't automation's fault that these pilots lose their skill or ability, its that they are relying on it so much that it has become a clutch and not a luxury.
ReplyDeleteI lean more towards removing the pilot from the equation for commercial flights. Our culture is expanding and we are becoming more global and the need for commercial flights expands every year. It is also much easier to have a check and balance system with a machine than with a human that can be unpredictable. Drone technology would also allow for a single pilot to operate and monitor several planes remotely. This would enable pilots to specialize and spend the necessary time gaining experience through live flights and simulators to respond appropriately.
ReplyDeletePilots should definitely be given more opportunities to become more crafted with their flying skill. I believe there should be a yearly class and simulation for pilots to attend to practice how to manually take over a plane and save it from crashing. Yes, most plane crashes are caused by human error. However, that human error is created by relaxation within the cockpit. Pilots are so used to allowing autopilot and computer systems to fly the planes that they have become too relaxed with flying. I believe pilots may even become bored with their jobs after 10 years of flying commercial planes. Computer automation has taken away from the art of flying a plane. Yes, it is still an extremely hard task to come by, however, it is easier now than when Wiley Post flew around the world in a fully manual plane. Wiley Post is more impressive to me than any modern pilot, even if the modern pilot is more knowledgeable about being a pilot than Wiley Post.
ReplyDeleteWhile pilots should be adeptly trained to fly airplanes, as long as pilots are controlling a plane, there will always be a range for human error. If planes went to a total automated flight control, then different issues would arise with complete automation. There definitely needs to be a harmony of the two. Pilots definitely need to be able to adapt and seize control of a situation when needed. To do this, perhaps more flight time, simulated or real, should be mandated. Also, putting pilots in difficult scenarios would better them from the unpredictable circumstances they may find themselves in.
ReplyDeleteI think there should be plane simulations that are only controlled by the human pilots with no additional help. They should have to train periodically. Not just to get their licenses but throughout their career. And if they fail they have to go through the process of getting a license over again. This is probably already a thing, so maybe their tests need to be more frequent. That being said, I also think it may be wise to move in the direction of more automation. I don’t know any statistics but I’m sure the percentage of crashed flights would be much lower overall if the planes were able to fly themselves completely on their own. The problem with this that I foresee, is that the general population would perhaps be in more of an uproar when something does go wrong. It’s easier to forgive a human or at the very least understand human error than it is to forgive a machine that we’ve long since decided should never malfunction.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at this question closely, it would seem to make sense to have pilots involved more in their works. Notice that the crashes come due to them not having that second nature to respond, but instead teaching themselves the steps. They lacked that immediate response, and that is caused by relying on a system that was considered safe but failed suddenly. There should be more true-pilot controlled times on a flight so that their motor skills and cognitive skills remain in tact while also allowing the machine to take some of the pressures of flying off of their minds.
ReplyDeleteWe need our pilots to stop being button pushers and allow them to do what they were trained to do, safely fly a plane and navigate. We have taken the skill set of what makes being a pilot so special and dumbed it down into checking some screens. This is why when pilots need to react quickly they make mistakes. Instead of using technology to take over the role of the pilot, we should use technology to train pilots to react quickly in dangerous situations. Simulators can be used to reenact a blown engine, malfunction, and even a total system meltdown, which would help pilots know how to react in those kinds of situations.
ReplyDeleteThis question was one of my favorites to read about. Though this is Chapter 3, Chapter 7 holds some very good information on this topic. As quoted from the text, 'in aviation, the two dominant manufacturers are on opposite sides... since the introduction of fly-by-wire.' These two manufacturing powers are revealed to be Boeing and Airbus. Airbus is of the opinion that planes should basically be 'pilot-proof' while Boeing has put measures into its software to allow for a pilot override in an emergency situation. Just a few passages later, it is revealed that the infamous Air France crash was attributed to Airbus, the manufacturer of the plane. Because it did not allow for a pilot override, the plane was not able to be saved. While there may be some adverse crash facts about Boeing, the author did not include them. Even if there were facts, I still think that I would be on Boeing's side. Planes should be human-centered, not technology-centered.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion being stated, I do think that there should be a universal ratio of auto-pilot to human piloting. Every flight, no matter how long should require the pilot to take control of the joystick in the open air. I think this practice would help reduce the decay of his or her skills as well as help them to react better in an adverse situation.
ReplyDelete