Hi all saw this interesting link today scary to think some pilots relying on machines to much, not like the old days of the 707 were you had more of a hands on flying. same thing is happening to simmers. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/auto_pilots_scary_skies_AheRGb0IfSiSp8QqGMcdPL?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

AOPA's "Aviation eBrief" from yesterday carried this story as well. Scary stuff in that report!

Interesting. But I wonder - and at this point I must clarify 2 points: 1. I have no knowledge of any facts or figures to back up my 'pondering'. 2. I am not a real pilot and have absolutely no experience of flying apart from being a passenger and, a very long time ago, having a go in the VC-10 simulator at Brize Norton. Back to my point. I wonder if, despite 'over automation' it is safer to fly today than in the 'hands on' days. Just curious, not wanting to start any fights.

Without any data at hand, my "impression" is that it may just be marginally safer now... ...until things go totally pear-shaped of course, which is the actual point being made in this study.

Airplanes are become increasingly automated, leading some safety officials to raise concerns that pilots might be losing their in-flight instincts, which could be troublesome when faced with an issue. Rory Kay, co-chairman of the Federal Aviation Administration's committee on pilot training and an airline captain, said the industry is suffering from "automation addiction," which is leading to different types of incidents. "We're seeing a new breed of accident with these state-of-the art planes."

I wonder if, despite 'over automation' it is safer to fly today than in the 'hands on' days. Just curious, not wanting to start any fights.

It's a certainty ;)I think there is an added risk though; these powerful tools can take you deep into trouble.

Hi all saw this interesting link today scary to think some pilots relying on machines to much, not like the old days of the 707 were you had more of a hands on flying. same thing is happening to simmers. http://www.nypost.co...C-rss&FEEDNAME=

Oddly enough the latest Aviation Safety Reporting System Callback has something to say about this... http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_379.html DJ

I have news for you guys (and I am sure you already know this)... The likes of Boeing, Northrop, General Atomics, et al, are working very hard to remove the pilot entirely. Think about that. Consider what a simulation of that might be like.

I have news for you guys (and I am sure you already know this)... The likes of Boeing, Northrop, General Atomics, et al, are working very hard to remove the pilot entirely. Think about that. Consider what a simulation of that might be like.

Yeah, but just think of all the glasses wearing, spatulate fingered geeks that can finally be pilots. Heck, we're already trained - beer in one hand, remote in the other, and a monitor in front of us. The promised land for FS enthusiasts! DJ

Yeah, but just think of all the glasses wearing, spatulate fingered geeks that can finally be pilots. Heck, we're already trained - beer in one hand, remote in the other, and a monitor in front of us. The promised land for FS enthusiasts! DJ

oops double post

AOPA's "Aviation eBrief" from yesterday carried this story as well. Scary stuff in that report!

That is indeed scary.

Interesting. But I wonder - and at this point I must clarify 2 points: 1. I have no knowledge of any facts or figures to back up my 'pondering'. 2. I am not a real pilot and have absolutely no experience of flying apart from being a passenger and, a very long time ago, having a go in the VC-10 simulator at Brize Norton. Back to my point. I wonder if, despite 'over automation' it is safer to fly today than in the 'hands on' days. Just curious, not wanting to start any fights.

That's a good question my feeling is that it is safer then before but once serous problems can pop up not many pilots can handle the situation due to the fact of getting so used to the automation not only in aircraft but other things that rely on it.

It's a certainty ;)I think there is an added risk though; these powerful tools can take you deep into trouble.

Totally agree.

Oddly enough the latest Aviation Safety Reporting System Callback has something to say about this... http://asrs.arc.nasa...ack/cb_379.html DJ

Thanks for the link D.J.

I have news for you guys (and I am sure you already know this)... The likes of Boeing, Northrop, General Atomics, et al, are working very hard to remove the pilot entirely. Think about that. Consider what a simulation of that might be like.

I don't wanna know lol its already scary enough that all the instruments are all digtel lcd screens.

Yeah, but just think of all the glasses wearing, spatulate fingered geeks that can finally be pilots. Heck, we're already trained - beer in one hand, remote in the other, and a monitor in front of us. The promised land for FS enthusiasts! DJ

lol

That is indeed scary. That's a good question my feeling is that it is safer then before but once serous problems can pop up not many pilots can handle the situation due to the fact of getting so used to the automation not only in aircraft but other things that rely on it. Totally agree. Thanks for the link D.J. I don't wanna know lol its already scary enough that all the instruments are all digtel lcd screens. lol

I, for one, would serve proudly!

You can divide the total flying time of all aircraft into A 'normal routine flight', B 'emergencies that end well' and C 'emergencies that end in disaster'. What happens when pilots rely too much on autopilots is that the ration between B and C shifts in favor of C.However, what we want is simply to minimise C so that as much flights as possible end well. What we need to know is how A, B and C have changed as the use of autopilots increased.If the total amount of emergencies, disastrous or not, decreased then the use of autopilots is a net improvement. But I do see that psychologically it is scary when pilot's are less capable of handling emergencies, even if there are less emergencies to deal with.

You can divide the total flying time of all aircraft into A 'normal routine flight', B 'emergencies that end well' and C 'emergencies that end in disaster'. What happens when pilots rely too much on autopilots is that the ration between B and C shifts in favor of C.However, what we want is simply to minimise C so that as much flights as possible end well. What we need to know is how A, B and C have changed as the use of autopilots increased.If the total amount of emergencies, disastrous or not, decreased then the use of autopilots is a net improvement. But I do see that psychologically it is scary when pilot's are less capable of handling emergencies, even if there are less emergencies to deal with.

What about the cases where there is no emergency but a disaster still occurs - for example CFIT? Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) describes an accident in which a flight crew unintentionally flies an airplane into the ground, a mountain, water or an obstacle. It is a leading cause of airplane accidents involving the loss of life. There have been more than 9,000 deaths due to this since the beginning of the commercial jet age. http://www.boeing.co...ontrolledFlight

I meant 'emergency' in a very broad sense, ie 'something goes wrong'.That something could be mechanical failure, pilot error or anything else that endangers the plane.

Something I would agree with all airlines,, To many lazy pilots these days,, and its really sad, using autopilot the whole flight isnt what flying is all about.. (unless your flying a long haul flight) I completely understand.. I guess we will see where this goes in the future of aviation,, Along with this "future pilot shortage"