21st Century High Tech vs Old School Keep it Simple

[David Pavlich]

David,
Good Points....however there are times I prefer to have the ability to control mixture. At one point in our history, we were smarter than the machines we ran, now for the vast majority of people the exact inverse is true. Ask the fellows that tried landing over in San Fransisco a couple weeks back.

I don't really know how to respond to the San Fran analogy other than to say that even with Korea's not so stellar safety record, it is far and away better than GA's safety record. I would submit that excellent training combined with the tremendous technological and reliability advances have allowed commercial flying to become very safe when compared to other modes of transport.

In the same breath, I understand your desire to have some control. I've owned several sports cars and each was equipped with a stick. There's something about resting your hand on the shifter and feeling gears in motion. My guess is that you've had good training and have made up your mind that you aren't going to make bad decisions that could jeopordize you and your passengers. Unfortunately, it is also true that many GA pilots, for whatever reason, don't make good choices. Does automation make it safer? Depends on what context we are speaking. For commercial, I say yes. It requires the PIC and his/her crew to be very regimented, a good thing when defying gravity. For GA...not so much. If used properly combined with sound decisions, GA safety numbers should improve. But until pilots take gravity more seriously, GA will have a very difficult time getting its safety record on the upswing.

David

[Aaron Novak]

I don't really know how to respond to the San Fran analogy other than to say that even with Korea's not so stellar safety record, it is far and away better than GA's safety record. I would submit that excellent training combined with the tremendous technological and reliability advances have allowed commercial flying to become very safe when compared to other modes of transport.

In the same breath, I understand your desire to have some control. I've owned several sports cars and each was equipped with a stick. There's something about resting your hand on the shifter and feeling gears in motion. My guess is that you've had good training and have made up your mind that you aren't going to make bad decisions that could jeopordize you and your passengers. Unfortunately, it is also true that many GA pilots, for whatever reason, don't make good choices. Does automation make it safer? Depends on what context we are speaking. For commercial, I say yes. It requires the PIC and his/her crew to be very regimented, a good thing when defying gravity. For GA...not so much. If used properly combined with sound decisions, GA safety numbers should improve. But until pilots take gravity more seriously, GA will have a very difficult time getting its safety record on the upswing.

David

David,
Actually what I was getting at was how when one gets dependent on machinery to take the place of their own ability, it creates a weakness. Be it the use of a calculator, autopilot, auto throttle, GPS etc. Basicly in trying to remove the flaw of human error, we have instead replaced it with human inability. GA will always have more safety issues, thats the nature of the beast. I see this as a downward sloping path our society is taking as a whole.

[Flyfalcons]

David,
Good Points....however there are times I prefer to have the ability to control mixture. At one point in our history, we were smarter than the machines we ran, now for the vast majority of people the exact inverse is true. Ask the fellows that tried landing over in San Fransisco a couple weeks back.

I consider myself a pretty good stick, and stay very current, but the autopilot on my plane will still do a better job than me at just about everything. My guess is the same holds true for a properly designed automatic mixture control. Maybe we used to be smarter than our machines, but thanks to modern technology, some of our machines are pretty damn smart.

[WLIU]

Speaking as an engineer, I can tell you that all machines fail. We can make them triply redundant, but they will still fail. The challenge is to keep the skills of the humans that they "help" up to the level where the impending failures are identified, and the human pilot can take over and safely complete the flight. Plus, there will be situations that require a human pilot to complete some operations, like landing when the glideslope is shut down. In that case we need the human pilot(s) to be proficient enough to properly configure the automatic systems so that they can make the landing.

The Apollo 13 astronauts did not expect their fuel cell to fail. Capt Haynes did not expect his engine to catastrophically fail and render his primary controls inop.

And some cultures have issues that can create CRM issues that help the move along the chain of events that lead to accidents.

All tough problems to solve.

I will suggest that an autopilot may fly better than you or I for a while, but speaking as a guy who has had an autopilot try to kill me, I will suggest that an autopilot can also fly you smoothly to the location of the crash. It takes a pilot to take over and make a safe landing when that happens.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Joe LaMantia]

Wes, makes some good points and this is kinda where the "VS" thing comes from in this thread. Clearly we have moved to a high level of technology in "heavy" aircraft and we've seen a lot of applications filtering down into GA. The challenge is to remain proficient in basic skills while becoming proficient in the more complex environment the new technology presents. We will always have some pilots who prefer the "old school" simple aircraft for low and slow fun flying. What kind of aircraft and training will provide the basic airmanship and awareness that can keep a pilot ready to handle whatever comes his way? The answer has been, up to now, constant reviews and training exercises, will we see a need for more simulator time in GA aircraft?

Joe

[WLIU]

I think that it is important to apply an appropriate level of technology to each operation.

The other other day I was at an aerobatic practice and on the next section of the ramp some CAP pilots were giving orientation rides. They were flying C-172's with G-1000 panels. I jumped in my Pitts, fired up, taxi-ed out and launched into the box. Later I found myself shaking my head at the high-tech Cessna pilots as they are required to go through all of the checklists that the G-1000 puts up for them and it takes them something like 10 minutes of pushing buttons after start up before they release their brakes just to start taxiing. One of the pilots commented that he could get a 727 moving faster than the Cessna.

There is an old saying - "Just because you can does not mean that you should."

Not that long ago we had an incident at one of my home airports where a pilot came down final looking at the displays in the panel. I was told that he did not look up before contacting the runway. This may be a new category of accident/incident. I wonder what the NTSB thinks about this.

I am of the school that technology supplements airmanship, not replaces it. But pilots lean towards being gadget and technology junkies. And all of the publications and magazines that practice the "gee whiz" brand of journalism sell a lot more advertising around articles that hype the latest gadget than articles that talk about activities like soaring clubs and aerobatic contests. We have not made the corners of aviation that promote airmanship sexy and appealing. We make the latest, oh-wow-expensive, electronic gadget sexy and appealing. This might come with the personality, but I think we can find part of the problem by looking in the mirror.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS