Swisskloten From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Could a pilot please answer this? There is no right or wrong answer. This is purely about opinions. With all the technology in aviation today, do you believe they have gone just a bit too far in automation? I heard last year about a pilot at a Japanese carrier who fell asleep in the middle of the flight. Worse, the government inspector was sitting in the cockpit with him and had to shake his shoulders to wake him up! What a nightmare! If the pilot told me that he was bored, I would believe him. I admire all the technological advances in aviation and always applaud new breakthroughs such as the upcoming launch of the A380, truly a mammoth feat in aviation history. Do you want more or less technological improvement in the cockpit? Is there so little to do that you would NOT mind a small step back such as doing one or two things the old-fashioned way to stay alert? Would you like things the way they are or have we pushed the envelope just a bit too far? Just look at the engineer's panel. I remember my first flight was on a Delta L1011 and the engineer had quite a bit to do. Now, some have been phased out because the instrument panel for the engineer is shockingly small. I did wonder if pilots become bored on 14-hr flights over the Pacific. Should they be given a LITTLE bit more work to stay alert or will a quick can of Pepsi or coffee help? Anyone have any comments or theories?
AirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
I think the automation hasn't affected the pilot that much and I don't think the engineer should be included in your point becaused he is not the pilot. Automation has made flying easier but the pilot still has a job to do.
As for the question if pilots are bored on a long flight, that's like asking a truck driver who is driving from Oklahoma City to Dallas "are you bored"?. I have myself asked an United captain what they do during cruise when they don't have any duties and he just said that most of the time he gets a pilot that he knows and they just pass the time with conversation and reading. He also said that the 737 offers enough work for both pilots.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 4959 posts, RR: 39 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
This is not a new problem. I remember a story in the seventies about a stewardess bringing a meal into the cockpit of a BOAC (I think) airliner and finding BOTH pilots asleep
Djmatthews From United Kingdom, joined Dec 1999, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
So pilots.... on a long haul flight, what exactly can you do while in the air... Is there airline policy.... Can you bring books, magazines or a laptop for example?
FLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1713 times:
Once I walked into an MD-80 to chat with the pilots and the first thing I see is a laptop in the nestled ontop of the FMCs. They were watching Pearl Harbor.
Mind you, this happened on the ground, because the rwy lights at the airport had gone out and they were just waiting for them to come back on so we could depart.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10039 posts, RR: 75 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1642 times:
It is an interesting question.
I loved the Airbus mostly because the automation had condensed most of the work into two periods. There was a minor flurry getting the cockpit set up and the flight plan loaded and checked. Then it was simple checklists and "flows" to get underway. There was another mini-flurry of activity when you got the arrival ATIS and set up for the approach.
In between, on a long haul there is an activity level that ranged from not-much-to-do, all the way down to almost-nothing-to-do. On transoceanic, or even over Montana late at night, it takes some discipline to stay alert.
Ocean crossings some crews want to keep the lights up bright as an aid to staying awake. I preferred to be able to look out the window, even at night, even over the ocean.
Reading may well be forbidden, but you can be sure it does happen. Conversations can sometimes get pretty thin if you've been blocked together all month and don't have that much in common. Stand up for a minute. Call for a cup of coffee. Chat on 123.45 sometimes but that gets too much like CB.
I have a supernatural tolerance for what you might call boring. It never once bothered me.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
727EMflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
I am all for some automation in the air transport business. Surely if the pilots are doing it all themselves all the time inefficiencies and mistakes will abound. There is just too much to keep track of and sometimes four hands, or even six, are not enough.
Automation does trouble me though. Take for instance the DL L1011 that crashed in the Everglades, or the CX 747 that reportedly went out of control on a recent go around. In these situations, and probably many others, the pilots assumed the autopilot had the controls and were completely ignorant of the danger the plane was in. I only have a PPL, but if all it takes to be an airliner captain is to talk on the radios, take off, type numbers into the autopilot and key in an autoland well I can do that! UA, AA, DL, CO, NW, HP, everyone else are you out there? You financial woes are over! Let all your high priced flight crews go. Myself and a bunch of other young, dumb, full of VFR-dom flyboys will sit up front for $8-$10 an hour if you let us!
If boredom in the cockpit is an issue, maybe technology could lend a hand to safety. In my job, we run around in circles in the ocean training for war from time to time, but often we are simply transiting from place to place. Computers let half our ship's crews simulate wargames while the other half maintains safe navigation. Perhaps the airlines could have their pilots take turns running emergency drills. Surely with today's flyby wire technology someone could build a switch and a server to let one pilot take the plane through the motions of an emergency while the other monitors the real world and keeps the pax on a safe uneventful journey.
Sanjet From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Hey everyone! This is my first post! (Testing the smilies too)
I think automation has done a great job in aviation. These systems have to pass one of the most strict standards in the world. Pilots still have a lot to do once they're in the climb/descent and these systems help them make the flight more efficient and safer. 2004 was the safest year in aviation history, I think we can partially contribute that to automation. You can never replace two pilots though, it's all about redundancy!
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3015 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Welcome to the fourm Sanjet!
As far as automation goes, it's there to help. There are enough things going on in the cockpit to keep you occupied for most of the flight. Although I have little experience with aircraft that even have autopilots, I can tell you that things like GPS and autopilots, when used properly help reduce workload. But not knowing how to use them can make things much more dangerous. The key is knowing how to use your resources and when to use them.
Second, automation really isn't a new thing. Autopilots have existed since the early days of aviation. Of course, they're more refined now. And consider that the 767, which was the first aircraft to incorporate a two person cockpit (I know, the DC-9 was first overall) for transatlatic ops, which was supposedly more dangerous because of the lack of an engineer, and only two engines. That happened almost 30 years ago now. Glass cockpits have been around for a long time too. The only difference is now we have five or six LCD displays showing everything instead of a CRT flight director and ehsi.
What we're seeing now is refinement in the technology. Easier to read LCD displays, and more automatic warning systems so displays only show what is prudent at that time. This has also resulted in a trickle down to GA. Will it make that safer? With proper training, yes.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
Quoting 727EMflyer (Reply 6): Take for instance the DL L1011 that crashed in the Everglades
That was just a case of "nobody was flying the jet". A/P was inadvertantly disconnected as everyone was pre-occupied with a faulty gear lite.
Quoting 727EMflyer (Reply 6): I only have a PPL, but if all it takes to be an airliner captain is to talk on the radios, take off, type numbers into the autopilot and key in an autoland well I can do that! UA, AA, DL, CO, NW, HP, everyone else are you out there?
Rats!! you've found out the SECRET! Now everybody knows. Surely you're kidding. ("and don't call me Shirley" from "Airplane")
I must agree that the technology has done great things in aviation from increased safety to better information displayed to the crew. However I will say too that the workload is increased. From the cockpit setup to inflight monitoring the crew is busier. You can never assume that the FMC is doing or will do exactly what you think it will do. vigilence is paramount. example...as we leveled off at our atlantic crossing alt. something on the flight plan page caught my eye. At first it wasn't obvious but then it was apparent that the FMC "thought" we should begin a slow and constant descent from coastout all the way to dest. After many re-inits of the cruise alt. it finally went back to "cruise mode". Why? Nobody knew..even flt. stds. it was just a little anomaly that happens. Other times the FMC will "know more" than the pilot and want to do what it thinks is right but it may not be exactly what the pilot wants. The complexity of this system is much more than what is/can be taught in ground school. Just ask anyone here to really explain all the nuances of the FMC wind models. Want to know how to tell a capt. from the F/O? the F/O says "what's it doing now?" and the capt. says "look it's doing that again".
My point is that my workload was less in the DC-10 than in the MD-11. When things get busy you can get too involved "heads down" trying to input/change info and in those circumstances you "downgrade" the automation and make the MD-11 a DC-10. Would I go back to the "round dials" no way but please don't think this great automation means you push a button and sit back and relax.
727EMflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Shirley I would be smoking something if I wasn't. Even the smallest regional turbo prop needs a pair of real pros up front. I do worry about over reliance on automation though. Like you said Cosmic, the computers can create more work, but at the same time they give you a false sense of security and an unwise notion that you don't need as many people when the computers are doing so much.
On a long flight, two pilots may be desperate for something to do, but when something goes really wrong I would bet that a third man could make a world of difference!
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3015 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1288 times:
The key is to not have an over reliance on it. CosmicCruiser hit the nail on the head. It's important to be vigilant no matter what. Two pros in the front doesn't do any good if they aren't aware of what's going on. The AA 757 that crashed in Cali, Columbia and more recently Corporate Airlines J-32 crash at IRK this past winter are proof of this.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3009 posts, RR: 71 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
It is a very interesting question.
Boredom could come from a few directions :
-Over reliance on the computed flight plan.A great majority of pilots don't bother any more, as the weather/performance/fuel computations are so accurate nowadays.Just following the entered flight plan is very comfy, and let's face it, one will have very few surprises, the difference between the computed and the actual fuel at destination could well be just within the precision of one's gauges.
That means of course that gone are the days when a crew would spend most of the flight computing for alternate options like level changes for more favourable winds,a route better suited to the weather conditions...etc...and now,the job is more a monitoring activity than anything else.
-Lack of self worth :"George is doing a better job flying this thing in cruise, so let him!"
-There are other reasons,but they could be put in these two main chapters.
But the point is that a pilot needs at all times to be ahead of the flight.Call it situational awareness or not but basically George is not built to do it for you and when the chips are down, you better be there on top of the situation.If you're not, mistakes and misinterpretations are bound to happen...and that's how you become another item of statistics.
That's why I try and discourage reading on the flight deck by asking for a weather update on the diversion airport, a PnR estimate on another airfield...and so on...As we generally spend rarely more than four hours at a stretch at the controls on a 12 hr flight,I do not think it is asking a lot.
At other times,I try and play at beating the flight plan by working a different flight profile on the secondary,dive under a strong headwind component...and implement it.The game is great fun and one could get a phenomenal sense of achievement when it works.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 4959 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 1999, 211 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 30166 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 179 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 3009 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
