Skip to footer

Do pilots rely too much on automated flying? DOT says yes.

The agency cautions that as use of automation technology increases, pilots will have less and less opportunity to master manual flying skills. 

|
Leonhard Foeger/Reuters/File
Inside a cockpit of an Airbus A320 flight simulator shows the seat of the co-pilot in Vienna on March 26, 2015.

Aviation watchdogs are pumping the airbrakes on the use of autopilot after finding that relying on the technology may make for unprepared airline pilots. That's according to an audit from the Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation (DOT), which calls for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure pilots are ready to fly manually should the need arise.

While the transportation authority acknowledges automation technology has made for safer skies, the agency cautions that it can contribute to "diminished manual flying skills" that leave pilots ill-prepared for the unexpected. The report continues:

While airlines have long used automation safely to improve efficiency and reduce pilot workload, several recent accidents, including the July 2013 crash of Asiana Airlines flight 214, have shown that pilots who typically fly with automation can make errors when confronted with an unexpected event or transitioning to manual flying. As a result, reliance on automation is a growing concern among industry experts, who have also questioned whether pilots are provided enough training and experience to maintain manual flying proficiency.

As such, DOT is suggesting the FAA provide guidelines to air carriers for monitoring and evaluating pilot performance, and to ensure manual training is provided. Right now, according to DOT, limited monitoring and manual training is in place.

The FAA, which responded to a draft of the report, said that the agency "shares the [Inspector General's] concerns about an over-reliance on automation and the importance of training pilots to handle unexpected events and manually fly an aircraft." The agency agreed to move forward with the recommendation to help airlines monitor pilots but disagreed that pilot training was insufficient. 

The Transportation Department referenced studies that have found pilots are prone to overestimating their manual flying skills: "For example, the Flight Safety Foundation’s 2010 study evaluated the manual flying skills of 30 experienced US commercial airline pilots. While 80 percent of the pilots reported that they typically hand fly the aircraft below 10,000 feet, the pilots’ aggregate scores for manual flying maneuvers fell below FAA’s standards for these pilots." 

The agency cautions that as use of automation technology rises, pilots will have less and less opportunity to practice manual flying skills. Already, the FAA estimates that pilots rely on automation during flight 90 percent of the time. 

Still, it is important to remember that flying has only gotten safer. As The Christian Science Monitor previously reported, 2015 was a safer year for flying than the preceding 12 months, making it one of the safest years for air travel ever. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Do pilots rely too much on automated flying? DOT says yes.
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0113/Do-pilots-rely-too-much-on-automated-flying-DOT-says-yes
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe