Pilots Rely Too Much on Automation, Panel Says

Many Aviators Have Difficulty Manually Flying Planes, Study Commissioned by FAA Finds

By ANDY PASZTOR

Commercial airline pilots have become so dependent on automation that poor manual flying skills and
failure to master the latest changes in cockpit technology pose the greatest hazards to passengers, an
international panel of air-safety experts warns.

A soon-to-be-released study commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration determined, among

other things, that "pilots sometimes rely too much on automated systems and may be reluctant to
intervene" or switch them off in unusual or risky circumstances, according to a draft reviewed by The
Wall Street Journal.

While over the decades automation played a big part in making flying today safer than ever in the U.S.
and globally, the draft highlights some downsides. The study found that some pilots "lack sufficient or in-
depth knowledge and skills" to properly control their plane's trajectory, partly because "current training
methods, training devices and the time allotted for training" may be inadequate to fully master
advanced automated systems.

Among the accidents and certain categories of incidents that were examined, roughly two-thirds of the
pilots either had difficulty manually flying planes or made mistakes using flight computers.

Relying too heavily on computer-driven flight decks—and problems that result when crews fail to
properly keep up with changes in levels of automation—now pose the biggest threats to airliner safety
world-wide, the study concluded. The results can range from degraded manual-flying skills to poor
decision-making to possible erosion of confidence among some aviators when automation abruptly
malfunctions or disconnects during an emergency.

The report is the first of its kind to meld historic data from accidents and incidents with real-time
observations of working pilots, according to people familiar with the details. Instead of just focusing on
training and cockpit design, the study takes a broader approach to consider pilot interactions with air-
traffic controllers and other operational issues.

The observers found that in most instances, pilots were able to detect and correct automation slip-ups
before they could cascade into more serious errors. But when pilots "have to actually hand fly" aircraft,
according to one section of the narrative describing interviews with trainers, "they are accustomed to
watching things happen…instead of being proactive."

Pilots losing control of aircraft, because of poor situational awareness or inability to grasp what their
instruments and automated systems are telling them, has been identified as the primary cause in a
number of crashes globally in recent years. Pilot lapses and automation were implicated in the high-
profile 2009 crash of an Air FranceAirbus A330 that stalled and went down in the Atlantic Ocean, killing
all 228 aboard, just as they are suspected of causing last July's crash of an Asiana Airlines Inc. Boeing 777
during a botched landing in San Francisco.
The 277-page report—written by a team of industry, labor, academic and government officials—details
the hazards of excessive pilot dependence on increasingly automated and complex flight decks.

Scheduled for release by the FAA as early as this week, the findings already have prompted some agency
action and are expected to be a catalyst for further moves to combat such fundamental safety gaps. The
final version is basically unchanged from a September draft, according to people who have read both.

The FAA said it already has taken action on all 18 of the report's recommendations, through new rules,
guidance material and research. The agency cited "advances in manual flying skills [and] improved pilot
certification standards," adding that the report "validates those efforts" and the FAA would discuss the
next steps on Thursday at a summit with industry leaders.

"It's an industry consensus document" that's based on data and "was so meticulously done," according
to John Cox, a former airline pilot and crash investigator, who now runs an industry consulting firm.
"Those are the elements that make it so powerful."

With the reliability of engines and flight controls continuing to improve, airline pilots spend the vast
majority of their time programming and monitoring automated systems—typically relegating manual
flying to barely a few minutes during takeoffs and right before touchdowns.

Overreliance on automation, however, has been recognized for years as an industrywide problem, with
numerous earlier studies delving into the consequences.

But the latest effort stands out due to the wide-ranging collection of experts who participated. It also
breaks new ground because the panel members sifted through large volumes of voluntary safety reports
filed by pilots, along with additional data gathered by cockpit observers on more than 9,000 flights
world-wide.

After seven years of deliberations and persistent industry arguments about which accidents and
incidents ought to be considered, the document lays out some sweeping recommendations to prevent
what critics have dubbed "automation addiction" in some cockpits.

The 34-member committee, for example, agreed that "pilots must be provided with opportunities to
refine" manual flying skills, while receiving enhanced training in computer complexities and automation
modes. In addition, the draft recommended training for rare but potentially catastrophic malfunctions
"for which there is no specific procedure" or readily available checklist.

The panel also called on manufacturers to develop cockpit designs that are "more understandable from
the flightcrew's perspective" and specifically guard against technology failures resulting from integration
of various onboard systems.

Kathy Abbott, a senior FAA scientist and one of the committee's three co-chairs, declined to comment. In
the past, she has pisaid excessive reliance on computer aids means pilots "sometimes are not prepared
to deal with non-routine situations," especially when the message from airline management and trainers
"is that automated systems can do the job better" than humans.

David McKenney, another co-chair and head of training programs and human-factors issues for the Air
Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilots union, said on Sunday that FAA rules prohibited him from
commenting. But in the summer of 2012, he gave a mini-preview of some of the report's conclusions.
Mr. McKenney told an ALPA conference in Washington that instead of teaching pilots to punch in
numbers and "simply how to interface with the automated systems," airlines should train aviators to
effectively manage flight paths using more-realistic scenarios and the element of surprise.

The FAA is considering releasing the study's findings in conjunction with agency chief Michael Huerta's
scheduled meeting this week with industry leaders to discuss voluntary safety initiatives.

The agency earlier this month completed a major rewrite of pilot-training rules mirroring some of the
report's recommendations, including new requirements for teaching more-effective ways to monitor
other pilots and flight instruments.

The expert panel was charged with updating an influential 1996 FAA study that examined the benefits
and drawbacks of automation involving earlier, less-computerized generations of aircraft. Now, other
groups and organizations are expected to conduct follow-up research based on the long-awaited
findings.

According to the draft, "the definition of 'normal' pilot skills has changed over time" and "has actually
increased to being a manager of systems." Concerned about the hazards of cockpit "information
overload," the draft noted that several manufacturers told the panel that"today's technology allows for
too much information to be presented to the pilot."

Federal Aviation Administration report, just made public, says an over reliance on automated systems
used by pilots in the cockpits of commercial airlines has led to accidents and safety incidents.

The FAA report stresses the risk that future accidents could occur as commercial airline pilots become
overly reliant on automated computer systems in the cockpit and lose their hands-on, manual flying
skills.

The 279-page report, titled “Operational Use of Flight Path Management Systems” was just made public
yesterday. It analyzed safety and operational data to determine a significant relationship between errors
using the automated cockpit computers and accidents.

It provides recommendations to airlines to streamline guidelines for operating the systems, like auto-
pilot, and provide more training to pilots and flight crews in managing and using automation.

To view the full report click here

Because of the group’s findings, the FAA is warning the public and commercial airlines that pilot training
needs to be enhanced.
The FAA’s action comes three months after the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit exposed the airline
industry’s concerns about “automation addiction” and commercial airline pilots.

The Investigative Unit’s probe followed the fatal crash of Asiana flight 214. NTSB investigators confirm
that as part of the Asiana flight 214 crash investigation they are exploring the interaction with automated
systems and the three pilots in the cockpit as a potential cause.

The FAA’s newly released report states: “Pilots sometimes rely too much on automated systems,” “auto-
flight mode confusion errors continue to occur,” and “pilots sometimes over-rely on automated systems.”

As part of the study, the working group reviewed the role automation played in accidents and major
safety incidents in terms of it being too confusing or complex.

The report also reviewed accidents and safety incidents where the automation did not function properly
or as anticipated.

It also looked at pilot-training levels in relation to accidents and issues with individual airline company
protocols and procedures.

Some highlights:

The study found of all accidents reported:

• 23 percent had pilots caught by surprise

• 27 percent had pilots made an error in selecting computer modes

• 60 percent had a manual flight error by pilot

In all safety incidents reported:

• 45 percent had pilots caught by surprise

• 60 percent had an error in using a flight management computer

The report recommends more “automation surprises” be integrated in the training. FAA Administrator
Michael Huerta also called on the airline industry to voluntarily improve its training to focus on the issue
of automation over reliance.

NASA-funded aviation research engineers at the University of Iowa are in the middle of a three-year
grant to study the relationship between pilots, automation and accidents.

“Flying heads down is something that we see a lot more with computerized cockpits,” Dr. Thomas
“Mach” Schnell, who leads the Iowa research team, told NBC Bay Area.

He compares the use of automation in a cockpit to cruise control in a car.

“Everybody has had a little glitch with the car where they thought that the cruise control was off and
then they realize, ‘Hey it’s still on,’” Schnell said. “Now make it 10 times as complicated, and that’s what
automation in the flight deck looks like. Every once in a while it will catch you in such a way that you
didn’t anticipate.”

Schnell also said he believes modern pilots are becoming too reliant on automation to fly the airplanes.

“You lose eventually touch of the stick and rudder skills that a pilot may have had,” he said.