4 ms·

Isn't this a false dichotomy, e.g., shouldn't it be "The problem is relying on automation in addition to real piloting skills"? Look at the space program, for

Isn't this a false dichotomy, e.g., shouldn't it be "The problem is relying on automation in addition to real piloting skills"? Look at the space program, for example. Extremes of forces and very short windows for decision-making have moved spaceflight in the direction of automation for most mission critical moments. The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators, so I am not sure where the difference lies in your differentiation between the two. I can see a point where doing everything by software rather than human is safer and makes the most sense (see the direction Tesla is taking us), and at that point there will be no issue. But that is not the case now.

raverbashing 10y ago
I don't see your point > The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators The problem is when the data sources fail, like in AF447. Or when you have people crashing an airplane in perfect weather, like Asiana Airlines 214 in San Francisco Yes, automation makes things easier, but they fail eventually. And when it fails you have to fly it manually (or with a lower level of automation). But some modern pilots are incapable of doing that.
- drittich 10y ago
  Well, I am not arguing for or against automation (although ultimately as an optimistic programmer I land very much in the for camp.) What I am saying is that simulation time alone is not good enough. Nor is flying-only time. Both are needed, and for different reasons. Sure, time spent in automation mode in the air is not incredibly useful. But it is reality, and enduring that, only to have to take manual control in a panic after 8 hours of boredom is something I don't see simulators re-reproducing very well any time soon.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    You don't put the pilot in an 8h training flight. You train for specific failures in different situations in a simulator (take off/cruise/landing). And you're right, there's no training for "doing nothing" for 8h and then having an issue Level of automation you're using has nothing to do with flying on a simulator or an actual plane.

raverbashing 10y ago

I don't see your point > The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators The problem is when the data sources fail, like in AF447. Or when you have people crashing an airplane in perfect weather, like Asiana Airlines 214 in San Francisco Yes, automation makes things easier, but they fail eventually. And when it fails you have to fly it manually (or with a lower level of automation). But some modern pilots are incapable of doing that.

drittich 10y ago
Well, I am not arguing for or against automation (although ultimately as an optimistic programmer I land very much in the for camp.) What I am saying is that simulation time alone is not good enough. Nor is flying-only time. Both are needed, and for different reasons. Sure, time spent in automation mode in the air is not incredibly useful. But it is reality, and enduring that, only to have to take manual control in a panic after 8 hours of boredom is something I don't see simulators re-reproducing very well any time soon.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  You don't put the pilot in an 8h training flight. You train for specific failures in different situations in a simulator (take off/cruise/landing). And you're right, there's no training for "doing nothing" for 8h and then having an issue Level of automation you're using has nothing to do with flying on a simulator or an actual plane.