Operational Policies and Training?
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Aviation system is very safe
Pilots (and others) often mitigate operational risk
Improvements have been made but vulnerabilities found in areas including:
Manual handling
Interaction with
automated systems
Pilot
training/qualification
training/qualification
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Operational
Operational
policies/procedures
policies/procedures
Integration with air
traffic
services/airspace
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Changing Skills!
Scope of Operations
Advanced
Advanced
Normal
Basic/
Contingency
Normal
Normal
Crew Coordination, Problem Solving, and Manual Handling Skills
1960’s
Timeframe
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
2000’s
Operational Policy
Findings
Recommendations (#9)
Improvements, but …
Flight path management Focus
No Common Terminology
Type
of Operation
Opportunities
for Manual
Flight
Focus on the TASK not the
Emphasis on crew
communicationautomation
and Wide Variation
Compliance
with
Policy
consistent
with
crosscheck (e.g.,
SOPs
has been
training
practice
(#1)
Focus and
on Modes
verbalize,
verify,
Guidance: Selection to drive emphasised
F’Path …
monitor)Who/what is controlling
Control:
One Size does NOT fit all
No One BEST
Reflect Operator / Integral / Dynamic
(Review) / Manufacturer / Training
Meaning / Terms / Guidelines /
Policy + Procedures (#3)
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Not about name (FCU,
Long / Short Haul
MCP)
Mixed
Fleet
…
but
don’t
always
Automation
as pilots
a tool
Philosophy
and
Policy
History / Culture
follow
Pilot Experience
• and
Operational
Guidance
Control match
• Workload
• Too prescriptive
“unable”
• Environment
Pay-off
Weather / Terrain /
Adapt to the operator
Infrastructure / ATC
IFR / VFR
Consistent Terminology
Information Management
X-Checking?
Low payoff
Onerous /
Repetitive
Conflicting
Goals
Understanding
Poor
XCheck
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Normative
Guidance and Control –
Crew Workload Less
MANAGED
Autoflight with FCU
Manual flight with FD guidance
Manual flight without FD guidance
Crew Workload Greater
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Automation
Pyramid
Guidance and Control – Levels
Aircraft reaction time
FMS
FCU/MCP
“HEAD UP”
SHORT INTERACTION
SHORT TERM ACTION
Basic
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
“HEAD DOWN”
LONG INTERACTION
LONG TERM ACTION
Interaction time
Pilot Vulnerability
Why?
Abdicate too much
responsibility
• Lack of self efficacy
• Policies
• Insufficient
training/experience/judgment
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Result: pilots may not
be prepared to handle
non-routine situations
9
Captain Simon Henderson
Virgin Australia
simon.henderson@virgin australia.com
FCL Briefing APR 2014
CASA FOI
Briefing
May
2012
Human
Factors
and2the
Automated
Flight Deck Feb 2015
INITIAL
TRAINING
RECURRENT
TRAINING
Reinforce
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
LINE
OPERATIONS
Finding 11 - Pilot Knowledge and Skills
for Flight Path Management
Pilots sometimes lack sufficient or in-depth knowledge and skills to
most efficiently and effectively accomplish the desired flight path
management related tasks.
Pilot Feedback on FMS Training
• 2/3rd report difficulties in first 6 months
• Only ¼ felt adequately prepared
• 42% - training was deficient
• 62% - 3-12 months to feel comfortable
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Inadequate Pilot Knowledge
(from accident/major incident data)
Understanding of flight director, autopilot, autothrottle/autothrust, and flight management system/computer:
Knowledge of systems and
limitations
Operating procedures
Need for confirmation and
crosscheck
Mode transitions and behavior
Crew Resource Management
Unusual attitude recognition and recovery, including high altitude
Speed and energy management
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Consequences for Flight Path
Management
• Depth of Systems
Knowledge
• Required to
anticipate, monitor,
and react
Knowledge
Issues
Practice
and
Exposure
Deviation
and Offpath mgt
Understdg
of
underlying
Systems
• Training is often
limited, flightcrews
manage/react in
variable ways
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
• How modes and
selections relate to
flight path
management task
Finding 12 - Current Training Time,
Methods, and Content
Current training methods, training devices, the time allotted for
training, and content may not provide the flightcrews with the
knowledge, skills and judgment to successfully manage flight path
management systems.
Challenging Areas
•
The most prevalent challenge described was that of balancing the program
focus on developing and maintaining skills using the automated systems
and those related to flying and making decisions without those automated
systems.
•
Train departures and arrivals, including realistic line-oriented scenarios
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Finding 13: Instructor Trg & Qual
Flight instructor training, experience, and line-operation familiarity
may not provide the required flight instructor experience and skills to
effectively train flightcrews for successful flight path management.
This will be especially important for future operations.
Improvements Required
•
Instructors stated improvement is needed for training and developing
instructor skills.
•
Many airlines do not provide specific training for the instructors on how to
teach automated systems.
•
Many instructors stated they would benefit from better instructor training on
how to teach the use of automation as well as instruction on the underlying
principles and intricacies of how the automation works.
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Recommendations
Regulatory guidance and requirements for training should be expanded
to address:
Flight path and energy management throughout the
flight regime
Recovery from off-path circumstances
The use of alternative modes to meet air traffic
clearances/requirements
Training to meet the operators’ operational policies
Moving between basic and more advanced
automated system modes
The decision-making process concerning the
selection of applicable modes
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Recommendations
Regulatory guidance and requirements for training should be expanded
to address:
Actions to be taken when the desired aircraft performance does not match that
provided or scheduled by the automated systems. Include actions and the
requirement to advise air traffic when applicable
Handling known automated system anomalies or situations known to cause crew
difficulties
The conduct of normal go-arounds
Distraction and workload management
Malfunction management
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Recommendations
Regulators should consider:
Training and qualification requirements for trainers
How the requirements for training specified during the introduction of new
technology, procedures or practices may be amended following the integration
of these new elements into normal operations
Regulators should address how the following areas are specified in the syllabus,
content and conduct of training/qualification in flight path management systems;
The levels of skill and knowledge to be demonstrated
The mix of training required with particular emphasis on the
elements to be addressed during line training
The promotion and retention of manual handling skills
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015
Captain Dave McKenney
United Airlines / ALPA.I
Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015