The aviation world has always been full of conspiracy theories and urban legends, and I've heard plenty of them. However, I've been most dismayed by the myths and exaggerated rumors about autopilot: the idea that modern airplanes are controlled by computers and that the presence of a pilot is nothing more than a spare tire in a pinch, and so on and so forth. We've all heard that pilots will be completely obsolete in the near future. For example, Wired magazine ran a story on machinery in 2012 in which the reporter wrote, "The autopilot is a computerized device that can operate a 787 on its own without human support, but we irrationally stick a couple of human pilots in the cockpit to act as babysitters, just in case.
High-tech equipment is only used to assist pilotsThis description of what a civilian pilot does is the most thoughtless and insulting thing I've ever heard. To say that the 787, or any aircraft, can fly "without human support" and that the pilots are there only to act as autopilot "babysitters" is more than just hyperbole, more than a slight misinterpretation of the facts for the sake of literary merit, more than "not quite right" - it is just plain wrong. The fact that even a reputable tech magazine doesn't get this and allows this kind of talk to be published shows how prevalent this myth is. It's in the media all the time, to the point where it's taken for granted.
You'll notice that most of the people who say these ridiculous things are not pilots, but journalists or academics (professors, researchers, whatever). No matter how smart they are or how valuable their research is, these people are extremely unfamiliar with what business aviation faces on a daily basis. In some cases, the pilots themselves contribute to the problem, and some of us might say, "Damn, this plane just flew itself". Our worst enemies are often our own people; we admire high-tech tools, but when we explain complex procedures to the layman, we simplify them, and we end up painting an exaggerated caricature that distorts the realities of flying and devalues the profession.
High-tech cockpit equipment essentially assists pilots in the same way that high-tech medical equipment assists doctors and surgeons. The equipment dramatically improves the pilot's ability, but in no way reduces the experience and skill required to operate the equipment, and it's far less likely to turn that experience and skill into something that isn't necessary. Asking an airplane to fly automatically is almost like asking a modern operating room to operate automatically. Surgeon and author Gerwandt wrote an article that appeared in a 2011 issue of The New Yorker: "When it comes to medical advances, everyone thinks only of technology. But the skill of the doctor is just as important, if not more so, than the technology. This can be applied to all walks of life. It's the skill with which people use technology that really makes the difference." That's exactly right.
Autonomous driving still requires human interventionAgain, what does "automation" and "autonomous driving" mean? Autopilot is just like any other piece of equipment - it's a tool for the crew to use, and you still have to tell it what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. I prefer the term "autopilot system" because autopilot combines a number of different functions, adjusting speed, thrust, horizontal and vertical heading, either simultaneously or independently, all of which require regular inputs from the crew to function properly. On the Boeing I fly, if I want to set up an automatic climb or descent, I can come up with seven different ways to do each, and I can decide which one to use depending on the situation. The media will quote so-called experts as saying that "the pilot only has about 90 seconds to do it manually on each flight", which is not only wrong, but also shows that the people who are saying it don't know the difference between manual and automatic, as if the automatic operation is just a matter of pushing a button and waiting with your hands on your chest.
The other night, when I was flying economy class and had a surprisingly smooth landing, a guy behind me shouted, "Good job, autopilot! " It may be funny, but it's completely wrong. The landing was manual from start to finish, as is the case with the vast majority of airplane landings. Yes, most jetliners are certified to perform landings automatically (in pilot lingo, it's called "auto-landing"), but in reality it's extremely rare, and less than one percent of airplanes land with automatic controls. It would take several pages to explain in detail how to set up and perform an auto-landing. In short, if it were as simple as pushing a button, why would I need to practice twice a year in a simulator and review the areas marked in the manual every once in a while. On many levels, auto-landing is far more mind-numbing than manual.
The voyage is full of variablesOn a voyage, the situation is constantly changing, complex, fluid, and definitely not dead, so the pilot has to make decisions all the time, and every decision counts. There are all sorts of protocols, checklists, and procedures written in black and white, but crew members still have to use their subjective judgment to give hundreds of instructions, such as avoiding stacked cumulus clouds, solving mechanical problems, and the list goes on and on. I'm referring to those rare and commonplace situations that are encountered on any given day, on any given flight, to the point of job saturation. Even in the most mundane situations, the cockpit is busy enough to surprise you - and on autopilot.
The other cliché is that cockpit automation makes flying airplanes easier than ever. On the contrary, flying an airplane is probably the hardest it's ever been. Taking into account all the operationally relevant areas of modern aviation (from flight planning, to navigation, to communications), the knowledge necessary to fly an airplane is much greater than it has ever been. Now, it's true that the main skills required aren't quite the same as in the past, but if you think that some skills are more important than others, you're wrong.
You'll want to point out: but what about the explosion in the number of remotely piloted military RCs and UAVs? Isn't that a harbinger of future trends? It's a tantalizing thought. These machines are sophisticated and have proven to be reliable - but only to a limited extent. Unlike commercial airliners that carry hundreds of passengers, remotely piloted airplanes have a very different mission than airliners, operate in a very different environment, and are far less costly if things go wrong. Borrowing the concept of a drone, scaling it up, and adding a few backups just to get it on the road is not going to work.
I'd love to see how quickly a remotely operated drone can abort a takeoff and evacuate 250 passengers if its engine fails and it aborts, and then the brakes overheat and the tires catch fire. I'd love to see how a drone with a pressurization system problem in a mountainous area can be diverted to a different flight path, and how to troubleshoot the problem. I'd love to see how a drone is going to navigate through a storm at sea. God, I'd love to see even the simplest of missions. There are a million things that happen on every flight that require a lot of attention and intuitive judgment on the part of the crew, and I can't imagine how you would resolve those situations if you were on the ground thousands of miles away.
Unmanned flight would require major infrastructure changesEven if the unmanned vehicle model were to be used in business aviation, it would require a huge amount of capital to dramatically change the current civil aviation system and infrastructure, such as designing and testing a new generation of airplanes, creating a new flight control system, and so on. Even the concepts of unmanned cars, trains, and boats are not yet perfect, and jumping to commercial airliners would be sub-zero in terms of difficulty and cost, and even if it were to succeed, it would still require remote control of those airplanes. I'm not saying that humans can't do this, but maybe someday we will be able to travel by unmanned civilian aircraft, just like we could build cities on the moon or under the sea. At the end of the day, the big question isn't whether the technology is there, it's the cost and practicality. There's still a long way to go to get there, assuming we actually go down that path.
I know how these words sound to you. To you, I'm just an anti-technology activist, resisting the creeping march of technology to keep a job that will eventually be obsolete; and because I'm a civilian pilot, my arguments are not credible. You can think that all you want, but I can assure you that I am not naive, and I speak from my conscience, and I am not opposed to technological progress; I am only opposed to the foolishness of over-extending the utility of technology, and to statements that clearly mischaracterize what pilots do, because that is not what my colleagues and I do for a living.
This article was written by Patrick Smith. Patrick Smith
He began taking flight lessons at age 14, got his first airline job in 1990 as a co-pilot on a 15-passenger turboprop, and went on to fly freighters and commercial airliners on domestic and international routes. He is also the author of askthepilot and has contributed to the online magazine Salon's acclaimed Ask the Pilot air travel series for more than a decade and has been featured on more than 200 radio and television programs. He enjoys spending his free time traveling the world in more than 70 countries and lives near Boston.
This article is from: Cabin Confidential