Operational Policies and Training? Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Improvements have been made but vulnerabilities found in areas including: Manual handling Interaction with automated systems Pilot training/qualification Operational policies/procedures Integration with air traffic services/airspace Pilots (and others) often mitigate operational risk Aviation system is very safe Pilot training/qualification Operational policies/procedures Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Scope of Operations 1960’s Timeframe 2000’s Crew Coordination, Problem Solving, and Manual Handling Skills Changing Skills! Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015 Normal Basic/ Contingency Normal Advanced Normal Advanced Knowledge and Skills required have Increased NOT Decreased

Operational Policy Findings Improvements, but …No Common TerminologyWide VariationFocus on Modes …One Size does NOT fit allNo One BEST Recommendations (#9) Flight path management FocusOpportunities for Manual FlightAutomation as a toolGuidance and Control“unable”Adapt to the operatorConsistent TerminologyInformation Management Environment Weather / Terrain / Infrastructure / ATC IFR / VFR Emphasis on crew communication and crosscheck (e.g., verbalize, verify, monitor) Compliance with SOPs has been emphasised … but pilots don’t always follow Operational match Workload Too prescriptive Pay-off Type of Operation Long / Short Haul Mixed Fleet History / Culture Pilot Experience Not about name (FCU, MCP) Philosophy and Policy Focus on the TASK not the automation Policy consistent with training and practice (#1) Meaning / Terms / Guidelines / Policy + Procedures (#3) Reflect Operator / Integral / Dynamic (Review) / Manufacturer / Training Guidance: Selection to drive F’Path Control: Who/what is controlling Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

X-Checking? Poor X- Check Conflicting Goals Onerous / Repetitive Low payoffUnderstandingNormative Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Guidance and Control – Crew Workload Greater Crew Workload Less Manual flight without FD guidance Manual flight with FD guidance Autoflight with FCU MANAGED Automation Pyramid ? Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Guidance and Control – Levels Basic Aircraft reaction time Interaction time FMS “HEAD DOWN” LONG INTERACTION LONG TERM ACTION “HEAD UP” SHORT INTERACTION SHORT TERM ACTION FCU/MCP Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Pilot Vulnerability 9 Abdicate too much responsibility Why? Lack of self efficacy Policies Insufficient training/experience/judgment Result: pilots may not be prepared to handle non-routine situations Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Captain Simon Henderson Virgin Australia australia.com FCL Briefing APR 2014

CASA FOI Briefing 2 May 2012 Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

INITIAL TRAINING Prepare LINE OPERATIONS Reinforce RECURRENT TRAINING Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

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 2/3 rd report difficulties in first 6 months Only ¼ felt adequately prepared 42% - training was deficient 62% months to feel comfortable Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Inadequate Pilot Knowledge (from accident/major incident data) Speed and energy management Unusual attitude recognition and recovery, including high altitude Crew Resource Management 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 Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

Consequences for Flight Path Management How modes and selections relate to flight path management task Training is often limited, flightcrews manage/react in variable ways Required to anticipate, monitor, and react Depth of Systems Knowledge Knowledge Issues Practice and Exposure Understdg of underlying Systems Deviation and Off- path mgt Human Factors and the Automated Flight Deck Feb 2015

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-aroundsDistraction and workload managementMalfunction 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