Human Factors
Potential Knowledge, Policy, or Training Gaps Regarding Operation of FMS-Generation Aircraft
SECOND REPORT from the Human Factors Committee, Automation Subcommittee, Air Transport Association
The Automation Subcommittee was formed by the Human Factors Committee to examine potential solutions to issues raised in the FAA Human Factors Team Report (1996) on Aircraft Automation. The FAA Team identified vulnerabilities in pilot management of automation and situation awareness. These included understanding the capabilities, limitations, modes, and operating principles of automated flightdeck systems, and choosing levels of automation appropriate to flight situations. This is the second report of the subcommittee. In the first report, we examined ways to make training for FMS-generation aircraft more consistent with carrier operating philosophy. In this paper, we examine potential gaps in the knowledge of pilots or carrier policy guidance surrounding limitations or design assumptions of FMS-based navigation.
Discussions within the subcommittee led to identification of six key issues and potential solutions that might be implemented within carriers. These issues are prioritized as follows:
- The need for further guidance in choosing among levels of automation.
- The need for pilots and carriers to detect and correct anomalous autoflight performance.
- Procedural implications of functional differences in FMS and ground-based navigation.
- Requirements to display and cross-check ground-based navaids
- Improving ATC procedure compatibility with FMS-generation aircraft
- The need to maintain underlying skills with extensive FMS experience.
We recognize that some of these issues ultimately require design or certification solutions. However, we believe that action is required in the near term by carriers or their pilots to prevent and correct commonly-occurring errors. For each issue, we attempt to discuss observed problems in some detail, provide supporting evidence suggesting a knowledge or policy gap, assess what pilots operating the aircraft may need to do to accommodate a limitation, and draft policy guidance member carriers might publish to their pilots. This paper leads, then, to an expanded statement of automation policy, covering a range of issues beyond what most member carriers have already addressed. As emphasized in its first paper, "Towards a Model Training Program," the subcommittee believes training revision is necessary to ensure pilots understand and act in accordance with carrier philosophy.
Issue One
Guidance in Choosing Among Levels of Automation
The FAA team recommended that carriers "provide guidance to crews concerning circumstances where autoflight should be engaged, disengaged, or engaged in modes with greater or lesser authority
Issue Two
Detecting and Correcting Anomalous Autoflight Performance
Pilots have reported a significant number of situations in which the aircraft deviated from the pilot's intended actions following selection of an autopilot mode. They may occur for a variety of reasons falling into two general categories
Issue Three
Procedural implications of functional differences in FMS and ground-based navigation
FMS/GFMS systems navigate in fundamentally different ways from pilot tracking or autopilot coupling to ground-based navigation signals
Issue Four
Display and Cross-check of Ground-based Navaids Against FMS Map Display
Except for those aircraft designed to meet Required Navigation Performance (RNP) for the Approach Phase
Issue Five
Improving ATC Procedure Compatibility with FMS-Generation Aircraft
Two issues involving ATC were raised in the FAA Human Factors Team report or in the deliberations of the subcommittee: Last-minute runway, departure, or approach changes
Issue Six
Maintenance of Underlying Skills with Extensive FMS Experience
One final issue discussed by the Subcommittee requires consideration beyond policy statements. We review it here to encourage member carriers to consider its broader implications
Conclusion, Reference, Appendix (Draft Automation Policy)
The subcommittee sees five of these six issues needing further published guidance for line pilots
This article is included in Gulfstream Contract Pilot Services' resource library strictly for your convenience. The information in this article is provided without guarantee or warranty, and is subject to change without notice. The information is the opinion of the writer, and may not reflect the opinion(s) of Gulfstream Contract Pilot Services or it's associates. The information should not be relied upon as advice to help you with your specific issue. We recommend that you discuss the specific facts of your situation with a qualified professional before making any personal or business decisions.
