How EFIS may be killing pilots

[diggertwo]

http://www.pilotbug.com/?p=168

Something has been gnawing at me in aviation, which may spell trouble for relatively low time commercial pilots. Chances are today aviators who are training to become a professional pilots are doing so in one of the current generation of trainers. This means that they are probably using a modern EFIS equipped Cessna G-1000 or Cirrus Avidyne aircraft as your primary trainer. Continuing on toward the Instrument rating, pilots are fully integrated and comfortable with utilizing all of the capabilities of these truly remarkable pieces of avionics.


Trouble is, that while today’s pilots are trained in these thoroughly modern avionics suites, they are then thrust into the world of down and dirty entry level freight and Part 135 position flying old Cessna and Piper light twins. These aircraft, while capable, are equipped with the pre-1960’s technology of the “six pack” and analog instrumentation.


It is probably safe to say that by almost all accounts, the transition from analog instrumentation to modern EFIS equipped cockpits is not difficult, the same cannot be said the other way around. Scans must be developed and perfected in a way that takes much longer to acheive. This is due to the way the information is presented and the physical distance that the eye much travel. For a low time pilot who is in thier firs 100 hours or so, it could spell trouble.


EFIS was designed specifically to rectify the flaws that occur in flying with the previous generation of analog instrumentation. Studies of the scanning of the primary and secondary instruments were carefully researched and used to design the Primary Flight Display (PFD) which is now standard in all airliners and now being incorporated into more and more GA aircraft.


I hope that this will be identified as a hazard and that additional training may be incorporated prior to these pilots flying the line.

 

[avbug]

To suggest that "EFIS" is a problem or at fault is grossly in error, for many EFIS systems do nothing more than replace conventional mechanical instruments with an electronic screen of the same size and shape, with a digital image of the same instrument. EFIS isn't the problem.

Poor training and poor skills are the problem.

The issue of transition between analog instrumentation and digital displays is widely discussed in the industry, and is not a new concern. It's well recognized.

Pilots transitioning from the traditional "six pack" tend to adapt to various digital or electronic displays much more readily than pilots who have been trained on a single display or a couple of displays trying to go the other way.

Pilots seldom complete flight training prepared for the real world. Many have never experienced a realistic engine failure or realistic emergency. Many don't understand basic aerodynamics, basic aircraft systems, or even the rudimentary basics of navigation beyond following the magenta line. These shortcomings aren't new, and haven't developed with the introduction of EFIS, FMS, GPS, or electronic displays...these are fundamental problems that have been around a long time.

EFIS is no more responsible for pilot fatalities than the legal production of medicinal drugs is responsible for suicides, or the lawful use and sale is responsible for murder with handguns. EFIS is a tool. How it is used, the preparation one makes before using it, and proper training on the job and before startin the job are certainly accountable players in the story...but EFIS itself does nothing more than present information. What the user does with that information, and the skill the user has in integrating other sources to produce the same situational picture and to fly the airplane, are at the heart of the matter, and these most certainly should be addressed.

 

[phr8dawg]

I'm fairly certain ERAU or a number of other schools already did a study on this and they found that pilots raised on "moving map" displays and EFIS who moved back into the steam-gauge world had an edge in visualization skills over those raised on pure steam gauge. It was a bigger struggle for steam gauge drivers to go to all-glass. It depends far more on the effort that an individual makes to perfect the required skills.

In ten years RVSM will be at 10,000 feet and we will hear the latest 150-hour wonder-kid bragging about his autopilot skills. Ten years after that, all the freighters will be navigated by an avionics suite perfected on the "Global Hawk" and what few pilots remain will be steering with I-phones. Enjoy it while you can!

 

[Metro752]

I'm fairly certain ERAU or a number of other schools already did a study on this and they found that pilots raised on "moving map" displays and EFIS who moved back into the steam-gauge world had an edge in visualization skills over those raised on pure steam gauge. It was a bigger struggle for steam gauge drivers to go to all-glass. It depends far more on the effort that an individual makes to perfect the required skills.

Embry Riddle tooting their own horn.

What Avbug said.

 

[bizicmo]

Why would new pilots do entry level freight or part 135? It takes them 3 times as much flight time to get on with those jobs versus an RJ.

 

[scangadah]

Why would new pilots do entry level freight or part 135? It takes them 3 times as much flight time to get on with those jobs versus an RJ.

Have you tried to get on with a RJ operator recently?

 

[bizicmo]

Not really, but since most rj operators have mins at well below 1000 and 135 operations have minimums above 1000, do the math.

Now when I say not really, I am unemployed so I am required to apply to at least 2 companies a week, so then yes I have.

 

[brokeflyer]

pilot training today is a joke. Ive flown with fo's and capt's from regionals and a few other places that fall apart with a simple fms failure or other display problem.

 

[scangadah]

Not really, but since most rj operators have mins at well below 1000 and 135 operations have minimums above 1000, do the math.

Now when I say not really, I am unemployed so I am required to apply to at least 2 companies a week, so then yes I have.

The minimums may as well be 1 hour of total time IF NOBODY IS HIRING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Mr. Unemployed, you might have to slum and go to a freight hauler.

 

[acpilot]

Why would new pilots do entry level freight or part 135? It takes them 3 times as much flight time to get on with those jobs versus an RJ.

Some people don't want to fly for an airline. I'm glad I did the 135 freight route. In my opinion, flying in the single pilot IFR environment really teaches a pilot how to operate efficiently.