Rules for Fighter Cockpit Automation
McDaniel’s article ‘Rules for fighter cockpit automation’ assesses the issues and unique problems associated with the fighter cockpit automation functions. Philosophies and techniques for automating fighter aircraft cockpits are not correctly stated or documented, causing significant setbacks. The inability of the aircraft designers and pilots to acknowledge each other’s point of view is one reason for the vagueness experienced. Integration and software are becoming too expensive and complex, thus making the reliability of avionics a significant setback (McDaniel, 1998). The author identifies fighter aircraft as complex machines built for a single operator. Future integrated digital avionics will have the ability to produce more information that the pilot can use. The failure to consider the authorities delegated to the pilot has been a common and most important limitation. A solution is designing the fighter aircraft system and giving the pilot complete control.
The author outlines the rules for automating fighter cockpits which are sixteen in total. Levels of automation that can be applied to any system are stated. The standard of mechanization is determined by how the operator interacts with the automated function. Reliability of operations is critical in eradicating any redundancy that may affect performance. The automation process in a fighter aircraft involves many procedures, hence the need to have a clear plan and rules for consistency. McDaniel indicates that pilots play an essential role in monitoring the criticality of operations; in case of a malfunction, they can intervene. The author’s analysis of the problem and potential solution is good. McDaniel identifies the problem, offers possible solutions, and guides how they can be implemented. It provides vital information for future crew system designers automating the digital cockpit.
Emerging Trends in Present and Future Aircraft Cockpit Designs
The development in display and control avionics has dramatically changed the technological advancement in airline operation and evolution. In the article ‘Emerging trends in present and future aircraft cockpit designs,’ Speyer (1989) identifies technology evolution and design’s impact on current and future aircraft cockpit designs. Technology provides standardization, concentration, and flexibility in attaining the changes in structure. Speyer gives the design guidelines and pilot roles in the current and future innovations (Speyer, 1989). The evolution of the pilot’s position is linked to that of the cockpit aircraft as they go hand in hand. Speyer states that the three levels to be considered regarding the captain’s role are strategic, functional, and operative management. The pilot’s role as flight manager, computer monitor, and system supervisor needs to be centered around the cognitive functions of programming, planning, thrusting, and maintaining.
Speyer states that digital technology has resulted in the reduction of emerging operational needs; additionally, it has enabled full connectivity throughout the aircraft. The two highly suggested strategies for future fight deck designs are providing good feedback to the pilot and introducing fail-operational and fail-safe methods. Adopting the two will enable the controllers to detect and correct unintentional errors before they cause harm to the system’s performance. New technology should be incorporated to increase automation through automatic reconfigurations, ongoing maintenance, pilot assistance, and crew error-tracking abilities. The author emphasizes the need to introduce human operators to track and prevent potential errors. The information provided in the article is of great value; the author identifies the solutions to human and machine errors. Possible solutions to current and future aircraft cockpit design trends are targeted by analyzing the emerging conceptual orientation and operational needs.
Cockpit Automation Philosophy
In his article ‘Cockpit automation philosophy,’ Tarnowski argues that changes have been experienced in cockpit automation. New risks have been created with the introduction of new cadets due to the high demand for air transport. Flight safety has become the primary concern, and the presence of new technology has facilitated its realization. Automation is vital in increasing flight safety and efficiency; it is tailored toward man and requires training provisions to be adopted (Tarnowski, 2003). Automated systems have been attained, and their primary benefit includes the ability to achieve several tasks simultaneously on their own. Tarnowski states that the systems play to our strengths and weaknesses, indicating where automation is highly needed. He further identifies how to automate each field of application. The aircraft system can operate in three domains, green, amber, and red. A pilot plays a significant role in minimizing the risks in the amber domain aiming at flying back to the green.
Awareness is key in ensuring the pilot can control the aircraft in case of issues. The author outlines the possible ways to help man adapt to automation. When the environment changes, the ability of man to adapt is very high. There is an increased need for pilots and co-pilots to understand the reactions of automated systems. Training considerations should be made to ensure there is no contradiction between human resources and computerized systems. The individuals in the cockpit will be in control of the entire system. Training helps eradicate potential errors that may affect the efficiency of the developed automated cockpit. The provided information helps understand the effects of automated systems. Tarnowski identifies the potential problems pilots might face, those the new methods might give rise to, and how to prevent them.
Analysis between Aircraft Cockpit Automation and Human Error Related Accident Cases
Kwak et al. (2018), in their article ‘Analysis between aircraft cockpit automation and human error related accident cases,’ analyze the accident cases concerning human error and cockpit automation. The primary purpose is to explore how each factor contributes to the unsafety witnessed. Future and current pilots and crew members are the primary beneficiaries of the report. The number of aviation accidents worldwide has been on the rise. Pilot error-related cases have increased, causing a significant aviation crisis. Cockpit automations have been introduced to improve safety; however, they are the major causes of accidents (Kwak et al., 2018). Different companies like Boeing and Airbus have adopted the philosophy of automation. They both agree n the importance of a pilot who is to act as the final decision-maker in the care of emergencies.
The authors use the human factors analysis and classification system to identify accidents caused due to human error. In a case study, an Asian Airlines accident was determined to have been caused due to pilots’ excessive automation reliance. Automation-related human error accidents were also analyzed, giving different types and frequencies. A case study was conducted using the FDAI database, coming to a similar conclusion as the previous research. Excessive dependence on an aircraft automation system leads to a decrease in situational awareness. The study by Kwak et al. clearly describes the significant causes of aircraft accidents. The analysis of every kind of cause and frequency provides pilots with information on the potential factors that could result in malfunctions. With adequate and verifiable analytic data, the article gives accurate information making it reliable. The authors’ main aim was to highlight the causes of accidents concerning human error and aircraft cockpit automation. Adequate support was given to verify the reasons outlined by the authors.
References
Kwak, Y.-P., Choi, Y.-C., & Choi, J. (2018). Analysis between aircraft cockpit automation and human error-related accident cases. International Journal of Control and Automation, 11(3), 179–192.
McDaniel, J. W. (1998). Rules for fighter cockpit automation. [PDF document].
Speyer, J-J. (1989). Emerging trends in present and future aircraft cockpit designs: Challenges in analysis, strategy, and evaluation. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 22(12), 135–145. Web.
Tarnowski, E. (2003). Cockpit automation philosophy. [PDF document]. Web.