Too much technology

[DaytonaLynn]

I heard a news report today that FAA and NTSB are looking at the technology in the cockpit now. They are saying pilots are not getting proper traing for the newer technology. The warnings, alarms etc are causing pilots issues because it takes them longer to react and/or decide what issues are.

What are the thoughts of members here about this?

As a fairly low hour pilot, 150 hours, I can see thevissuesv in my lack of tome and knowledge, but where does the pendulum swing in favor of the pilot?

 

[Jim Logajan]

I heard a news report today that FAA and NTSB are looking at the technology in the cockpit now. They are saying pilots are not getting proper traing for the newer technology. The warnings, alarms etc are causing pilots issues because it takes them longer to react and/or decide what issues are.

What are the thoughts of members here about this?

As a fairly low hour pilot, 150 hours, I can see thevissuesv in my lack of tome and knowledge, but where does the pendulum swing in favor of the pilot?

They're insane.

"The warnings, alarms etc are causing pilots issues because it takes them longer to react and/or decide what issues are."

If the equipment that is presenting the warning or alarm is removed from any given scenario, how does that resolve the underlying problem causing the alarm - except perhaps to hide it from view again?

It is better that it should take a few moments for a pilot to figure out what the equipment is alerting them to (or decide to make a precautionary landing to sort things out) than have the FAA or NTSB insert themselves into a realm over which they should have no business: how prepared a pilot is at any given time to handle optional equipment installed at the discretion of the aircraft owner.

I can just see the NTSB recommending that the FAA issue regs that require I be tested at each BFR in knowing where to look on my WingX app for my current estimated altitude AGL...

 

[Jim Logajan]

Are you SURE about that?

Absolutely. Your comments below are interesting but address design aspects, not usage training. The thread subject appears to be about lack of training due to "too much technology" not "poorly designed technology."

A ground proximity warning is a case where you don't want anyone "thinking." You want takeoff power (or even full power -- better to burn up a turbo/turbine than to hit the ground) and a pitch up immediately. Same deal for some traffic alerts.

It is indeed possible to get alarm saturated, and the resulting freeze up can indeed kill. Pilots are really, really bad people to be making that decision. NASA is doing work on this, but not to my knowledge for GA. Who would you have make these design decisions? Pilots? Pilots generally don't build airplanes, and those that do have a less than stellar record at flight deck design. Example: John Denver crash.

Ironically since the FAA is looking to make changes to Part 23 that would in theory allow more technology to get installed faster and cheaper into small planes, pilot owners are likely to be finding themselves doing even more cockpit layout design in coming years. This appears to be the case of one part of the FAA not really groking the consequences of other changes other parts of the FAA is being asked to implement.

(The cause of the John Denver crash had multiple causes; yet warnings from high tech devices don't seem to have been a factor.)