A Commentary On Advanced Avionics

by Harold Green

We are currently in the throes of a general aviation revolution. We have airplanes that cruise comfortably at 24,000 feet at well over 200 knots, have a range approaching 1,000 miles, come equipped with ice prevention, and provide sophisticated electronics that only a few years ago were to be found only in the most sophisticated military and airline aircraft, if at all. Note: When such sophisticated capability was available in the past, there were generally two pilots in the airplane. In fact, some things like uploaded weather were not available at any price just a few short years ago. Today we can watch ourselves as the little airplane crawls along the approach chart as we execute an approach or even as we taxi on the surface of the airport. We can, air traffic control permitting, virtually program our entire flight, including an instrument approach, before we even leave the ground. We still have to take off using our own muscles and brains, but once airborne, we need only push a few buttons and then sit back and enjoy the flight with the only effort on our part being to adjust the throttle(s). The system will warn us of any potential traffic hazards throughout the flight, and during the flight, we can look at radar weather uplinked from the ground. Of course we are still tasked with landing the airplane. In time, these systems will become even more sophisticated. Certainly from a pure technology viewpoint, it would be easy to automate both the take off and the landing.

As with everything in life, these advances come at a price. There is a maxim in economics known as TINSTAAFL…There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. That applies to our avionics as well. There is the obvious cost of purchase and, of course, increased maintenance cost, and then there is the cost associated with satisfying the equipment’s insatiable appetite for up-to-date data. However, the two most important costs are increased training and the need to maintain our vigilance with respect to traffic and situational awareness.

Please understand that in this pilot’s opinion, the advantages of these advances far and away overcome any disadvantage, providing we learn how to use the equipment without losing track of airplane performance, other traffic and the demands that Air Traffic Control places on us. As a further caveat, let it be known that the demise of the Very High Frequency Omni directional Range, VOR, has been prematurely reported. The VOR is still around, and as specified in the Aeronautical Information Manual, paragraph 1-1-19, General Requirements, an approved alternate means of navigation is required when using GPS equipment in IFR, and since Non-Directional Beacons are being rapidly removed, the VOR is the most likely candidate. Therefore, the VOR is likely to be around for as long as this requirement exists.

The complexity issues are most obvious when conducting IFR operations. First, the simple old method of finding the approach plate, twisting a couple of knobs and setting the OBS is long gone. Now we go through several procedures to select the approach and the initial fixes, and then activate the approach. We still must have the approach plate in front of us, be it paper or electronic.

Of course there is more to a glass cockpit aircraft than GPS. Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) are becoming commonplace as well. They are an excellent adjunct to situational awareness. However, there is a tendency to overreact to traffic displayed on these devices. This is particularly true when operating in a terminal environment or when the range is set too wide.  Those pilots who are very traffic shy want to move away from all targets, even those that are miles away and not closing. The lean assist function available in some systems provides a great opportunity to ignore the rest of the world while setting the fuel flow to one’s engine. My personal best is the student who spent 7 minutes studying the lean assist display while ignoring the airplane as the autopilot kept us on course and at altitude while clipping along at 170 knots.

Historically we work with distance: Distance to the next checkpoint, distance to the VOR, etc., etc. Now that the GPS can give us time to the waypoint, most people set up the GPS display to show distance because that is what we are used to. But airplanes don’t care about distance…they only care about time. We don’t run out of fuel because we fly too far. We run out of fuel because we fly too long. A change in outlook might be in order here.  The GPS flight plan page will show you the time for each leg of your flight. Why not use it? Just for the record, we weren’t any better at using the time display on the DME either, but it only showed the time to the tuned VOR, whereas the GPS will show the time to each waypoint in the flight plan.

Another issue arises around the “autopilot.” In the past the FAA took the approach that if your plane had an autopilot, you had to fly the checkride by hand and then prove that you knew how to operate the autopilot. Now the philosophy is that you fly the checkride with the autopilot and prove that you can fly the airplane by hand. This is a drastic change, but one necessitated by the complexity of the avionics in our airplanes today.

These are just some of the issues involving the new avionics. Along with these there is the fact that complexity of systems tend to be greater than the sum of their parts. That is, when viewed as a system, the interaction between the elements of the system creates their own set of complexities. When one element is dysfunctional or incorrectly programmed, there is an impact on other elements. Also, remember that in airline operations, there are two pilots handling essentially the same equipment, whereas we usually have but one.

Today’s student is very well aware of the new technology and all too often wants to bypass the VOR training or anything involving not using the magenta (sorry, it’s still pink to me) line on a display panel. It is so much easier at first to follow the pink line, then to visualize a position relative to a VOR or a localizer transmitter.

Because of these and other issues arising out of this new technology, it is necessary that we look at the training we instructors provide students, and students need to be convinced that it is in their interest to learn not only the new technology, but the old as well. It is worthy of note that when a new airplane is purchased, it usually comes with extensive factory checkout in recognition of the complexity of the new systems. In fact, more time is spent on learning the advanced avionics systems than in flying the airplane. This is a large help to the new owner. However, when a second or later owner purchases the airplane, the training issue becomes of concern again.

Somehow the instructor must instill in the new owner and/or student pilot, a respect for, and understanding of, the complexity of the system while retaining the ability to use the old navigational aids.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers here since each student brings his or her own viewpoint to the flight line. However, there are some things, which can be accurately stated.

First, more total training time is required to produce a pilot proficient in the operation of this equipment.

Second, an emphasis needs to be placed on rapid change in set up as flight circumstances warrant.

Third, creativity in establishing failure scenarios is an absolute necessity.

As time goes by, the human factors of equipment designs will improve and we will no doubt come up with answers to these issues, but in the meantime both instructor and student are faced with both increased capability and learning challenges. There will be more said in later discussions.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Harold Green is a CFII at Morey Airplane Company at Middleton Municipal Airport – Morey Field in Middleton,  Wisconsin (www.MoreyAirport.com).

This entry was posted in August/September 2012, Columns, Pilot Proficiency and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.