Training Levels and Methodologies for Glass Cockpit Training in Collegiate Aviation

Modern commercial aircraft use extremely complex and sophisticated flight instrumentation systems that present training concerns for the aviation industry and collegiate aviation programs. The authors sampled 42 four-year collegiate flight-training programs to determine their current program emphasis on "glass cockpit" training and plans for cuniculum enhancements in that area. Although nearly f3ly percent of sampled program administrators believe imtmction in flight automation is critical to the success of their graduates, most cite cost of materials and compehg cumculum priorities as reasons to defer such instruction to future employers. The authors suggest that program enhancements are within the reach of modem college aviation programs and offer suggestions for three different levels of glass cockpit training. Automated fight instrumentation began to appear in the commercial fleet in the early 1980s (Hughes & Dornheim, 1995). The move to flight automation began in response to increasing aircraft systems complexity and the requirement for an improved pilot/akdi systems interface. Since the introduction of "glass cockpit" aircraft, a corresponding worldwide reduction in air transportation aircraft accidents and incidents seems to suggest the value of that expensive technology (Billings, 1997). With the growth of automated instrumentation, however, has come concern over new trends in accidents and incidents that are attributed to flight automation inadequacies or pilot inability to master automated systems. Weiner (1989) notes that maq automation related accidents/incidents refla pilot difliculties with vertical navigation modes. Mc Crobie et al. (1997) have studied automation accidents extensively and found that pilots frequently complain of automation system surprises during critical phases of flight. The prominence of new technology flight instrumentation and problems associated with its use has prompted many collegiate flight program adminiftratnrc and Prlnmfnn tn investigate flight automation systems, both to improve the pilotlsystems interface during training and to adequately expose students to these systems prior to employment. The expense associated with training aircraft, flight training devices, and materials that employ flight automation, however, has convinced many program administrators to defer this training to the airline industry. This paper will present background information on the development of "glass cockpit" technology and current issues associated with such systems. The authors will also present a survey of four-year collegiate aviation educators regardmg the current state and future of glass cockpit training in their programs. Finally, the authors will discuss several interesting training opportunities in this area that may be useful to a broad cross-section of collegiate aviation programs. First generation glass cockpit aircraft featured computer-generated instrument displays with colorcoded indications for ease of interpretation. Early glass cockpit instnunentation was limited to an electronically actuated cathode ray tube (CRT) that prominently displayed aircraft attitude, and a second CRT that displayed horizontal navigation. weather. and traffic depiction. Initial svstems had little instnunent consolidation and did not have computer-generated systems integration (Roessingh et al., JAAER, Wirder 2004 Page 35 1 Fanjoy and Young: Training Levels and Methodologies for Glass Cockpit Training in C Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 2004 Training Levels and Methodologies 1999). Modem fully glass flight decks include two CRTs for each pilot, the primary flight display (PFD), and the navigation display (ND). These two screens consolidate all traditional aircraft instrumentation for ease of viewing and a i d control. In addition, one or more multi-function displays (MFD) are provided to monitor engine performance and systems diagnostics. A flight management system (FMS) is also provided on the flight deck with one or more control display unit (CDU) heads that serve as a crew interface with the aimaft to input/receive performance and r o F g information. Although pilot transition from conventional "steam gage" instnrments to first generation flight automation was fairly simple, modem flight decks have reached a level of complexity that is challenging for the most accomplished pilots. In addition, automated systems have placed the pilot a significant distance from the control-feedback loop and traditional training methods are barely adequate to prepare flight crew ' for flight automation use in line operations. A modem electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) can present a variety of control and performance information. Each display presents a consolidation of instrument indications in a format that is easily scannedlaccessed during routine flight operations. EFIS is complemented by an engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) that provides automated systems monitoring to alert pilots of abnormal indications, diagnose systems failures, and perform routine tasks. The flight management system interfaces with EFIS components to provide performance, and navigation data on demand (Roessingh et al., 1999). Other prominent flight automation aspects include a full-authority digital engine controller (FADEC), automatic thrust, automatic trim, heads-up displays, and fly-by-wire flight controls. Each of these features improves pilot workload and efficiency, but also adds an additional level of complexity. Such complexity presents a diflicult challenge for new pilot hires and crewmembers transitioning from less complex aircraft. The two primary man-rs of commercial aircraft, Airbus and Boeing, have chosen different philosophical approaches to the use of flight automation. In recognition of the role of pilot error in most aircraft accidents, Airbus has elected to design automated aircraft systems with computer controlled "hard limits" that prevent a pilnt finm e x d i n g wt flight pnmters clich as hank, angle of attack, pitch, and airspeed. Any attempt to exceed these parameters wil l automatically be countermanded by automated flight controls. Boeing automation systems are designed similarly, however provision is made for pilots to ovemde automatic systems in all phases of flight (Witt, 2000). Each philosophy has its drawbacks, but airliners that employ each design are currently in wide service. Problems associated with automated flight systems derive from the relatively complex systems options and requirements. Researchers have identified as many as 114 human factors that are related to flight automation (Funk & Lyall, 1999; Lyall et al., 1997). Automation-related accidents occur when pilots fail to understand what automated systems are doing and why they are doing it. Analyses of 85 automation-related incidents by Fletcher et al. (1997) suggest that almost 29 per cent of the incidents resulted from improper automation use. Sarter and Woods (1992) conducted a study of line pilots who operate automated flight systems and found that most did not have a comprehensive u n d e d g of system modes. Typical automation-related accident factors include cockpit confusion, reduced manual flight skills, automation malhctions, loss of vertical awareness, and pilot versus automation conflicts. Sarter and Woods suggest that contemporary flight training programs do not consider the impact of complex interrelated automation systems during non-standard flight situations. For this reason, training programs need to consider cognitive models that will best support pilot mastery of automated flight regimes. SURVEY A m e y of collegiate aviation programs was condudwi for the purpose of assessing current and planned levels of glass cockpit technology training. This type of training was defined as including instruction in one or more of the following systems as part ofthe school's flight cuniculum: FMS, EFIS, EICAS, and automation (such as autopilots and/or flight director systems). The authors anticipate the use of survey data to foster discussion between schools and vendors/manufactmrs in the development of lowcost training aids and devices to achieve cuniculum goals. A telephone survey was developed to maximize contact with target schools for this study (Young & Fanjay, 2002). The sample population included all 42 schools listed in the University Aviation Association's Collegiate Aviation Guide (1999) that offer four-year aviation flight degree pmgrams It was m m e d that schooIs with twoyear degree programs would have little room for substantial course work in this advanced avionics area. Over a two-