Almost 70 years ago, one of the earliest commercially available computers was delivered to the US Government by the Remington Rand Corporation, the UNIVAC-1. The joke that circulated for years afterward goes like this:
A bunch of scientists created a huge machine capable of complex calculations and called it UNIVAC. Eager to test their invention, they asked it, “Is there a God?” The vacuum tubes hummed and the tape spools spun for several minutes. Finally, the machine spit out a little card, on which was written, “THERE IS NOW.”
Underlying the most visible aviation accidents of the 21st century has been the notional idea that contemporary flight crews have grown increasingly dependent on technology and automation to the exclusion of airmanship. In response, regulators and oversight organizations, aviation businesses, manufacturers, academics and aviation journalists have taken up the cause, in search of an answer to this publicly declared imbalance between human and machine. Their early conclusions have been divided between calls for more technology, and calls for less.
Contemporary flight crews – so often left out of the discussion, remain the last line of defense between all of the forces of nature and technology that bear down on us every time we get into the cockpit. It doesn’t matter how much automation is added or how much oversight is placed on flight crews, it’s the crew that ultimately makes the critical decision at the critical time: whether to continue an unstable approach, or to go-around; if it’s safer to divert to an alternate, or to press on to the planned destination as weather minimums begin to plummet; whether to accept a clearance from ATC that requires unusually demanding airmanship, or to opt for an alternative that adds time to the flight leg but is clearly safer.
Maintaining the appropriate balance between automatic control and human intervention is without argument one of the most important front-line skills of modern aviators. If you or your organization has not thought long and hard about the relationship between the human operator and the technology in use, then perhaps you should set the brake and reconsider how technology and automation fit into your SOPs, proficiency checks, and the daily personal practice of airmanship. This has been a hallmark of the Bombardier Safety Standdown ethos for 22 years; and that’s why the event has sought out the best experts in the field of automation and human performance, so that they could bring their knowledge and experience to every Safety Standdown participant.
Computational technology has come a long way from the UNIVAC-1 in just 67 years. During that timeframe, we’ve witnessed changes in the way flight operations are managed and executed that few would have thought possible in 1951. What began as uncertainty in the early days of computer design has become an essential aviation tool, with specific roles divided between the hardware & software and the “wetware” of the human operator.
Ungoverned by airmanship, technology and automation are only powerful forces that modern engineering and manufacturing have turned loose in the cockpit. Maintaining an appropriate balance between the hardware, software and the wetware takes discipline and requires purpose – both easily overlooked in the day-to-day competitive, fast-paced and high risk endeavor we are all part of. Staying connected to Bombardier Safety Standdown network of professionals—whether through participation in annual events (in person or via webcast) or through this website, will help you improve your performance in the fast-paced, rapidly changing world of contemporary aviation.
Chris Lutat, author of “Automation Airmanship” and member of the Bombardier Safety Standdown Advisory Council, 2016-2019.