Are Modern Day Pilots Black and White Thinkers

[MCM]

The problem is that if we talked about most of the operation we would bore you to tears. Its not that exciting. But it is lots of little things.

I'll give you an example from very recent flying. There was a line of weather (thunderstorms as it were) passing through an airport. They were not forecast until about half way into our flight, and they were forecast as "Intermittent" (a little unique to this part of the world), which means that we now required a minimum of 30 minutes of holding fuel (on top of usual reserves, so in day to day operations you may not have it).

So, decisions have to be made, and they aren't ones a computer will do. As it turned out, we had about 5 minutes more fuel than we required with the thunderstorms forecast. So, we are legal. Does that mean we continue? If the storms are around, how long do we wait? Where do we hold? Do we hold in the normal holding pattern? Fly somewhere else to hold? Where is the weather coming from?

On our approach, we made numerous deviations left and right of track. We stayed above the vnav path (which the computer would fly) as we could see we could stay above the clouds (which we knew would be turbulent), and that we could subsequently "dive" down through them minimising the period of turbulence. We could see that the flight planned path (and subsequently the ATC vectors) would take us right into the middle of a storm, so we had to say no to ATC and tell them we were doing something else.

On final approach, we knew there would be a wind shift with a front, which the autopilot did not handle particularly well (nor did I expect it to) and the aircraft was hand flown through it. Windshear was reported from the aircraft in front, but he successfully landed. Do we go around or continue the landing? Where is that shear likely to be now? Is it going to be in a worse or better location?

This wasn't a notable day at the office, just another routine flight.

[snydersnapshots]

So what I'm asking, I guess, is what really goes on (that could not be left up to the ultimate black-and-white thinker, a computer); what are those daily thought processes and decisions that need to be made? (Of course, since pilots "tend not to discuss" this, perhaps answers will be hard to come by.)

I agree with MCM...most of our "grey area" decisions would bore you to death. Case in point:

The Flight Management Computer (FMC) on my airplane displays three altitudes. Optimum--the most efficient altitude for performance, Maximum--the highest altitude at which you can make a 40 degree bank and not stall the airplane, and Recommended--the altitude the FMC recommends taking into account performance and winds.

It's not uncommon for the FMC to "recommend" an altitude two or three hundred feet below the "Max". If we went the rote, procedurally oriented, black/white thinking decision--i.e. that of the computer, we'd climb to flight level 400 (40,000 feet) when the box recommends it, even though the max altitude is FL403 (40,300'). Not with my little pink butt in the airplane, we're not. The box knows nothing about turbulence, it just knows about fuel and time. Yes, we could fly at 40,000, but if it gets bumpy, we could end up stalling and losing several thousand feet, or worse, which would violate at least one, if not all three, of my big "avoid" policies (Avoid the chief pilot's office, avoid the FAA, and avoid being seen on CNN). So, in my example here (which is a real-world decision that happened on my last trip), we stayed at 38,000 (I like to stay at least 1500 feet below the max altitude). In fact, the turbulence at FL380 and higher was worse, so we actually ended up going DOWN to FL360 for a smooth ride. Another downside of computer chips: They can't feel turbulence, so they don't know when to ask for higher or lower or ask the controller how the rides are ahead of the airplane.

[Evan]

The box knows nothing about turbulence, it just knows about fuel and time... Another downside of computer chips: They can't feel turbulence, so they don't know when to ask for higher or lower or ask the controller how the rides are ahead of the airplane.

Not sure what you are flying, but I find it incredible that these systems are not designed to factor in turbulence. On FBW aircraft, there is a 'feedback' loop to the system that 'feels' turbulence.

(Avoid the chief pilot's office, avoid the FAA, and avoid being seen on CNN).

You should add big #4: Avoid being parlour-talked about on JP.net.

[MCM]

And then what does it do with that turbulence information?

Based on an FMC that sometimes seems to be on a go-slow or high on drugs, I'm guessing snydersnapshots flys something fairly similar to me!

[Fear_of_Flying]

Thanks MCM and snydersnapshots for a "behind-the-scenes" look - neither boring nor overly traumatizing, I'd say, but does address the question at hand.

[Evan]

And then what does it do with that turbulence information?

Based on an FMC that sometimes seems to be on a go-slow or high on drugs, I'm guessing snydersnapshots flys something fairly similar to me!

Well, in turbulence it (the FMGS) is supposed to constantly update wind data and inertial and air data and make slight adjustments to the optimum thrust and altitude in autoflight mode. But that optimum is still based upon fuel efficiency rather than ride quality. And I have no idea if it works as well as advertised.

What I'm wondering is if the FMC on, say, a non-FBW Boeing is not designed to factor in turbulence when calculating an optimum altitude or REC MAX, especially if it cannot detect it. From the AF447 discussions, it seemed that even REC MAX was always calculated with a certain margin for turbulence.

[snydersnapshots]

Not sure what you are flying, but I find it incredible that these systems are not designed to factor in turbulence. On FBW aircraft, there is a 'feedback' loop to the system that 'feels' turbulence.

I'm flying the 757-200 and 300, and the 767-400 and, very occasionally, 767-200. The example I used above was in a 757-200--a -300 has to be VERY light to make it up the 380 and rarely gets to 400.

Regarding the system feeling turbulence: I don't think the old 386 chip in the box would handle something like that! (I doubt it's a 386, but as slow as the box is at times, it feels like it is). Seriously, though the system has been updated and most of our airplanes were delivered in the late '90's or early 00's, the design technology is still comparatively old. Retrofitting it with a feedback loop (if there's even a retrofit available) would be too expensive given the number of airplanes involved and the amount of paperwork required to get the modification approved. The accountants wouldn't see a cost-justification when they're paying us to make those decisions. As the line from The Right Stuff says: "What makes this bird fly is funding. No bucks, no Buck Rogers".

You should add big #4: Avoid being parlour-talked about on JP.net.

I may just have to do that.

[Foxtrot]

I got to reading this thread and I didn't find it one bit boring. In fact this is the kind of stuff I enjoy learning about (even though I won't be a pilot). This is why I like those JustPlanes videos where the pilot talks about the FMC and its various functions and how they go about using nav charts etc etc.

[3WE]

Unless you make it clear what you are asking, I don't know that you'll get much productive discussion out of this.

Hmmm. EDIT- 29 replies. Some folks get it.

Interesting topic. I'd claim that there are some areas in which we are black and white, and some that are very very grey....

...Yes, I think pilots are, in general, quite linear thinkers, but that doesn't mean they see everything in black and white.

Thanks to all for the replies, and MCM gets the summary award .

I was worried this would not go well, but instead it's been very interesting!

To say that pilots are only black and white thinkers would be, well, ummm...black and white thinking.

You have to memorize a lot of stuff and make lots of boring decisions...so, I think you guys have tendencies. But if you were overly black and white, that would probably be pretty bad too.

Thanks again, and the thread doesn't seem to be quite dead yet.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Hmmm. 23 replies. Some folks get it.

Yes, it seems most people were able to figure out what you were driving at.

You have to memorize a lot of stuff and make lots of boring decisions...so, I think you guys have tendencies.

Not sure what this means. Many people in many lines of work have to memorize a lot of stuff and make boring decisions. In fact, just about every job consists of a high percentage of unglamorous work, regardless of a person's preferences. But I don't think memorizing stuff and making boring decisions is what leads people to become pilots - that's just something that comes with the territory. Besides, the sorts of decisions that MCM describes aren't boring at all. One wrong move, and you can find yourself in the soup rather quickly it seems.

[Jingogunner]

Humans

I don't really understand anything technical on this discussion because the technical stuff is way above my chip capabilities - although I hope for a retrofit soon. But everything always comes back to the beating mark 1 heart in the mark 1 chest of the mark 1 human at the controls, so I can understand this bit about black and white thinking. Who knows what a pilot might think if they were truly intuitive thinkers - as you look around the flight controls and instruments and go through the procedures, might you not, as a fully intuitive person, begin to redesign a lot of features at least in your mind? Like Mr 3WE
says: To say that pilots are only black and white thinkers would be, well, ummm...black and white thinking.

Thinking back to all the discussions on things like stalls and crashes and everything else I've read (but barely understood) on this site, it seems like some pilots are really very intuitive and no pilots lack intuition altogether. From what I gather, pilot training is all about procedures, regulations and Number. Ideally, training should include space for intuitive development. Am I incorrect in my impression that it does not, please? My thin understanding indicates that complete lack of intuition is very dangerous.

[3WE]

Ideally, training should include space for intuitive development. Am I incorrect in my impression that it does not, please?

Some flight schools have been criticized as teaching how to "pass the test" and focusing on specific procedures for particular aircraft at the expense of overall airmanship fundamentals.

Then we go to the simulator for recurrent training which often includes engine cuts one knot on either side of V1 and see if the procedures are followed correctly.

[Gabriel]

Some flight schools have been criticized as teaching how to "pass the test" and focusing on specific procedures for particular aircraft at the expense of overall airmanship fundamentals.

Usually referred to as "puppy mills".

[snydersnapshots]

...as you look around the flight controls and instruments and go through the procedures, might you not, as a fully intuitive person, begin to redesign a lot of features at least in your mind?

This happens all the time. If you were to ride in the cockpit of the same type of airplane at several different airlines, you would find several ways of doing the same job. In fact if you were to ride on the same airplane at the same airline several years apart, you would find differences in procedures. Some of those changes are due to events that have lead to accidents or incidents, some due to input from pilots with a better way of doing things, and some--at least according to the more cynical among us--are due to someone in the training department just trying to justify their job.

My company is in the process of merging with another airline. In order for the pilots from airline A to be able to fly with pilots from airline B, we have to all use the same procedures. Flight training people from both airlines are going through the procedures manual from each airline literally page-by-page and taking the best practices from each airline to incorporate into the manual for the combined carrier. Many of the changes are small, like callouts during different phases of flight ("Check power" changing to "Check thrust" on the takeoff roll for example). Some are much larger, like a complete change in how we do an autoland approach in extremely low visibility.

From what I gather, pilot training is all about procedures, regulations and Number. Ideally, training should include space for intuitive development. Am I incorrect in my impression that it does not, please?

You are incorrect in your impression that training does not include any space for intuitive development. Some companies and/or cultures are more procedurally oriented than others, but for the most part, you've got to have some intuition to fly an airplane.

We have procedures for a couple of reasons: standardization among flight crews, and to facilitate learning.

Standardization:
The standardized procedures allow me to safely fly with any pilot from any base in my company. During the flight, especially during critical events like takeoff and landing, I know what to expect from him, and he knows what to expect from me because we're both "speaking the same language" so to speak. Another reason for this is that when things go wrong, or we're tired because we've been flying all night, we tend to fall back on habit patterns. Kind of like an athlete's "muscle memory" when playing baseball--you don't have to think about how to catch the ball, you just do it.

That's not to say there are procedures for everything--there is a lot of room for personal technique, as long as the procedures are followed. For example: When we set the flaps for takeoff, I crosscheck the position of the flap handle with the paper that shows the required flap setting and the flap setting that has been automatically up-linked to the flight management system computer in the airplane. The procedure says to set the flaps for takeoff. My technique is to cross check two independent sources of information to make sure I have the proper flap setting selected. And, of course, I check the flap gauge to make sure they have gone to the selected position.

Learning Facilitation:
Early in a pilot's career, procedures are used to facilitate learning. Let's take landing--by nature a very intuitive operation. If I can have the student set the airplane up the same way each time around the traffic pattern, he or she should see the same picture out the window. This allows him or her to get used to what the proper "picture" looks like and concentrate on the physical control of the airplane. If he sets up the airplane differently each time, there's going to be no consistency in how the airplane is flying and what he is seeing out the window and learning will take longer and be much more frustrating.

As the student builds experience and confidence, he or she will be able to modify those procedures as conditions require to fit the situation. This is where the intuition comes in--being able to judge what needs to be done to put the airplane where he or she wants it.

My thin understanding indicates that complete lack of intuition is very dangerous.

You are correct in that statement.

[3WE]

Usually referred to as "puppy mills".

Indeed.