Razor’s edge

Accordingly, the impact on everything from safety and reliability to the integrity of flight schedules has improved.

An aircraft can be cruising in the stratosphere, hours after departure, and yet the forecast winds are within a few knots of strength and degrees of direction. Required Navigation Precision (RNP) has instrument approaches weaving through complex terrain and even noise-sensitive areas to ever-lower minimas, where once a straight-line ILS was considered a blessing. Automation can land a giant airliner on wet, dark nights where in times past it called for the manipulative skill of a squinting, leather-faced captain as found in the writings of Ernest K. Gann. In many cases, flexible airway routing has replaced rigid highways in the sky and flight planning systems have honed down the variables, and with it the minimum fuel required to be carried. But, does such progress have finite bounds?

Unlike a computer program that may be directed at share trading or an app for ordering groceries, the refinement of aviation is taking place in a very dynamic and sometimes unpredictable environment. And while the share market may be volatile, the ramifications of a bad call will impact more upon lifestyle than the very essence of life itself.

It is all very well to continually refine the algorithm down to an incredible degree of accuracy in the stable surrounds of an office, however, in flight keystrokes can mean much more. An incorrect data entry can introduce yet another threat on the flight deck which, if undetected, can raise its head at a very inopportune time. And even if all of the keystrokes are correct, Mother Nature can choose to shift her weight north instead of south, or stretch her wings across a long line of red cells on the radar screen. Fortunately, technology now allows us to see those storms, but we still need the fuel and tactics to avoid them. Systems are continually being refined to a razor’s edge, but they still must operate in an environment that can prove to be very blunt. This is where the discretion of the crew must be exercised.

Despite the historical statistical evidence, sometimes the hair on the back of a pilot’s neck is more precise. Experience can raise alarm long before the event and call upon data in the human memory that cannot be found in a digital file.
Over the years, minimas, vertical separation and the minimum fuel required alike have reduced and this has been based upon sound processes. Without any apparent reduction in safety, it has led to more efficient and reliable operations. Even so, there are times when applying rigid, minimum margins in aviation can be akin to measuring water volume with a ruler.

For some, the enhanced precision has been perceived as an increase in pressure on the crews to do more with less, possibly for commercial reasons. However, the responsibilities of a Pilot-in-Command are spelt out in the regulations and they are very clear and make no reference to the increasing accuracy or reliability of systems and technology. Even if a minimum number is quoted in any facet of flight, it is just that. Nothing prevents the human in the process from increasing the margins based on sound logic and that is an aspect of aviation that should never change.

‘Even if a minimum number is quoted in any facet of flight, it is just that.’

Undoubtedly, that ability to assess more subtle and unforeseen variables is one of the challenges for pilotless flight. In that world, technology is the Pilot-in-Command and computers lack hair on the back of their neck. Designing an algorithm to cater for every eventuality would seem near impossible and while humans undoubtedly have foibles, they don’t come with a box that they can’t think outside of.

The challenge, as always, lies in balance. The coexistence of human and machine has been an issue since the first wheel turned and ran over somebody. That does not mean that we don’t continue to refine the wheel.

Without question, the advancements in technology and systems over the decades have made for vastly safer air travel and we must continue to expand the boundaries. There should be no resting upon laurels and discontent should continue to be the mother of invention for both technology and the humans that operate it. One need only consider Ground Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS) to think of how many lives have been saved through technological intervention.

Additionally, the way in which the human element responds and performs in light of their own limitations must be continually assessed. Their capacity to manage the technology and the maintenance of their performance under longer flight times are just some of the areas under examination as we move forward.

The dynamic world of aviation can pivot and change rapidly both on the ground and in the air. As we continue to move forward and advance, the humans’ ability to apply their discretion and broaden margins should always be maintained. After all, there are no computer programs to account for the many variables of the biological technology harnessed in the control seat. That must come from within.