What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Children of Magenta

GalinHdz

GalinHdz

Well Known Member
A friend of mine sent me this link to a 1997 AAL safety seminar video concerning airplane cockpit automation.

Children of Magenta

It is a good video to watch now that more and more "glass" cockpits are finding their way into General Aviation, especially experimental aircraft.
:cool:
 
Van

The man speaking is Warren 'Van' Vandenberg. He is a RV8 builder and owner flyer.
Good pilot !! Baced here at Hicks T67
 
Last edited:
It is an awesome video. And I dare say it applies equally to all of us no matter what kind of flying we do.

Something in it for everyone.

I have not watched it for a couple of years but I might just watch it again now. :)
 
Jaypratt said:
The man speaking is Vandenberg. He is a RV8 builder and owner
Good pilot !!
Click to expand...

I don't fly for AA but I have seen several of his presentations and both agreed with the message and enjoyed his presentation. Good to know he is a real aviator too. ;)
 
I do not care much for this video. It's often used as a reference by those, who tend to dismiss today's technology, and still push the agenda of VORs as being basic airmanship.

The video is old. It was produced on the heels of the American Airlines 757 crash into the mountains in Columbia. The crew only had seconds of terrain warning, where we now have hundreds of miles worth, thanks to GPS and terrain databases. Their knowledge of their exact location was minimal, as compared to today, even with portable GPS.

The video does have a message, but technology has greatly changed, since it was presented. Technology has solved the "problem", that the presentation was created for.........as the 757 crew was too dependant on systems of that day. They never had the "big picture", that we do now.

In other words, with these "fancy" glass cockpits, as are labled by some, this 757, and the crew, wouldn't have ended where they did!
 
Last edited:
please noooo.....

i have had to watch that video ever year for the last 14 years in recurrent.

it really is a good presentation. with the amount of automation being put into EAB's nowadays, it really applies to every area of aviation.

Mr. adamson, i have to disagree with you. the crash in cali was caused by missprogramming of the FMS in non radar coverage. there have been two fatal CFIT crashes of transport cat aircraft in the last month that I think will be found to be caused by loss of situational awareness and dependence on automation. technology will NEVER replace the need for basic airmanship and situational awareness.

the "Fancy glass cockpits of today" would do exactly what the 757 FMS did that day, they just would have had more warning of the mountain, but they would have been just as lost.


bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
Last edited:
I watched this video many times over the years in recurrent training, as well. It is every bit as relevant today as it was in 1997.

L.Adamson said:
I do not care much for this video. It's often used as a reference by those, who tend to dismiss today's technology, and still push the agenda of VORs as being basic airmanship.

The video is old. It was produced on the heels of the American Airlines 757 crash into the mountains in Columbia. The crew only had seconds of terrain warning, where we now have hundreds of miles worth, thanks to GPS and terrain databases. Their knowledge of their exact location was minimal, as compared to today, even with portable GPS.

The video does have a message, but technology has greatly changed, since it was presented. Technology has solved the "problem", that the presentation was created for.........as the 757 crew was too dependant on systems of that day. They never had the "big picture", that we do now.

In other words, with these "fancy" glass cockpits, as are labled by some, this 757, and the crew, wouldn't have ended where they did!
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with the statement that the crew would not have ended up where they did if they had today's equipment on board. As I recall, the crew really let their situational awareness get away from them. I seem to remember that they selected an NDB from the database that had a single letter identifier. One of their mistakes was selecting the first NDB on the list that the FMS offered them. There are NDB's all over the world with the same identifiers and the one they selected was somewhere else on the planet. This presented them with a confusing situation on the nav display. While today's SV displays might have saved the day on this accident, allowing yourself to lose situational awareness can still ruin your day. (think recent 777 at SFO accident).

I certainly don't think this video is about dismissing todays technology in favor of VOR's and such. It is very much about knowing when the technology you have installed in your airplane is hindering, rather than helping, you as you deal with the ever changing dynamics of a particular flight.
There is a time to push buttons, and there is a time to look out the window and fly the airplane. That's what this video is about.

My $.02 worth.
 
Last edited:
L.Adamson said:
Technology has solved the "problem", that the presentation was created for.........as the 757 crew was too dependant on systems of that day. They never had the "big picture", that we do now.

In other words, with these "fancy" glass cockpits, as are labled by some, this 757, and the crew, wouldn't have ended where they did!
Click to expand...

I agree the video is old, but I disagree in many more ways. The video promotes really critical and extremely basic elements of importance. With all due respect, based on my experience problem has clearly not been solved by technology, but rather quite to the contrary due to the same threat - over reliance on automation and under reliance on accurately building a reliable mental model and sharing that with the other guy (or gal). And at times, not being comfortable enough with basic flying modes to quickly fix a flight path deviation vs pushing buttons frantically. The symptoms have changed occasionally, but the problem continues to embed. Reference Asiana SFO B-777. Reference Air France 447, the A-330 stall from altitude. Reference the Colgan Air Dash8-400, and many more specific examples here in the USA as well. Reference all the many stall spin accidents and CFIT accidents continuing to be a large killer in GA to spite fancy glass.

Basic Airmanship - A term that translates to safety and accomplishment. Something under threat of not being maintained acceptably these days in favor of push button and application driven piloting. It's not given out on street corners or in brown boxes from avionics shops, and it sure never goes out of style.

The video still has tons of merit.
 
Last edited:
L.Adamson said:
In other words, with these "fancy" glass cockpits, as are labled by some, this 757, and the crew, wouldn't have ended where they did!
Click to expand...

What about the Ariana flight crew...all that fancy glass didn't help them. This video could have been made precisely for that situation...fly the plane, da**it.
 
The AA crew were clueless, had zero situational awareness, as well as zero attention to the progress of the flight or the geography they were flying in. They were more interested in making Christmas eve announcements to the passengers and coordinating the hotel bus arrangements with the flight attendants than flying their airplane.

The approach path was over a deep narrow valley with very high terrain on both sides (invisible in the darkness), which they allowed the airplane to turn into, while uncertain of their position, and while continuing their descent to altitudes below the surrounding terrain. They thought they were approaching an up-valley navaid (Tulua) when in fact they had already passed over it.

This was the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 757, and as an engineering manager deeply involved in the design, construction, and testing of that airplane, I can say it was extremely painful for the folks at Boeing. This was especially so, since it occurred to a major U.S. airline, with supposedly much high standards of training and operating than some carriers operating the airplane. And, it was a totally unnecessary accident.

It still pains me to this day.

While the avionics have advanced, the crew's preoccupation with programming the automation and lack of common-sense awareness of their surroundings is just as germane today.

After an incredible 18 years+ of safe flying, the 777 just experienced its first fatal accident at SFO - equally painful - because a crew depended so much on the automation that they allowed the airspeed to decay to 103 kts on a spectacularly beautiful day's approach to an obstruction free long runway.

Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
 
There is a lot of "what about this, and what about that"........ in reference to my statements. Back around 2005, there was a flight instructor pushing his old world agenda. He constantly referred to GPS as a toy. Even a fancy toy, as well as a seductive toy. Toys generally are for children. Children of the Magenta Line, implies the same thing. This program is 16 years old. The magenta line has progressed greatly since that time.

I'm very aware of the particulars for all of these CFIT accidents. I've probably read the why's and wherefors, dozens of times. I seem to have an obsession with CFIT, ever since a United Airlines DC-8 plowed into the mountain close to home (1977). I've made it a point, to include many CFIT accident sites within my flight planning. I want to see, what the pilot didn't see, and document how the the terrain mapping GPS does it's job.

Some might think my thoughts are morbid. I like the editorial thoughts I read about in Flying magazine last evening. It's pure science & self preservation.

Never the less, put it on record, that I'll disagree with many thoughts presented in this thread. A nice "big picture" color moving map, with red & yellow flashing warning signs, as well as audio............probably won't be simply ignored, as it's been suggested. With today's magenta line, you get everything that they didn't have. A color presentation of where you departed, where your destination is, and the exact spot, of where your airplane is now. And it's all filled in with red & yellow splotches of color, where nesessary. Todays magenta line works.......and saves lives.
 
My primary instructor referred to it as "The Magenta Line Of Death" and wouldn't let me use it until I had firmly demonstrated basic navigation - and even then he was fond of turning it off occasionally and telling me to go somewhere we hadn't talked about to check my situational awareness. That was a lot of years ago and the technology has advanced a lot (and my instructor was basically an idiot chasing hours for a corporate gig) but he was mostly right about that point. Technology is a great aid - but it needs to be an aid to a pilot that can operate without it.
 
Absolutely no argument from me. I'm flying Dynon Skyview with an iFly backup and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But this video and discussion is not about CFITs, it's about cockpit automation and the dangers lurking therein. Automation was supposed to make flying safer and reduce crew workloads. While it has done that successfully - in many instances - it has created its own set of problems and aircraft accidents have occurred, and are occurring, that can be laid at the doorstep of that automation and our new high tech toys. That is a bad thing.

In some cases, pilots allow themselves to become "system monitors." Studies have shown that humans make lousy system monitors. Pilots need to reinsert themselves into the loop.

CFIT accidents may have been wiped out or greatly reduced due to the new technology - that's great; but instead we have new accident modes, like large transport airplanes stalling. You can read about some of them - the SFO 777 accident is one more in the collection - in one section of my website here:

http://www.rbogash.com/Safety/air_safety.html

One more thing, while the moving map reds and yellows are wonderful things, they disappear when the GPS disappears. And it can. Google GPS Dropouts for a lot of discussions. You can even go to an FAA site that NOTAMs GPS coverage problems:

http://www.raimprediction.net/ac90-100/

Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
 
L.Adamson said:
With today's magenta line, you get everything that they didn't have. A color presentation of where you departed, where your destination is, and the exact spot, of where your airplane is now. And it's all filled in with red & yellow splotches of color, where nesessary. Todays magenta line works.......and saves lives.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point of the video, or at least are not acknowledging it here.

The take-home message I got was, don't let the automation lull and distract the pilot so much that they cannot recover situational awareness quickly. And don't try to quickly recover from a deteriorating situation by reprogramming the FMC or autopilot or whatever. Instead, turn off the automation and fly the plane out of danger using the situational awareness you've kept onto.

So lets redo the AA situation with modern equipment but without the lessons of the video. The crew becomes aware earlier that something is wrong with their automated flight path, but then proceeds to try reprogramming their computer instead of turning off the automation (going down a level) and flying out of danger. They still become so distracted they fly into the mountain...only this time, they see it coming.

Again, the video's lessons were spot-on for the Asiana crew. If they had been taught and absorbed those lessons their fatal accident never would have happened.
 
What ever you call it, the problem is real.... The more you fly with the magic and the more magic you fly with the harder it is to revert back to the basics....

And when the horse hockey hits the proverbial propeller, it is the pilots ability to ignore the automation and focus on the basics that will save the day....

When the automation flat out quits, it isn't too hard... The real tough one is when it is not doing what we expect, the default action for a type -A pilot is to engage in a fight with it... And giving up in a fight with the magic, ignoring it, and focusing on the basics is a very difficult thing for an aviator.....

Too many times I have seen two heads down in a fist fight with the FMS and NOBODY driving the airplane....

I am looking in the mirror when I say, it is a real problem, and ALL of us are susceptible....
 
NASA515 said:
But this video and discussion is not about CFITs, it's about cockpit automation and the dangers lurking therein. Automation was supposed to make flying safer and reduce crew workloads. While it has done that successfully - in many instances - it has created its own set of problems and aircraft accidents have occurred, and are occurring, that can be laid at the doorstep of that automation and our new high tech toys. That is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

B25Flyer said:
When the automation flat out quits, it isn't too hard... The real tough one is when it is not doing what we expect...

I am looking in the mirror when I say, it is a real problem, and ALL of us are susceptible....
Click to expand...

Exactly what I got out of the video. Automation is an excellent tool to reduce workload and make flying safer. HOWEVER it has created a different set of problems that we must be able to identify and overcome. In this case, reverting to basic airmanship (FLY THE AIRPLANE) until we are back in control is the best alternative.

My 2cents
:cool:
 
What I took from this Video...

How many of us are confident/competent to navigate (route and airspace) without the support of a GPS in whatever form it takes?
How many can hand fly our RVs for extended periods maintaining heading and say +/- 30' alt without an autopilot?
Am I wrong in believing this should be a minimum requirement? These are just basic aviating skills.
 
B25Flyer said:
What ever you call it, the problem is real.... The more you fly with the magic and the more magic you fly with the harder it is to revert back to the basics....
Click to expand...

The basics haven't been good enough. I believe there is still the remnants of a B-25 engine, on the east side of Mt. Timpanogos. That's just west of Heber (McDonald Field) where you flew the B-25 a few years back. It crashed, due to disorientation, back in 55'.

And one more mountain range, to the west, a multiple engine fire fighting aircraft slammed into the side of the mountain, at 240 knots, back in 2009. For this event, the flying first officer kept telling the captain, that the Garmin 396 portable was showing red. It was a bit of scud running, and the captain either didn't hear, as he was giving verbal heading instructions, or.....?

When you see a map, of all the CFIT in this state of Utah, it looks like the red poppies, that cover the field in the Wizard of OZ. I'm quite thrilled, that we have more "magic", these days. But then of course, it's not magic by any means. Just a much better source of information, than all of those people and airplanes, that the red dots represent.....had..

At the end of the day, that 757 did the same thing, with the same results.
 
The basic message is know where you are, where you are going, and where you want to be at all times by actively maintaining situation awareness between your crew, your aircraft, your environment and your own projected plan.

Far too often today people rely on some sort of automation to do basic things for them and are unprepared to bear the burden of monitoring the actual performance of the automation. In a flight environment this is deadly hazardous. While I am a huge fan of technology and automation, I am also a staunch advocate of appropriately managing the automation in a way compatible with human factors. This means maintain situation awareness and use the rule of 3. in other words, 1/3 of the time let the magic do it's thing. 1/3 of the time you do everything (raw data, make your own descent profiles with basic pilot math, hand fly the approach, etc), and 1/3 of the time use a mixture of automation levels. This maintains a good overall level of familiarity and recency in transitioning all modes and still retaining our basic airmanship.

As it has been said here, we have piles of data confirming empirically that humans are rotten system monitors and fail at this task over time. Alternatively, humans are very good at spotting errors and threats while making novel changes to provide an adequate solution - something automation is poorly suited for. It used to be that the regular tasks of flying challenged pilots enough to keep them "in the loop" at all times and thus spotting hazards and errors and then achieving effective solutions to these was all but guaranteed.

I'm not saying automation is bad, but I am saying automation that is not approached with respect can and will lead the user astray. The "Children of the Magenta Line" promotes a good respect of the traps and hazards associated with automation.
 
Thanks for posting this

I had never seen it being a private pilot who got an instrument rating ~30 years ago in nice stable airplanes. I now fly the RV-6A with a TruTrak autopilot almost all the time. Nobody else knows my situation and I don't think or fly like anyone else but I understand the message as it applies to me even at my low level of automation. I have thought about the dependence on automation a lot in the past year or so and I have experienced autopilot failure twice since January of this year while flying IFR in IMC. The first time it was at night on departure from Amarillo International after I had flown all day from Ft. Bragg, California with a fuel stop in Prescott, AZ. The problem seemed to go away after cycling the power to it and I assumed it was something I had done. But the plane was rolling to the right in this instance. I saw it, I disengaged the autopilot and hand flew using the AS, AI, DG and VORs. It was "bothersome" (in the most serious way), I was fairly tired and if I had not been paying attention and living up to my responsibility I would be dead now. For my level of flying I think that is the message from this presentation - I as the pilot am responsible for the safe flight of the airplane and in that case I lived up to the responsibility. Later I made a day IFR departure (I believe the day vs. night requirements are significant) from Fayetteville, Arkansas to Pine Bluff and the plane started rolling off to the right again and again I caught it and hand flew the trip. When I returned I removed the unit an drove it up to Springdale and watched them perform a high level bench test which it passed. They offered to do a complete test and overhaul and I insisted on it. Later that day I went back and my unit was ready as promised and I was told that they found something broken inside when they tested and worked on the unit. It has performed flawlessly since that time. I have flown the plane 172.2 hours since January 1 of this year (August 30 now) so the plane is not just flown around the pattern and to pancake breakfasts. The message in the posted video was actually a little comforting to me knowing that it is a problem for all pilots not just me even though the magenta line (Garmin 695) is just a gross navigation reference to me. I actually prefer the SL-60 bearing to the next waypoint display for precision and use it to set the ground track angle on the Pictorial Pilot. Anyway, I don't see the value of arguing the merits of glass panels. In the little pilot world I live in the message for me (which I actually knew already) was use the automation wisely as it can kill you if you do not maintain situation awareness and exercise control when things go wrong.

Thanks Again,

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Well done Bob, you demonstrated exactly what it takes to "manage" automation rather than just "look at it" doing it's magic!
 
Air Facts

I have a large collection of Air Facts and never get tired of reading and rereading articles from the late thirties to the late 60's.
Form anyone who has not read "North Star over my Shoulder" this is a must read.
 
Bob Axsom said:
In the little pilot world I live in the message for me (which I actually knew already) was use the automation wisely as it can kill you if you do not maintain situation awareness and exercise control when things go wrong.
Click to expand...

We all live in the same little pilot world you do and I completely agree with your statement. :cool:
 
I have mixed emotions about this topic. I recently helped a new student study for her written. Among other things, we covered flight planning. I went step by step through the FAA handbook - mainly because I wanted to teach her by the book, but also because I just don't do it any more.

As far as head in the cockpit, yes, TAA can lure you into more heads inside time. But if you recognize this, especially when you master all your systems, you can be more attentive to the outside than the conventional aviator. If you are attempting to precisely navigate - I'm talking precisely identifying airspace boundaries, etc in an unfamiliar area, not flying your home area for years - I promise I can be much more alert to external cues occasionally glancing at the MFD vs the finger to sectional searching for the railroad/highway intersection.

My litmus test is how I feel when the chips are down - IMC, busy approach frequency, unfamiliar approach. I will definitely be using the AP in this scenario, but I'm watching it like a hawk and covering the controls with thumb hovering above the disconnect button. At the first hint of anything wonky, off it comes - to get back to my comfort level. If this feeling is ever reversed, it is time to rethink your dependency. (I am not talking about temporary bouts with SD - leans, etc. In that case, I may consider turning on the AP if hand flying)
 
Last edited:
60av8tor said:
As far as head in the cockpit, yes, TAA can lure you into more heads inside time. But if you recognize this, especially when you master all your systems, you can be more attentive to the outside than the conventional aviator. If you are attempting to precisely navigate - I'm talking precisely identifying airspace boundaries, etc in an unfamiliar area, not flying your home area for years - I promise I can be much more alert to external cues occasionally glancing at the MFD vs the finger to sectional searching for the railroad/highway intersection.QUOTE]

Well stated and I agree with you. I'm terrified of possible mid-airs due to some close calls in my past. I find the AP on a X-country allows me to scan & swivel neck more.

Cheers & safe flying to all,
Click to expand...
 
I think the presentation certainly brings up some valid points about automation dependency, though the topic is more complicated than some people like to make out (ie, automation can also save the day too - it just depends on the circumstances).

At the very least it is much more circumspect and appropriate than the article below, which a private pilot friend of mine recently asked my opinion on (being ex-military, current airline, and also a private pilot myself):
http://flightaware.com/squawks/view...y_should_be_about_the_man_and_not_the_machine

Essentially I told him that while the concern about atrophy of pure flying skills in airline flying is valid, the author uses some extremely poor arguments along the way (e.g., comparing it to the days of "pilots being pilots" in WW2 is nonsensical - the accident rate in WW2 was appalling).

And also, we're not all like Asiana.
 
To be clear I am NOT anti automation I'm very much pro automation but it still requires that the pilot maintain basic flying skills
 
L.Adamson said:
I do not care much for this video. It's often used as a reference by those, who tend to dismiss today's technology, and still push the agenda of VORs as being basic airmanship.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's the message the video is trying to convey, but I agree it has been used by those who seek to demonize technology.

I flew right seat next to a retired airline captain a few times behind a G1000. I noticed instead of entering the entire flight plan he would always fly point to point. He would wait until right before he got to his waypoint before entering the next one. The reason he did this was because he didn't want to take the time to learn how to enter a flight plan into the G1000. He always flew with an IFR or VFR map in his lap. I've also flown with other pilots who knew the G1000 well and spent all their time pushing buttons with their head inside the airplane.

Whatever technology you have make sure it's working for you rather than the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top