give your opinion and discuss it whether you agree or not and WHY, with resources about the article below ——————- —————- Despite their numerous advantages, advanced navigation systems have the potential to introduce several kinds of errors. One of the most prominent accidents in aviation caused by error of advanced navigation systems was the American Airlines Boeing Flight 965, 757-200 CFIT accident during approach to Cali, Columbia on 20 December 1995. FMS input errors, coupled with conflicting Navaid frequencies (ROZO NDB & ROMEO NDB had same transmission frequency – 274) and poor SA led to the CFIT accident (Reference 1). According to Endsley (2012), advanced aircraft systems can lead to complexity creep, which makes it difficult for pilots to have sufficient mental representation of the systems. An inappropriate mental model of advanced navigation systems like the FMS could lead input errors. Advance navigation systems that are often automated could also keep pilots “Out of the loop”, which could pave way for numerous errors to occur. Pilots that are out of the loop could have slow/poor response to emergencies or even operate the wrong controls since they are not in the “picture”. Advanced automated navigation systems could also lead to passive monitoring, which could lead to errors of omission due to missed warnings. Display complexity of advance navigation systems can lead to attention tunnelling, which could lead to errors in instrument cross check. According to Endsley, 2012 “In many systems, flashing lights, moving icons, and bright colours are overused. This creates the Las Vegas Strip phenomenon”. Display complexity (Misplaced Salience) leads to poor information processing and poor instrument interpretations resulting in missing of important warnings due to several instruments competing for the pilot’s attention. Complexity of advanced navigation systems can also lead to mode errors. Mode errors are a significant concern in many automated systems in which multiple modes exist. For example, pilots have been known to misinterpret displayed. descent rate information because they believe they are in one mode, where the descent rate is in feet per minute, when actually they are in another mode, where it is displayed in degrees. While some of the above-mentioned errors can be minimized through good systems design, I believe that most of these errors could be lessened through good knowledge of the systems as well as adequate training. Pilots should also be encouraged to thoroughly plan for missions and use the checklists, SOPs/LOPs as appropriate. They should verify that their inputs to complex systems are correct with other crew. They must also verify that the navigation systems are responding as programmed, this logic – “garbage in, garbage out”. Most importantly, the systems limitations must also be well understood and respected. Advanced navigation systems on newly inducted platforms must be studied thoroughly by pilots. Specific differences and challenges introduced with new systems should be appreciated to avoid “negative transfer”. References: Aeronautica Civil of the Republic of Columbia. Controlled Flight Into Terrain American Airlines Flight 965 Boeing 757-223, N651AA Near Cali, Colombia, December 20,1995. Accessed 25 August 2021 at: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/1995/19951220-1_B752_N651AA.pdf (Links to an external site.) Endsley. 2012. Designing for Situation Awareness – An Approach to User-Centered Design. Second Edition 2nd.
