Military aircraft Essay Example

et al.). Previously, large military aircraft had a four-person flight deck consisting of a pilot, co-pilot, navigator, and flight engineer (O'Connor et al.). The need for additional crew members stemmed from primitive flight instruments and limited navigational capabilities without extra support.

As aviation technology progressed over the past two decades, larger and faster aircraft were developed but still required additional crew members. However, advancements in technology have allowed large aircraft to reduce their flight crews from four members to just two on the flight deck. For example, the C-130 aircraft previously necessitated four crew members but transitioned to a two-person flight deck with the introduction of advanced avionics-equipped C-J model.The advancement in aircraft technology requires a corresponding adjustment in CRM, as the interaction between new aviation technology and CRM is crucial. This impacts how military aircraft are operated and how aircrew engage with their systems. It cannot be overstated how important it is for CRM to adapt to technological advancements to keep up with aircrew and their systems. Failure to do so can have negative consequences on mission accomplishment and safety.

However, when a crew is well-trained and cohesive, their coordination resembles a synchronized symphony. They anticipate each other's needs without requiring assistance. Technology plays a crucial role in this process by providing pilots with aircraft inputs instead of relying solely on other crew members. Therefore, it is vital for the pilot to properly configure the aircraft's systems to receive all necessary information.

An experienced C-130 pilot who transitioned from flying the C-AH for ten years attests that the setup of the C-J aircraft is impressive. With features such as Heads-Up Display (HUD), pilots can access critical information

like airspeed, altitude, and specific descent points required for landing without constantly needing to divert their attention inside the cockpit.The text emphasizes that the use of new technology in aviation pilots requires different CRM compared to previous aircraft models like the C-AH. It explains how the C-AH relies on a mission computer to handle aviation tasks, allowing both pilots to focus on navigating safely. The passage discusses how experienced pilots benefit from having access to necessary information while new pilots may struggle with information overload and determining relevance, potentially leading to misinterpretation. Additionally, two videos showcasing air show demonstrations of the C-130 aircraft are included: one featuring the C-J at the Paris Airship and another showcasing Fat Albert of the Blue Angels at the Barked FAA Airship. Both videos demonstrate effective CRM functioning but differ in communication dynamics and impact on outcomes.The C-J video demonstrates communication between the pilot and co-pilot, with the pilot focusing on flying responsibilities and the co-pilot controlling throttles. While some power adjustments require requests from the pilot, the majority are known and made by the co-pilot without explicit instruction. The pilot has primary responsibility for communication, while the co-pilot primarily acknowledges audio warnings and supports maneuvers due to advanced aircraft technology providing location updates. In contrast, the Fat Albert demonstration involves three individuals - a pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer - who communicate and fulfill specific roles in providing information to the pilot. The co-pilot acts as a flight computer, continuously updating position and offering support during maneuvers. The flight engineer announces various settings such as airspeeds, pitch, bank angle, altitude, and configuration settings. Unlike in the C-J demo where

important information is displayed outside of the cockpit, there is more communication among crew members in Fat Albert since crucial details like altitude, airspeeds, pitch, bank angle, and location relative to the field are not visible outside of the cockpit.The significance of collaboration among crew members in achieving a common mission or outcome is underscored by the impact of new aviation technology. Recent studies indicate that the combination of CRM and advanced aviation technology is a recent development, enabling pilots to achieve more with fewer resources. In the military sector, large transport aircraft traditionally relied on multiple personnel in the flight deck due to lagging aviation technology. However, technologically advanced aircraft like the C-17 and C-J have incorporated sass technology, distinguishing themselves from others in the Air Force's inventory. While both older and newer aircraft integrate CRM training, there are differences in its implementation as aviation technology progresses to meet military requirements. The advent of new aviation technology has revolutionized cockpit design through innovations such as glass cockpits, extensive automation, and Heads-up-Display (HAD) systems. These advancements have radically transformed how pilots fly and interact with their aircraft by placing crucial gauges and flight instruments on screens directly in front of them. Consequently, accessing any flight or aircraft information now only requires a simple touch of a button (NASA, Para 10).Boeing introduced the first glass cockpit for their 737 fleet in the sass, utilizing cathode ray tube screens (NASA, Para 13). Over time, this technology has advanced to include touch-enabled liquid crystal display (LCD) screens for enhanced user experience. The development of the glass cockpit was a response to the challenge faced by aircraft in the

mid sass era, which had numerous scattered gauges, instruments, and controls throughout the cockpit (NASA, Para 14). Engineers aimed to create a solution that would allow pilots easy access to information without having to search extensively within the cockpit. Thus, they created the first glass cockpit and MFC (NASA, Para 17), although determining responsibility division between pilots and computers proved challenging during its design phase (NASA, Para 17).

After NASA confirmed their safety through testing (NASA, 19), glass cockpits were swiftly adopted by the military. Initially implemented in fighter aircraft to reduce clutter within the cockpit environment, glass cockpits later became prevalent in military transport planes such as the C-17 during the sass. This transition significantly impacted operations for these larger aircraft since they replaced older C-141 fleets that adhered to traditional designs and included navigator and flight engineer positions onboard.The introduction of glass cockpit technology effectively eliminated certain roles, as computer systems could now handle navigation and system monitoring tasks (Funk & Loyall, 2003 - Para 1). Flight deck automation involves using machines on commercial transport aircraft to perform tasks typically done by pilots, such as autopilots, flight management systems, electronic flight instrument systems, and warning/alerting systems (Funk & Loyall - Para 1).

The first form of automation introduced was the autopilot, which allowed pilots to focus on other activities while relinquishing control of the aircraft's controls. However, current automation systems have faced challenges (Funk & Loyall - Para 2).

In military aircraft operations, human intervention remains vital for flight safety in combat zones during airdrops. Even if the aircraft's flight systems become corrupted and misrepresent its location, the pilot can ensure accurate positioning for supply drops.

To

address these concerns, aviation technology like the heads-up-display (HUD) has revolutionized pilot flying experience. Positioned between the pilot and windshield, this device presents crucial information on a screen including attitude, airspeed altitude and heading. Originally designed for military fighter aircrafts; it is now increasingly used in larger transport planes and civilian flights over the past decade.The use of HAD provides extensive situational awareness to pilots, enabling them to prioritize their attention outside the cockpit during close-to-ground operations like landing or military airdrops. However, inexperienced pilots may struggle to extract essential information from the HAD during critical flight phases and can become overwhelmed. Nevertheless, this technological advancement remains invaluable for experienced pilots as it allows them to configure the aircraft before flight and only require minimal cockpit monitoring unless adjustments are needed.

Alongside technological advancements, Crew Resource Management (CRM) has been expanding and evolving since its establishment in the sass era. CRM now focuses on pilots' interactions with aircraft systems and other crew members onboard. The main core areas of CRM include situational awareness (AS), task management, communication, and decision-making. While each area consists of various sub-sections, this section primarily emphasizes these four key aspects.

Situational awareness (AS) involves being fully aware of one's surroundings and effectively filtering out distractions that may hinder objectives. However, AS is not always constant and can be compromised by external demands, leading to confusion and disorientation. The implementation of new technology can greatly assist in achieving optimal AS. For example, glass cockpits allow pilots to access all necessary flight information on a single screen.Automation systems improve aviation safety by automating certain tasks, allowing pilots to have more time to process incoming information.

The combination of a glass cockpit and automation, also known as HAD (Human-Automation Interaction Design), enhances situational awareness by enabling pilots to anticipate future actions while staying focused on the present moment. This improved visibility allows them to interpret information displayed on the HAD without diverting their attention from the field of view. Task management involves prioritizing tasks based on mission debriefing and includes handling overload and under load situations. Overload occurs when a person is overwhelmed with tasks and cannot efficiently complete them, while under load happens when a person lacks engagement and makes mistakes even with simple tasks. With the help of new technology, such as quick access to large amounts of information, pilots can effectively manage their tasks like checklists and procedures. Pilots trained in new technology are less likely to become overwhelmed but must remain engaged to avoid being insufficiently stimulated. Effective communication is crucial in aviation, particularly in Crew Resource Management (CRM), where everyone must understand each other explicitly through clear speaking and active listening. Communication plays a significant role in CRM and can have negative consequences if not utilized correctlyThe introduction of new technology has reduced the need for crew members to communicate with each other, as they can now individually assess the aircraft's current state. However, effective communication remains essential for successful CRM. Decision-making in CRM involves proper assessment, judgment, consideration of event probabilities, and utilization of available resources. There are two types of decision-making: analytical and intuitive. Analytical decision-making is used when time constraints allow for a systematic process to determine the best course of action. In contrast, intuitive decision-making (also known as automatic decision-making) is employed

during emergencies when quick decisions are necessary and thorough analysis is impractical. The use of advanced technology in military aircraft like the C-130 has greatly improved pilots' decision-making processes by providing a wide range of tools that save time and energy in problem-solving tasks. Despite this technological ease, pilots still face pressure to make fast choices as the aircraft alerts them to any issues.Technological advancements in aircraft have a constant impact on the military aviation community. These advancements not only affect aircraft operations but also require pilots to adapt their integration methods with both the aircraft and each other. The level of integration varies depending on factors such as personnel count on the flight deck or cockpit, as well as the technological capabilities of the aircraft.

For older aircraft like the C-AH, updates are necessary to incorporate new training platforms, such as implementing fifth-generation CRM for error management (Helices, Merritt & Wilhelm, p.7). It is crucial to implement new training ideas/programs in newer aircraft like C-J or C-17; however, it is equally important to consider error integration and its interaction with the aircraft for a complete understanding of safe and effective operation.

Technology plays a significant role in advancing military aviation; nevertheless, CRM must be considered for navigating ever-changing airspace. As the military continues to evolve and their aircraft undergo changes, pilots must adapt to overcome novel challenges. Over the past three decades, there has been extensive research and improvement in CRM focused on new concepts and ideas. However, more research is needed on how to incorporate new technology into CRM rather than treating it as an afterthought.

For example, in C-130 training, both C-AH and C-J aircrew

members receive CRM training from different instructors but following the same syllabus.This brief research aims to enhance aircrews' understanding of their positioning within the aircraft and emphasizes effective engagement with its systems. The focus of CRM has shifted from crew interactions to interactions between crew members and the aircraft's computer systems. Conducting more detailed research on how technology impacts human-computer integration will establish a valuable foundation for future studies. In the long term, CRM research needs to adapt to real-time technological advancements instead of waiting for technology development before identifying necessary changes. This poses a current challenge within the field, and staying ahead of technological developments is the only solution. If new CRM concepts that effectively integrate technology are not developed, the military aviation community will fall behind in a flight environment that is constantly changing. This environment requires accurate flight operations and allows no room for errors.