Sunday, January 6, 2019

Cessna T210M Turbo Centurion II, N1237M: Incident occurred January 06, 2019 at Bishop International Airport (KFNT), Flint, Genesee County, Michigan

Fly Happy LLC 

https://registry.faa.gov/N1237M



FLINT, MICHIGAN – Four people aboard a private plane escaped injury Sunday afternoon during an emergency landing at Bishop International Airport in Flint.

Airport police and fire personnel were notified around 4 p.m. Sunday, January 6th of a Cessna T210M Turbo Centurion II with a potential landing gear issue in the area of the airport off West Bristol Road.

Pat Corfman, Bishop International Airport spokeswoman, said the landing gear may have collapsed on the plane carrying four people, including the pilot, and approximately 75 gallons of fuel.

The plane could be seen partially on its side at the west end of a runway. All four people exited the plane without injury and were escorted to the Avflint Flint, Corfman said.

No information was immediately available on where the plane was coming from or its scheduled destination.

One runway was closed to allow for the incident to be cleared, but Corfman said it has not caused delays or cancellations at the airport.

Flint police, Flint Township police, and Genesee County Sheriff’s deputies responded to assist Bishop Airport first responders at the scene.

Original article can be found here ➤ https://www.mlive.com

Ramkota Hotel in Watertown, South Dakota: ADI/California Pacific Airlines stiffing them for 15 months of bills

The general manager of the Ramkota Hotel in Watertown, South Dakota, told federal transportation officials last week that ADI/California Pacific Airlines hasn’t paid its tab at the hotel from nearly 16 months in 2016 and 2017 when flight crews stayed there.

California Pacific, or CPA, bought ADI in early 2018 and continued the schedule of 12 round trips per week from Watertown and Pierre to Denver which began August 15, 2016, under the federally subsidized Essential Air Service program.

The comment from Deb Stanley was posted Friday, January 4th on the federal government website, www.regulations.gov., which contains official documents for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Stanley’s comment adds details to the complaints in a letter sent in December from Pierre Mayor Steve Harding and Watertown Mayor Sarah Caron to DOT officials saying CPA was delinquent in paying bills to local vendors and in bringing flights in on time, or at all.

The mayors asked DOT officials to step in within 30 days or so and get things fixed with the San Diego-based company, or to allow the two communities to re-open the bidding process to find a new airline. 

In her comment posted Friday, Stanley said Ramkota in Watertown “housed the flight crew and additional staff” as soon as they began flying to Watertown and Pierre on August 15th, 2016.

“They discontinued their stays with us November 2017 and we are still trying to collect from their stays,” Stanley wrote. “Our efforts to collect on this severely delinquent account have been either ignored or pushed aside. We, like the city and other parties were excited to have reliable air service to our community; and looked forward to being able to provide the necessary lodging for the overnight crew. The amenities of an onsite restaurant and proximity to the airport were very favorable when the decision was made for their lodging choice. The amount we are still owed is significant for a small business in South Dakota.”

“As the cities of Watertown and Pierre attempt to collect on the past-due accounts, we would welcome any assistance in our efforts to collect this debt . . .,” Stanley wrote in an online comment on the DOT’s page on the website. “We certainly wish ADI/California Pacific well, but not at the expense of businesses who were contracted to provide essential services.”

A spokesman for CPA did not return requests from the Capital Journal for a comment on the situation.

In December, a CPA vice president told the Capital Journal that an October incident in which a CPA jet’s wing was damaged by hitting a construction excavator while taxiing to the runway threw a monkey wrench in the airline’s ability to keep its flight schedules to Pierre and Watertown.

 The two mayors told DOT that since CPA had bought Atlanta-based ADI, service became spotty.

CPA, owned by San Diego entrepreneur Ted Vallas, finally got into the airline business last year by buying ADI, including it’s lease agreement on four 50-passenger jets. A longtime charter airline, ADI’s only scheduled passenger flights were the Watertown-Pierre-Denver schedule it began in August 2016.

Once CPA took over, it added flights from Carlsbad, California to Las Vegas and Phoenix, with plans announced for more flights from Carlsbad.

In the last two weeks, CPA has cancelled all its flights from Carlsbad as it has struggled with not having enough jets, and the longer-term problem of the pilot shortage created by increased training rules the DOT put int effect five years ago.

Mickey Bowman, vice president and chief of operations for ADI/CPA, told the Capital Journal the airline was quitting the charter business to devote its resources to the scheduled passenger air service.

Bowman left CPA recently, Pierre Mayor Steve Harding told the Capital Journal recently.

Attempts by the Capital Journal to reach a spokesman for CPA in recent days were unsuccessful.

On its website Sunday, CPA had this note: “We have temporarily suspended our Carlsbad flights and ticket sales due to impact from the nationwide pilot shortage. We are in the process of training new pilots who will allow us to re-launch services soon. All existing January 2019 flight reservations for Carlsbad, San Jose, Reno, Las Vegas, Phoenix-Mesa are cancelled.”

On Sunday, according to its website, CPA was taking reservations for flights from Pierre and Watertown to Denver for Monday, January 7th, and Tuesday, January 8th.

On May 29, 2018, the DOT, following the requests of civic leaders in Pierre and Watertown, “re-selected”  ADI for a second two-year EAS contract to fly 12 Watertown-Pierre-Denver round trips per week from Aug. 1, 2018 to July 31, 2020. DOT accepted ADI’s bid of providing the service for an EAS subsidy of $7.06 million — $4.65 for the Pierre piece and $2.4 million for the Watertown side of the flights — per year.  

The EAS program aims at helping small, isolated airports obtain scheduled passenger air service.

Bowman told the Capital Journal that the program is designed with an incentive to the airline to provide good service: the subsidy is doled out by the feds on a per-flight reimbursement basis and if a flight isn’t completed, the airline does not collect the subsidy.

Under a separate DOT program, the Pierre Regional Airport reached a key passenger boarding figure recently, city leaders said last week: the annual passenger “enplanement” figures exceeded 10,000 for 2018. That’s important because it means DOT will continue giving the airport a $1 million grant for capital improvements at the airport.

If passenger boardings fall below the 10,000 mark, the DOT airport funding level is reduced by about $850,000.

The Watertown airport also exceeded 10,000 passenger boardings in 2018.

Both cities had more than 10,000 boardings for 2017.

Original article can be found here ➤ https://www.capjournal.com

I am submitting this comment as one of the public entities that is also not being paid by ADI / California Pacific Airlines.

I represent the Ramkota Hotel of Watertown SD and we housed the flight crew and additional staff of the airline when they began service in Watertown in August, 2016. They discontinued their stays with us November, 2017 and we are still trying to collect from their stays. Our efforts to collect on this severely delinquent account have been either ignored or pushed aside. We, like the city and other parties were excited to have reliable air service to our community and looked forward to being able 
to provide the necessary lodging for the overnight crew. The amenities of an onsite restaurant and proximity to the airport were very favorable when the decision was made for their lodging choice. The amount we are still owed is significant for a small business in South Dakota.

As the cities of Watertown and Pierre attempt to collect on the past due accounts, we would welcome any assistance in our efforts to collect this debt and appreciate the forum to share the information. We certainly wish ADI / California Pacific well, but not at the expense of businesses who were contracted to provide essential services.


I am available if any additional information is needed.


Deb Stanley, General Manager
Ramkota Hotel
Watertown, SD

Source ➤ https://www.regulations.gov

Robinson R44 II, registered to S2 Helicopter Services and operated by an individual, N797JR: Accident occurred January 08, 2018 in Albany, Shackelford County, Texas

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entity: 

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Lubbock, Texas

Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf


Investigation Docket - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms

http://registry.faa.gov/N797JR


Location: Albany, TX

Accident Number: CEN18LA069
Date & Time: 01/08/2018, 1345 CST
Registration: N797JR
Aircraft: ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY R44 II
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Unknown or undetermined
Injuries: 1 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal 

On January 8, 2018, at 1345 central standard time, a Robinson R44 helicopter, N797JR, collided with trees and the terrain during an autorotation following a loss of tailrotor effectiveness while in a hover in Albany, Texas. The commercial pilot was not injured. The helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to S2 Helicopter Services and was operated by an individual as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight was not operated on a flight plan. The local flight originated from a ranch in Albany, Texas, at 1310.

The pilot stated he was using the helicopter to roundup cattle when the accident occurred. He reported he applied power to stabilize in a hover about 50 ft above the ground, when he heard a single loud bang and "felt it in the pedals." The helicopter spun to the right and the pilot applied full left pedal which had no effect. The pilot stated that after about 2 spins, he entered an autorotation to remove torque from the rotor system. The helicopter contacted trees as it descended to the ground. The helicopter came to rest upright with the tail boom separated.

The pilot reported that he was not sure if there was a "mechanical problem" or not. His recommendation was "Conduct a better clearing turn to ensure that nothing was around including animals/birds" and to "maintain more forward airspeed in case of emergency."

The helicopter was sitting upright on the skids. The fuselage was intact and the tailboom was separated just forward of the empennage. Minor crushing damage was visible on the right side of the helicopter aft of the cabin area. Crush damage was visible on the left side of the helicopter above the front and rear skid struts. The main rotor blades, main rotor blade hub, and main rotor mast were intact. One of the main rotor blades exhibited minor bending near the outboard section of the blade. The other blade had a hole in the blade near the tip and the leading edge of the blade at the tip was pulled away from the remainder of the blade.

The empennage and tailrotor were separated from the tailboom. The tailrotor drive shaft separated at the aft flex plate. The drive shaft remained connected to the clutch assembly. The main rotor blades turned when the tailrotor drive shaft was rotated by hand. Ratchet marks were visible inside the tailboom near the aft flex plate. Corresponding damage was visible on the flex plate and drive shaft.

The trailing edge of the lower vertical stabilizer contained impact damage to the rear edge of the surface, pushing the skin forward toward the leading edge. The tail rotor blade assembly remained attached to the tail rotor gearbox. One tail rotor blade was bent outward 90 ° at the blade root. The other blade was bent out about 20° the blade root. The blade was free to turn when rotated by hand. 

Pilot Information


Certificate: Commercial
Age: 28, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Right
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used:
Instrument Rating(s): Helicopter
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): Instrument Helicopter
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 2 Without Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 07/18/2017
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 03/11/2016
Flight Time:  3000 hours (Total, all aircraft), 1700 hours (Total, this make and model), 2450 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 120 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 29 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 3 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information


Aircraft Make: ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY
Registration: N797JR
Model/Series: R44 II II
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Year of Manufacture: 2006
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 11030
Landing Gear Type: Skid;
Seats: 4
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 06/03/2017, Annual
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2120 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection:
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 2058 Hours
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT: Installed, not activated
Engine Model/Series: IO-540
Registered Owner: S2 HELICOPTER SERVICES LLC
Rated Power: 0 hp
Operator: On file
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None 

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: BKD, 1284 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 25 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 1955 UTC
Direction from Accident Site: 90°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Visibility:  7 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility (RVR):
Wind Speed/Gusts: 5 knots /
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: /
Wind Direction: 360°
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual: /
Altimeter Setting: 30.17 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 16°C / -1°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Albany, TX
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Albany, TX
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1310 CST
Type of Airspace: Class G 

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 None
Latitude, Longitude: 32.730000, -99.309444 (est)

Vans RV-4, N83SB: Accident occurred January 04, 2018 in Montrose County, Colorado

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entity:

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Salt Lake City, Utah

Aviation Accident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf


Investigation Docket - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms 


Aviation Accident Data Summary - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
 
http://registry.faa.gov/NN83SB


Location: Montrose, CO
Accident Number: CEN18LA068
Date & Time: 01/04/2018, 1600 MST
Registration: N83SB
Aircraft: BARNES STEVEN D STEVE BARNES RV 4
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Loss of engine power (total)
Injuries:1 None 
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal

Analysis

The commercial pilot departed on a local flight and began a 120-mph cruise climb. After the airplane cleared some high terrain, the pilot leaned the engine fuel-air mixture, but the engine began to operate roughly. The pilot enriched the mixture, and the engine began to operate smoothly but then lost total power. The pilot performed emergency procedures, which included an attempted engine restart. The pilot stated that he pumped the throttle twice and that the engine responded with "2 small bursts of 500-600 rpms," but then there was no additional engine power. The pilot executed a forced landing to a nearby private airfield but was unable to reach the runway, and the airplane impacted terrain and farm equipment.

A postaccident examination of the airplane fuel system revealed no anomalies. The carburetor could not be tested because it was destroyed during the accident sequence. A postaccident engine examination showed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or abnormalities. Thus, the reason(s) for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.

Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The total loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined because a postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.

Findings

Not determined
Not determined - Unknown/Not determined (Cause)

Factual Information 

On January 4, 2018, about 1600 mountain standard time, a Barnes RV-4 airplane, N83SB, lost engine power and executed a forced landing near Montrose, Colorado. The commercial rated pilot was not injured, and the airplane sustained substantial damage. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and a flight plan was not filed. The local flight departed the Clifford Field Airport (1CO4), Olathe, Colorado, about 1555.

According to the pilot, he departed 1CO4 and began a 120-mph cruise climb. After clearing some high terrain, the pilot leaned the engine mixture and the engine began to operate rough, so he began to enrich the mixture. Subsequently, the engine began to operate smoothly, and then lost total power. The pilot performed his emergency procedures which included an attempted engine restart. The pilot pumped the throttle twice, the engine responded with "2 small bursts of 500-600 rpms", and then no additional engine power. The pilot executed a forced landing to a nearby private airfield; however, was unable to make the runway, and the airplane impacted terrain and farm equipment.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector and the pilot revealed the fuel system and fuel lines were clear of contaminants and no issues were noted. The engine carburetor was destroyed during the accident sequence. No mechanical anomalies were noted with the airframe or engine.

History of Flight

Enroute-climb to cruise
Loss of engine power (total) (Defining event)

Emergency descent
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT) 

Pilot Information

Certificate: Commercial
Age: 45, Male
Airplane Rating(s): Single-engine Land
Seat Occupied: Front
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: 5-point
Instrument Rating(s): Airplane
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 2 Without Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 11/17/2017
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 12/06/2016
Flight Time:  8688 hours (Total, all aircraft), 49 hours (Total, this make and model), 8563 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 23 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 17 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 3 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: BARNES STEVEN D
Registration: N83SB
Model/Series: STEVE BARNES RV 4 NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture: 1991
Amateur Built: Yes
Airworthiness Certificate: Experimental
Serial Number: 1171
Landing Gear Type: Tailwheel
Seats: 2
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 01/26/2017, Condition
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 1550 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection:
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 1795.3 Hours as of last inspection
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT: Installed, not activated
Engine Model/Series: O-320-B3B
Registered Owner: FELIX DAVID S
Rated Power: 160 hp
Operator: On file
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: MTJ, 5758 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 9 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 1553 MST
Direction from Accident Site: 270°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Visibility: 10 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility (RVR):
Wind Speed/Gusts: 5 knots /
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: / None
Wind Direction: 290°
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual: /
Altimeter Setting: 30.25 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 6°C / -16°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Precipitation
Departure Point: Olathe, CO (1CO4)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Olathe, CO (1CO4)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1555 MST
Type of Airspace: Class G 

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 None
Latitude, Longitude: 38.505556, -107.729444

Airline Automation Triggers Intensified Debate Over Safety: Crash in Indonesia highlights concerns about whether pilots know how to react to computer errors


The Wall Street Journal
By Andy Pasztor and Robert Wall
Updated January 6, 2019 2:04 p.m. ET

The fatal Lion Air crash has revved up debate about the biggest quandary in airline safety: how best to meld increasingly sophisticated computer controls, designed to prevent tragedies, with traditional piloting skills.

Ever-more-powerful cockpit automation and ultrareliable jet engines have contributed to record-low accident rates in recent years. For example, in 2017, there were fewer than three major accidents per one million commercial flights globally, and not a single scheduled jet airliner went down.

But the accident this past October involving Lion Air Flight 610, which killed 189 people in Indonesia, dramatically highlighted the hazards when automated flight-control features fail or misfire, and pilots aren’t able to respond properly.

The crash of the new Boeing 737 MAX 8 plane contributed to an erosion of the industry’s safety record last year—though it was still the third safest in terms of total airliner crashes. It amplifies the pressure on airplane makers like Airbus SE and Boeing Co. to calibrate the right mix of computer automation and pilot control.

“The industry must figure out new ways to effectively develop flying skills and enhance training so pilots can better respond to emergencies,” said consultant William Voss, a former U.S. and international safety official who also served as president of the nonprofit Flight Safety Foundation.

From takeoff to landing in virtually zero visibility, computers can operate the plane’s key systems. Pilots are supposed to monitor them and prepare for anything unexpected, typically spending only a few minutes per trip manually flying the plane.

During the 11-minute flight, the Lion Air pilots struggled to counteract a new stall-prevention system that repeatedly pushed down the plane’s nose due to erroneous sensor signals likely stemming from a maintenance lapse. The Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which investigators believe wasn’t actually in danger of stalling, plunged into the Java Sea.

Following the accident, U.S. and European aviation regulators have been exchanging data about sensor failures leading to severe automation problems.

Patrick Ky, executive director of the European Aviation Safety Agency, said information exchanged with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration focuses on how powerful automation systems should be able to cope with inaccurate sensor signals. “We have very automated machines,” he said. “But if something goes wrong, how do you allow the pilot to take over?”

Aircraft designers and training experts are considering how to ensure that future generations of pilots—steeped in touch-screen technology featuring supposedly infallible software—retain essential hand-flying and decision-making skills historically prized by the industry.

Adding to that challenge, Boeing estimates a global need for more than 750,000 new commercial pilots over the next two decades with substantially fewer hires coming from the military than before, resulting in generally lower experience levels.

Industry experts say enhanced cockpit automation is essential to produce aircraft geared toward even those pilots with only rudimentary skills, sometimes described as “least-common-denominator” crews. Above all, they say today’s jetliners and training programs are supposed to ensure all pilots, regardless of background, adhere to common safety practices.

However, some experts see this drive toward predictability producing highly scripted pilot training that doesn’t prepare aviators for rare dangers that can be bewildering. Because planes effectively fly themselves for long periods, pilots can become lulled into losing awareness of system functions.

But when displays show a torrent of fault messages accompanied by a cacophony of warning sounds, crews can become overwhelmed trying to simultaneously control the plane and manage the automation that is supposed to be in charge, said Mike Doiron, president of the consulting firm Cirrus Aviation Safety Services.

Roots of this automation dilemma stretch back nearly three decades, to when European plane maker Airbus first devised so-called fly-by-wire automated protections to prevent accidents. No matter what commands pilots give, under normal circumstances, computers on board won’t let them turn a plane too sharply or raise the nose to a dangerously high angle. Since then, Airbus has embraced more computer-driven safeguards, from automated midair collision-avoidance maneuvers to digital helpers alerting landing pilots about inadequate stopping distance.

Boeing, in contrast, has focused more on giving crews ultimate power to override almost any automated protections without disabling underlying systems. Regarding automation on 737 MAX models, Boeing has said it relied on its usual process to include all the information pilots need to safely operate the jets. After the crash, Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg has said the planes don’t represent any change to the company’s design philosophy.

But in recent years, the two rivals have moved closer to each other with regard to cockpit automation.

Airbus, for example, has devised training programs for its A350 long-range models calling for pilots to get accustomed to the manual feel of the plane’s controls in initial simulator sessions, before activating normal automated systems.

Senior Airbus safety officials, who years ago argued it was their duty to install the most automation feasible on every new model, now say they spend more time worrying about potential unintended consequences of such decisions.

Boeing, for its part, has devised a host of advanced automated systems to take over if pilots or equipment err. If an engine fails on one of the company’s 777 jetliners at the moment of takeoff—generally considered the riskiest part of any plane trip—computers are designed to handle everything. They can adjust thrust on the remaining engine, move the rudder and initiate a smooth climb away from danger without any human input.

In the future, Boeing may embrace certain semiautonomous operations and artificial intelligence to prevent accidents. But Greg Hyslop, the company’s chief technical officer, pointedly asked at an aviation conference earlier this year in Seattle: “How do I certify that as safe?”


Airlines in the U.S., Europe and other mature aviation markets have urged pilots to spend more time manually flying aircraft as a way to prevent overreliance on automation. The aim is to enable crews to react more quickly and confidently when startled.

But such recommendations aren’t realistic for many fast-growing carriers in Asia and elsewhere scrambling to find enough fresh hires to fill crew rosters. “These pilots may lack the confidence to manually fly the aircraft,” said Cirrus Aviation’s Mr. Doiron.

Annemarie Landman, who has conducted research on pilot reaction for the Dutch research institute TNO, sees the growing complexity of automation itself as a huge hurdle. “When something goes wrong,” she said, “things get very confusing.”

Automation in Recent Crashes

While increased cockpit automation has contributed to record-low accident rates in recent years, some of the highest-profile airliner crashes have been prompted, in part, by pilots who didn’t fully understand the complexities and interplay of automated safeguards.

U.S. government and industry experts have concluded, after studying years of airliner accidents involving pilot errors, that roughly two-thirds occurred after automated systems clicked off or operated in an unforeseen fashion. Excessive reliance on computers can make pilots complacent, according to safety experts, and in response to the distress, it can take crews too long to troubleshoot and choose the most effective response to emergencies they haven’t experienced in ground simulators.

In 2009, an Air France Airbus SE A330 wide-body crashed into the Atlantic Ocean en route to Paris from Rio de Janeiro, killing all 228 people aboard. Investigators determined sudden icing of a flight-control sensor—considered a temporary problem with a typically simple resolution—prompted cockpit confusion. The result was a series of mistakes by pilots unaccustomed to manually controlling the jet, particularly at cruise altitude.

In 2013, an Asiana Airlines-operated Boeing 777 crash-landed at San Francisco International Airport partly because of the crew’s lack of awareness about precisely how autothrottle and autopilot systems functioned.

In September 2007, pilots of a Boeing 737 climbing away from a botched landing attempt at Bournemouth Airport in the U.K. couldn’t keep the plane’s nose from pitching up to a dangerously high angle. British investigators, who didn’t identify the airline, said the crew failed to realize the autothrottle had disengaged during the approach, and the passenger jet’s nose ended up 44 degrees above level flight before pilots regained control and touched down without injuries.

  —Andrew Tangel contributed to this article.

Original article can be found here ➤ https://www.wsj.com