1

Examining the Ethical Dilemma of Automation in Aviation

Quincey Newton

Department of English, Appalachian State University

RC-2001: Introductory Writing Across the Curriculum

Professor Beth Cox

March 8, 2024
 2

Background

Aviation connects the modern world in a way no other technology can replicate, the

mastery of flight has changed the world and many of the most important systems and industries

today now rely on the ability to travel by air. Countless roles play into the operation of

commercial flight, but the final responsibility for the control of an airplane falls upon its pilots.

This was originally an extremely hands on position that required constant action and attention to

flight controls, however as technology has progressed more and more of a pilot’s tasks are

handled by computers. The current state of automation in the aviation industry has transformed

the role of pilots and the way planes are flown, pilots spend far more time monitoring automated

systems than they do hand flying. In modern large commercial aircraft, automated flight controls

handle over 90% of the operation of the aircraft and pilots will manually fly for usually less than

10 minutes (Bliss & Wise, 2023).

Modern flight decks have become highly automated and this trend will only continue

further in the future (Jazzar et al., 2023; Bliss & Wise, 2023). While most aviation accidents are

attributed to human error, as automation on the flight deck increases there has been a rise in

aviation accidents due to malfunctioning automation systems and pilot misuse or

misunderstanding of these systems (Gil et al., 2012; Naranji et. al, 2015). These technologies

bring new safety concerns to the industry. When they malfunction, encounter situations they

haven’t been programmed for, misrepresent information to pilots, or are operated by pilots

without proper training in their use, planes crash and people die (Soo et al., 2021; Jazzar et al.

2023). This creates a safety dilemma considering reduced human control reduces opportunity for

human error, however increases risk from issues related to these automated systems. As such, the

implementation of automated flight controls is an ethical question currently under debate within
 3

the aviation industry. This research will address this ethical question by reviewing past and

present literature within the aviation discourse community that make the cases for and against

highly automated flight control systems.

The Case for Automation

Even in a highly automated flight deck, the final responsibility and control of an aircraft

rests with its pilots, and their abilities and performance of their duties are an essential factor in

aviation safety. Some prominent research within the discourse community indicates that pilot

performance is aided and enhanced by automation in the cockpit. Past research indicated that

high level automation was optimal for pilots’ reaction times and workload. This research also

indicated that high and intermediate level automation was optimal for overall task success rate

and route planning (Gil et al., 2012). More recent research also acknowledges the advantages of

reduced workload from automation. “Automation assists operators in understanding the system’s

state. It also contributes to the reduction of repetitive activities, enabling the operator to

concentrate on important responsibilities (Jazzar et al., 2023).” Automation mainly contributes to

safety by reducing opportunities for human error to occur. Human error is the cause of at least

80% of all aviation accidents (Jazzar et al., 2023) and historical data shows that commercial

flight has become safer over the years as automation has increased at the expense of manual

control (Naranji et al., 2015). While many studies conclude that the reduced pilot engagement in

highly automated cockpits reduces pilot awareness and performance (Bowers et al., 1998; Soo et

al., 2021; Jazzar et al., 2023; Bliss & Wise, 2023), technologies like automated cognition

systems can implement automation in a way that achieves the best of both worlds. These ACS

flight controls automate flight systems while continuously actively interacting with pilots and
 4

prompting them to perform manual flight control tasks, reducing human error while maintaining

pilot engagement (Naranji et al., 2015).

Another way to address reduced pilot performance in automated aircraft is education and

training. Commercial pilots are required to complete 1,500 hours of flight after their training

before they can begin to work for commercial airlines. Pilots learn to fly and complete the

majority of these hours in smaller manually operated aircraft, not being introduced to automated

flight until after they begin work with an airline (Soo et al., 2021). If pilot education was more

focused on flying the larger and more highly automated aircraft in which pilots will spend most

of their careers, pilot engagement and performance using automated systems would likely be

much less of an issue (Soo et al., 2021).

It has been argued that high level automation is the inevitable future of aviation, and that

the industry should accept this and do its best to accommodate automation as safely as possible.

Expert analysis at NASA and Embry Riddle University predicts the implementation of

single-pilot cockpits in the next decade and expects the industry to progress to fully automated

unmanned aircraft in the coming years after that (Bliss & Wise, 2023; Zakharenko & Luttmann,

2023). A single pilot cockpit makes more economic sense for airlines, The reduction of aircraft

size and air crew (one pilot per flight) would provide better consumer utility and higher profits

for airlines because these changes would allow for more frequent flights, shorter connection

times, and an estimated 25% increase in passenger traffic (Zakharenko & Luttmann, 2023).

The Case Against Automation

Despite the steady increase in levels of automation as new aircraft are produced, there are

still many ethical concerns about the safety of these systems. Contradictory to the claims of Gil

et al. in their 2012 study, most research suggests that pilot control, cognitive skills, and physical
 5

skills, are reduced in automated flight decks (Bowers et al., 1998; Soo et al., 2021; Jazzar et al.,

2023; Bliss & Wise, 2023). Pilots’ physical and cognitive skills are barely challenged during

normal operation under the current conditions of automation, this causes a lack of practice and

deterioration of flight performance (Jazzar et al., 2023). Additionally, older research for military

aviation application has indicated that automated systems are counterintuitive in high stress and

high difficulty situations, when it is most important for pilots to perform at their best.

It is especially troublesome to note that automation was associated with poorer

problem-solving performance in the high task-difficulty condition. Presumably, the

effects of automation should be most robust during periods of high difficulty because this

is when workload savings should be most salient. In this study, however, crews in the

automated condition performed more poorly in this situation than did crews in the manual

condition. (Bowers et al., 1998)

Loss of control accounts for 65% of aviation accidents (Gil et al., 2012), and high level

automation takes control of the aircraft away from pilots (Holford, 2022; Bliss & Wise, 2023).

Pilots can of course turn off autopilot and fly the plane manually at any time, however automated

systems automatically adjust for factors like weather, route planning, fuel levels, and air traffic

without pilot input or awareness, and this automation can misread a situation and put the aircraft

in danger if it makes adjustments under conditions it cannot understand or is not programmed for

(Holford, 2022). Holford’s 2022 study also posits that pilots are not properly trained to operate

under these automated conditions, a claim substantiated by Soo et al. (2021). Pilots are trained

extensively in manual flight and safety regulations like the 1,500 hour rule ensure pilots can

safely manually operate an aircraft in a wide variety of conditions, however no such assurances

exist for the operation of automated aircraft (Holford, 2022; Soo et al., 2021).
 6

With it being established that there is a reduction of pilot control in automated flight

decks, an ethical dilemma arises as pilots take full responsibility for an aircraft that they do not

have full control over. Responsibility cannot be attributed without control, and control cannot be

achieved without both ability and authority (Holford, 2022). Both a pilot’s authority and ability

to control an aircraft is diminished by automation technology. Authority is diminished when “the

automation system makes algorithmic decisions which the pilots cannot change or modify, i.e.

control (Holford, 2022; Bliss & Wise, 2023).” Pilots’ practical ability to fly is reduced by

automation through the effects of diminished situational awareness, decision making abilities,

and hard skills (Holford, 2022; Bowers et al., 1998; Soo et al., 2021; Jazzar et al., 2023; Bliss &

Wise, 2023). Despite this lack of authority and ability, pilots bear total responsibility for the

outcome of their flights, serving as “liability sponges [in] moral crumple zones (Holford, 2022).”

An additional concern is the negative psychological impact of automation on pilots. Automation

is associated with increased psychological stress and a loss of sense of control for pilots (Bowers

et al., 1998), as well as heightened task saturation (Bliss & Wise, 2023) and cognitive tunneling

(Holford, 2022); in other words, pilots are more prone to “zoning out” or losing focus in

automated systems. Perhaps the greatest obstacle preventing further automation and the

transition to single pilot and unmanned cockpits is public opinion, passengers and pilots simply

do not trust these systems (Bliss & Wise, 2023). A respondent to Bliss & Wise’s 2023 survey

related these concerns to the perspective of airlines:

“You know the U.S. has one of the best safety records for FAA regulations, and overall,

we have done a good job of safely moving people from A to B. I do not know if the

integration of autonomous flight is worth that reputation from an airline perspective.”

 7

Considering the ethical, psychological, and trust issues surrounding current levels of automation,

it is difficult to justify the transition to more highly automated systems in the future.

Discussion

This literature review has summarized the cases for and against the high levels of

automation already in place in the cockpit and the anticipated increase of automation in aviation.

Proponents of automated aircraft highlight workload savings, statistical reduction of human

error, and the ability to integrate pilot engagement with automation through automated cognition

systems. Arguments for the future adaptation of further automation are that pilot performance in

these systems would be improved with better education as the industry adjusts, and that

automated flight is the inevitable future of the aviation industry as technology advances. The

concerns around automation are that it has been shown to cause pilots’ hard skills and decision

making abilities to atrophy, especially in emergency situations when trying to regain control of

the aircraft. Automation takes away control of the aircraft from pilots, and pilots are often not

properly trained to deal with these risks. Automation also raises ethical concerns about pilots'

conflicting responsibility for the aircraft and diminished control over it, the psychological stress

automation places on pilots, and the lack of public trust in these systems.

This research has demonstrated many ways that the issue of current and future levels of

automation in the aviation industry influence the overall safety of air travel, for better and for

worse. This topic’s close link to safety makes it an inherently ethical debate, especially

considering that there is so much at stake when dealing with safety in the aviation industry.

Aircraft accidents are few and far between, however they cause devastating consequences.

Aviation ties together the modern world, with so much and so many relying on the power of

flight, it is essential that the industry handles automation safely today and in the years to come.
 8

References

Jazzar, A., Alharasees, O., & Kale, U. (2023). Assessment of aviation operators’ efficacy in

highly automated systems. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 95(2),

302-311. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-04-2022-0098

Zakharenko, R., & Luttmann, A. (2023). Downsizing the jet: A forecast of economic effects of

increased automation in aviation. Transportation Research Part B, 170, 25–47.

https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1016/j.trb.2023.02.001

Bliss, T. J., & Wise, A. J. (2023). Examining the Future of Automation in Commercialized Flight

and its Impact on Airline Pilots. Collegiate Aviation Review International, 41(2), 78–102.

https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.22488/okstate.24.100205

Bowers C, Thornton C, Braun C, Morgan BB Jr., & Salas E. (1998). Automation, task difficulty,

and aircrew performance. Military Psychology, 10(4), 259–274.

https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1004_3

Holford, W. D. (2022). An Ethical Inquiry of the Effect of Cockpit Automation on the

Responsibilities of Airline Pilots: Dissonance or Meaningful Control? Journal of

Business Ethics, 176(1), 141–157.

https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04640-z
 9

Soo, K. K. Y., Mavin, T. J., & Kikkawa, Y. (2021). Mastering Automation: New Airline Pilots’

Perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(7), 717–727.

https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1890487

Naranji, E., Sarkani, S., & Mazzuchi, T. (2015). Reducing Human/Pilot Errors in Aviation Using

Augmented Cognition and Automation Systems in Aircraft Cockpit. AIS Transactions on

Human-Computer Interaction, 7(2), 71–96.

https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.17705/1thci.00066

Guk-Ho Gil, Kaber, D., Kaufmann, K., & Sang-Hwan Kim. (2012). Effects of Modes of Cockpit

Automation on Pilot Performance and Workload in a Next Generation Flight Concept of

Operation. Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 22(5),

395–406. https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1002/hfm.20377