Pilots should learn their aircraft’s systems, limits, and recommended procedures before a pilot can fly the aircraft safely. This is especially important for technically advanced aircraft (TAA) equipped with the automated avionics described in paragraph 2.2 or flight automation systems (e.g., flight management system (FMS) or coupled autopilot). The FAA strongly recommends that a pilot receive a thorough evaluation from a qualified instructor with experience in the automation equipped in the specific aircraft M/M flown.

Overreliance on automation or automated flight systems has resulted in accidents. A 2010 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety study concluded that glass cockpit aircraft (TAA) experience a lower total accident rate, but a higher fatal accident rate, than the same type of aircraft equipped with conventional analog instrumentation. (Refer to https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safetystudies/Documents/SS1001.pdf.) The NTSB study also reported, “Even before electronic displays became common, anecdotal reports from flight crews, as well as findings from accidents and research, revealed potential problems if pilots relied too heavily on automated systems or if they misunderstood automated system behavior” (refer to the third paragraph under Chapter 1 Background, “Previous Lessons Learned”). Automation can lull some pilots into complacency. Furthermore, automation bias presented a new breed of accident by creating the potential to erode a complacent pilot’s manual flight skills. Automation bias refers to the willingness of the pilot to trust and utilize automated systems while feeling that the automation is more capable than the pilot. This perception may result in passive automation management (commonly referred to as “set and go”). Eroded skills can degrade the pilot’s ability to recognize potential system issues and avoid or recover from LOC. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots who fly aircraft with automated flight systems manually control the aircraft at times to maintain manual flying skills. Pilots should actively manage automation by making use of all systems; cross-referencing data provided by the various systems; and monitoring and managing flight progress such as waypoints or checkpoints. Active automation management ensures enhanced SA while providing the opportunity for quick identification of automation failure.

Pilots should be proficient in manual aircraft control and should be able to operate the aircraft without the use of the aircraft’s automation. Advanced avionics and flight automation offer many levels of automation. Pilots need to understand that no one level of automation is appropriate for all flight situations. If a flight automation system failure occurs, in whole or in part, the pilot should possess the knowledge to address the situation. This may include isolating the defective components and/or manually flying the aircraft. In any event, manual flight may be necessary to ensure positive control of the aircraft while the pilot identifies problems and determines an appropriate course of action. All flight reviews conducted in aircraft equipped with automation should include training in manual aircraft control. In this case, the flight instructor should simulate failures of critical components of automation through safe and practical means. The instructor should never actually render an automated system inoperative, such as turning off switches or disengaging circuit breakers. For example, a flight instructor can simulate an automation failure simply by disengaging an integrated autopilot on an approach. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots and flight instructors strive for proficiency in manual aircraft control to mitigate the risk of loss of aircraft control.

Runway incursions, like other pilot deviations (PD), are usually due to pilot error. GA pilots are responsible for the largest percent of PDs in our National Airspace System (NAS). PDs occur in flight and on the ground. Airborne deviations include occurrences that result when a pilot does not maintain an assigned heading, altitude, or instrument procedure while conducting flight operations under an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or when a pilot penetrates airspace requiring an ATC clearance without having received one. Ground deviations include taxiing, taking off or landing without clearance, not maintaining an assigned taxi route, and failing to hold short of an assigned clearance limit.1 Although pilot airborne and ground deviations are avoidable, GA PDs continue to be the largest cause of runway incursions. Preventing runway incursions is one of the FAA’s top priorities. Flight instructors should also provide training to GA pilots to mitigate wrong surface landing incidents. Recently, the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has advised of an increase in wrong surface landings in the NAS. For more information, please refer to Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 17010, Incorrect Airport Surface Approaches and Landings. To understand and mitigate the risk of a runway incursion, GA pilots and flight instructors should become familiar with the following information.

The FAA defines a runway incursion as “any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.” The FAA divides runway incursions into three incident (human error) types:

A PD is an action by a pilot that violates FAA regulations, such as taxiing an airplane on a runway or taxiway without authorization from ATC.

An OI is an action by an air traffic controller that results in either less than the required minimum separation between two or more aircraft, or between an aircraft and obstacles (e.g., vehicles or people); or an aircraft landing or departing on a closed runway.

A V/PD is a pedestrian or vehicle entering any portion of the airport movement areas (runways or taxiways) without authorization from ATC.

There are four categories of runway incursions: