Automation in Aviation: Are We Trusting Technology Too Much, Too Soon?

Automation in Aviation: Are We Trusting Technology Too Much, Too Soon?

The aviation industry has embraced automation as a means of improving safety, reducing human error, and increasing efficiency. Autopilot, autothrottles, RNAV navigation, automated landing systems, and artificial intelligence-driven flight management are now standard in modern aircraft. The next frontier? Fully autonomous aircraft.

However, as the industry pushes toward eliminating pilots from the cockpit, a critical question remains: Are we rushing into automation without fully understanding its failures?

Currently, automation failures are not tracked as a distinct statistic, meaning we have no clear data on how often aviation technology fails. If we are moving toward trusting machines over human pilots, shouldn’t we demand transparency on how reliable these systems actually are?

This article explores the lack of automation failure reporting, real-world cases of automation failures, and the dangers of placing blind faith in technology that has yet to prove it can replace human decision-making.

How Often Does Automation Fail? We Don’t Know—Because No One Is Tracking It

One of the most alarming aspects of aviation’s push toward automation is the complete lack of transparency regarding automation failures.

• The FAA, NTSB, and international aviation authorities do not currently track automation failures as a separate incident category.

• Instead, these failures are often buried under broader classifications such as:

• Mechanical Failure (e.g., autopilot servo failures categorized as an avionics malfunction)

• Pilot Error (e.g., an automation failure that led to an incorrect response from the flight crew)

• Loss of Control In-Flight (LOC-I) (e.g., a failed flight control input misclassified as pilot mishandling)

Without distinct tracking, how can we claim automation is making aviation safer? If failures are going unreported, then the safety benefits of automation remain largely unproven.

The lack of data means that when automation fails—whether it’s an RNAV system failing to intercept a course, an autopilot disconnecting unexpectedly, or an AI misinterpreting flight conditions—there is no industry-wide accountability for these failures.

If airlines, manufacturers, and regulators want pilots and passengers to trust automation, they must prove it is reliable. That starts with mandatory reporting of automation failures as a separate safety statistic—just like pilot deviations, runway incursions, and mechanical failures.

When Automation Fails: Real-World Cases That Should Make Us Question Its Reliability

The aviation industry promotes automation as the solution to human error, but history has already proven that automation failures can be just as deadly as pilot mistakes.

Boeing 737 MAX Crashes (2018 & 2019)

• The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) relied on a single angle-of-attack sensor to determine pitch correction.

• A faulty sensor caused uncommanded nose-down inputs, which pilots struggled to override—leading to two fatal crashes, 346 deaths, and the global grounding of the 737 MAX fleet.

• If automation had been flawless, why did it require an emergency software patch and retraining for pilots?

Air France Flight 447 (2009)

• A temporary pitot tube failure caused automation to disengage, leaving pilots with unreliable airspeed data.

• The crew, accustomed to relying on automation, became disoriented and mismanaged the aircraft’s response, leading to a crash into the Atlantic that killed 228 people.

• Automation failure was the trigger—but pilot skill degradation due to automation reliance was a major factor.

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (2013)

• The pilots relied on an automated autothrottle system to maintain approach speed during landing.

• The automation failed to maintain proper speed, resulting in a stall and crash at San Francisco International Airport.

• The NTSB determined that the pilots’ overreliance on automation contributed to the accident.

Each of these cases demonstrates a pattern:

1. Automation fails or behaves in an unexpected way.

2. Pilots, trained to rely on automation, either struggle to override it or misinterpret the failure.

3. A crash or serious incident occurs.

If this is happening with experienced airline pilots in the cockpit, what happens when no pilots are there at all?

My Experience as a Pilot: Automation Fails More Often Than We Acknowledge

I have personally experienced multiple automation failures that, while not catastrophic, raise serious concerns about the industry’s blind trust in technology:

• Autopilot servo failures that caused unexpected disengagement mid-flight.

• RNAV course intercept failures where the system failed to capture the correct flight path.

• VNAV profile errors that resulted in incorrect altitude management.

These are not rare occurrences. Pilots routinely experience automation failures and manually correct for them—yet these failures do not get logged as industry-wide safety events.

The industry tells us automation is reliable, but if pilots routinely deal with automation malfunctions, we must ask:

If current automation cannot operate flawlessly, why are we pushing toward fully autonomous aircraft?

The Dangerous Rush Toward Autonomous Commercial Aircraft

Despite these known failures, the industry is racing toward pilotless aircraft. Companies like Airbus, Boeing, and emerging AI aviation firms are developing technology that could remove human pilots from commercial operations entirely.

But before we eliminate human oversight, where is the proof that automation is safer?

Who Takes Responsibility When Automation Fails?

One of the most concerning aspects of autonomous aviation is accountability.

• When a pilot makes an error, they are investigated, retrained, or removed from duty.

• When automation fails, who is responsible?

• The manufacturer?

• The airline?

• The software engineers?

If an AI-driven autopilot miscalculates a flight path, resulting in a crash, who is held liable?

Until these questions are clearly answered, we are being asked to blindly trust an unproven system without a human failsafe.

What Needs to Change Before We Trust Automation Over Pilots?

If automation is truly the future, then the industry must prove its reliability before removing human pilots from the cockpit.

1. Mandatory Automation Failure Reporting

• The FAA, NTSB, and global regulators must track automation failures as a separate category, just like pilot deviations and mechanical failures.

• Transparency is required—manufacturers and airlines must disclose the rate of automation malfunctions, autopilot disconnects, and AI-driven decision errors.

2. Proving Automation is Safer Than Humans—With Data, Not Promises

• No airline should be allowed to operate an autonomous aircraft until independent safety studies confirm that automation failures occur less frequently than human pilot errors.

• What is the failure rate of flight automation per million flight hours? The industry doesn’t know—because it isn’t being tracked.

3. Keeping Pilots in the Loop, Even in Autonomous Aircraft

• If autonomy is inevitable, there should be at least one human operator monitoring and able to intervene remotely in case of automation failure.

• Completely removing pilots is an unnecessary risk that ignores historical automation failures.

Conclusion: If the Industry Refuses to Track Failures, We Should Refuse to Trust It

Aviation history has shown us time and time again that safety regulations are written in blood. If the industry rushes toward automation without demanding accountability for its failures, we may be setting ourselves up for the next major aviation disaster.

Automation may enhance aviation safety—but blind faith in automation without transparency, accountability, or fail-safes is reckless.

If we are truly moving toward trusting technology over pilots, then we must demand: Prove it first.