significant differences were found to occur during the  approach and landing phases. It is industry practice to tolerate  very little air speed deviation from the recommended value  during approach and landing. The FAA’s Practical Test  Standards (PTS) or Airman Certification Standards (ACS)  for the airline transport rating allow a final approach speed of  no more than five knots faster than recommended. Since publication of the Veillette-Decker study, increasing  numbers of GA aircraft have been equipped with integrated  advanced program avionics systems. These systems can  lull pilots into a sense of complacency that is shattered by  an inflight emergency. Thus, it is imperative for pilots to  understand that automation does not replace basic flying  skills. Automation adds to the overall quality of the flight  experience, but it can also lead to catastrophe if not utilized  properly. A moving map is not meant to substitute for a  VFR sectional or low altitude en route chart. When using  automation, it is recommended pilots use their best judgment  and choose which level of automation will most efficiently do  the task, considering the workload and situational awareness.  Pilots also need to maintain their flight skills and ability to  maneuver aircraft manually within the standards set forth in  the PTS or ACS. It is recommended that pilots of automated  aircraft occasionally disengage the automation and manually  fly the aircraft to maintain stick-and-rudder proficiency. In  fact, a major airline recommends that their crews practice  their instrument approaches in good weather conditions and  use the autopilot in the bad weather conditions and monitor  the flight’s parameters. More information on potential automation issues can  be found at the flight deck automation issues website:  www.flightdeckautomation.com. This website includes a  searchable database containing over 1,000 records of data  that support or refute 94 issues with automated flying. Another situation used in the simulator experiment reflected  real world changes in approach that are common and can be  assigned on short notice. While a pilot’s lack of familiarity  with the EFIS is often an issue, the approach would have  been made easier by disengaging the automated system and  manually flying the approach.  The emergency maneuver, engine-inoperative instrument  landing system (ILS) approach, continued to reflect the same  performance differences in manual flying skills between the  two groups. The conventional pilots tended to fly raw data  and when given an engine failure, they performed it expertly.  When EFIS crews had their flight directors disabled, their  eye scan began a more erratic searching pattern and their  manual flying subsequently suffered. According to Dr.  Veillette’s 2005 article, those who reviewed the data “saw  that the EFIS pilots who better managed the automation also  had better flying skills.” While the Veillette-Decker study offers valuable information  on the effects of cockpit automation on the pilot and crew,  experience now shows that increased workloads from  advanced avionics results from the different timing of the  manual flying workloads. Previously, the pilot(s) were busiest  during takeoff and approach or landing. With the demands of  automation programming, most of the workloads have been  moved to prior to takeoff and prior to landing. Since Air  Traffic Control (ATC) deems this the most appropriate time  to notify the pilot(s) of a route or approach change, a flurry  of reprogramming actions occurs at a time when management  of the aircraft is most critical.  Reprogramming tasks during the approach to landing phase  of flight can trigger aircraft mishandling errors that in  turn snowball into a chain of errors leading to incidents or  accidents. It does not require much time to retune a VOR  for a new ILS, but it may require several programming steps  to change the ILS selection in an FMS. In the meantime,  someone must fly or monitor and someone else must respond  to ATC instructions. In the pilot’s spare time, checklists  should be used and configuration changes accomplished and  checked. Almost without exception, it can be stated that the  faster a crew attempts to reprogram the unit, the more errors  will be made.  For example, at the most basic level, managing the autopilot  means knowing at all times which modes are engaged  and which modes are armed to engage. The pilot needs to  verify that armed functions (e.g., navigation tracking or  altitude capture) engage at the appropriate time. Automation  management is another good place to practice the callout  Advanced avionics offer multiple levels of automation from  strictly manual flight to highly automated flight. No one  level of automation is appropriate for all flight situations,  but in order to avoid potentially dangerous distractions when  flying with advanced avionics, the pilot must know how to  manage the course deviation indicator (CDI), navigation  source, and the autopilot. It is important for a pilot to know  the peculiarities of the particular automated system being  used. This ensures the pilot knows what to expect, how to  monitor for proper operation, and promptly take appropriate  action if the system does not perform as expected. Realities of Automation  Change 1 (January 2016) 7-4