I took this post from one of our members from the aircraft owners group I belong to - its an interesting read had has very real implications in my life when I am trying to teach guys in the cockpit.
I have been following a fascinating new field of study in the last few years, neuroplasticity. The issue has a special significance for aviation, computers and the aging brain. The issue comes into special focus around neuroplasticity and the brain-machine(computer) interface. Changes from a Cirrus 6-Pack to Avidyne PFD or Avidyne PFD to the Cirrus Perspective system really test the neuroplasticity of the brain. My guess is that the same issue is at play for the transition from COPA 1.0 to COPA 2.0 or any other brain-computer interface that requires a different process to interact with a system.
My first exposure to this issue in aviation (before it had a name) was in the late 1970's around the introduction of the first glass panel commercial aircraft, the Boeing 767. At the time I was Vice President for Medical and Safety Services at Trans World Airlines. TWA was one of the lead customers for the Boeing 767. As part of the introduction of this new airplane into the fleet the human factors issues associated with the introduction of this aircraft became a major issue. Prior to the Boeing 767/757, the typical airline cockpit consisted of "six pack" flight displays and typically 3 man cockpits. The Boeing 767 was a radical change for the cockpit. Probably the biggest change since the introduction of the gyroscope.
Since the Boeing 767 represented a "top end" aircraft for routes and destinations, the seniority system of the pilot's union basically required that only the oldest most senior pilots would be allowed to fly the new airplane. In 1980 only a few young nerds had an Apple II or a TRS80. Computers had not yet become common place outside of business and academic settings. Pretty much everything in the cockpit was analog. So about the only experience a senior airline captain had with computers was to check the reservation system or play Pacman on a lay over.
As TWA began transition training for the 767 it became very clear some of the most experienced and competent pilots could not make the transition. At first we thought it was because they were not trying, but later it became clear they just could not learn the new technology and fly the airplane safely. Ultimately these "washouts" would self select out of the 767 by rebidding the 707 or 747 with the face saving excuse that they liked the old airplanes better or like the routes these airplanes were on versus the new 767. These pilots who could not make it in the 767 seemed to be just as airworthy in the older airplanes, there was just some issue that did not allow them to learn the airplanes as judged by third parties.
Research into neuroplasticity is very early. Much of the research is centered around how plastic the brain can be handling trauma and aging. Clearly the brain does appear to have the ability to adapt to new circumstances and interface challenges. On the flip side it is very clear that some people's brains suffer a significant loss of the ability to change and adapt to new circumstances, particularly as they age. Some research suggests that the ability to keep a brain plastic as a person ages is directly related to the amount of challenge given to the brain as people age.
The area of brain-machine interfaces is most interesting to test brain plasticity. A graphic example of this issue is the absorption of computers into the daily life of older persons. How many of you have had experience with older parents or or relatives trying to gain some degree of computer literacy. In my experience some folks no matter how smart or knowledgeable cannot make the transition. All sorts of rationalizations are usually offered, some rather prophetic such as "computers are for kids". When was the last time you heard a kid say they could not master a computer? The rationalization for not making the transition are most insightful and reminiscent of my days watching airline captains struggle with transition to the glass cockpits. These "old" captains would often find something about the new glass cockpits that was not like the old "six pack" environment. They would seize on that issue as the reason they did not think this new technology was worth the trouble. The reality is that these captains could not make the transition to the new technology and simply had to find some face saving rationalization for the shortcoming.
In just five years the Cirrus cockpit has gone through a remarkable transition from "six pack", to first generation PFD's and now to an integrated FMS flat panel system. Each step requires the pilot to relearn a new brain-machine interface. Given the age demographic of pilots buying a new Cirrus these transitions may not be possible for some pilots. Ironically pilots who are challenged by the changes my be safer to stick with what they know rather than make the transition to the new advanced cockpits.
Anticipating in advance some comments, new technology always comes with bugs, changed functionality and missing functionality as it replaces older technology. Just because a user complains about those problems, it does not mean that it is a rationalization of an "non plastic brain". Some new technologies are not ready and will be rejected by plastic and non plastic brains. For those who are considering a new technology and rely on user reports it is important to understand that some folks cannot make the transition, but may try and get frustrated. Rarely will that frustration include a report that they cannot make the transition. Most often there will some kind of rationalization that the new technology is flawed, too complicated or poorly designed.
