John Cox

Special for USA TODAY

Q: Is over-reliance on automation increasing the number of commercial airline accidents?

— Norm Dick, Fairfield, Conn.

A: No, the number of accidents is decreasing. Over-reliance on automation has become a factor in a larger percentage of accidents, but the overall number is trending downward.

The appropriate use of automation and maintaining manual flying skills are focus items for aviation. Training has to include extensive use of automation and manual flying.

Q: Are pilots more systems engineers than the pilots of yesteryear?

— Eugene Lassers

A: They are different than the pilots of yesteryear, spending more time utilizing the automation and systems of modern aircraft. They also have to maintain their manual flying skills. Yes, there are differences, but I would not say they are systems engineers, they remain pilots.

Q: What differences do you observe in cockpit automation between domestic aircraft and European designs?

— Steve, California

A: The differences between the manufacturers is more relevant than the location. Though there are different certification rules in Europe and the USA, airplanes are certified by both regulators.

Different manufactures view automation differently. Some manufacturers build in protections that will take action even if the pilot does not to prevent stalls, overspeeds or excessive G load. Other manufacturers will warn the pilot of such conditions but leave the correction to the pilot (see question below).

Increasingly automation is more complex and extensive on airplanes. This increasing use of automation has caused some issues for the industry over the loss of manual flying skills.

The different presentation of information between manufacturers is noticeable, but pilots adapt quickly.

Q: Do you prefer the Boeing philosophy of letting the pilot do whatever it takes to prevent a crash or the Airbus philosophy of restricting what the pilot can do, even if it results in a crash as in the 1988 Habsheim Airshow?

— Harry Maier, Florida

A: Having flown Boeing and Airbus airplanes, I found each to be very enjoyable and safe. If a windshear escape maneuver is needed, the Airbus system is easier, while the Boeing protection systems allow the pilot to override if necessary. Each has its advantages.

To be fair, in the Habsheim accident, the airplane did what it should have done. The pilots flew it so low that the airplane believed it was landing and sank into the trees. The pilots applied power very late, and there was not time for the engines to accelerate. The crash investigation did not find there to be a problem with the airplane.

I would not characterize Habsheim as a case in which the protection system of the Airbus caused the accident.

As a pilot, I would like to be the final decision-maker of what controls are necessary. However, I like the hard protection provided by Airbus. In a perfect world, I would like the Airbus hard protections with an easy way to remove them if, in my professional judgment, it was the best course of action. So my preference would be a combination of both.

Have a question about flying? Send it to travel@usatoday.com.