FDAI logo   ::  Site Map  ::   
Home  |  About This Website  |  Contact Us
Home » ... » Evidence for an Issue

Evidence for an Issue 8 pieces of evidence for this issue.

automation performance may be limited (Issue #126) - The ability of the automation to perform correctly and quickly may be limited by design constraints, possibly increasing pilot workload and the opportunity for error.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Results of the weapon delivery questionnaire data were consistent with the navigation segment questionnaire data. During weapon delivery, pilots rated the voice interface combined with the auto-target cue as most effective for identifying targets when compared to the manual or voice interfaces alone or the manual interface combined with ATC. For designating targets, pilots rated both control types effective regardless of whether or not ATC was used, but they rated their performance most effective and gave their highest ratings for the voice interface combined with ATC."
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Barbato, G. (1999). Lessons learned: Integrating voice recognition and automation target cueing symbology for fighter attack. In R.S. Jensen, B. Cox, J.D. Callister, & R. Lavis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 203-207. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. See Resource details

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Pilot questionnaire responses confirmed that the voice interface was significantly more effective in completing the mission reroute than the manual interface. The effectiveness scale ranged from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Very Good). Across pilots, the manual interface was rated as neither a hindrance nor an advantage for accomplishing the reroute task (average rating = 3.2). Across pilots, the voice interface was rated as highly effective for accomplishing the task (average rating = 4.8)."
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Barbato, G. (1999). Lessons learned: Integrating voice recognition and automation target cueing symbology for fighter attack. In R.S. Jensen, B. Cox, J.D. Callister, & R. Lavis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 203-207. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. See Resource details

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: "A large number of pilots felt that the response time for the Flight Management Computer was excessive. When a specific instance was mentioned, it usually involved complying with ATC requests while maneuvering in the terminal area." (page 22)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: B767
    Equipment: FMS
    Source: Curry, R.E. (1985). The Introduction of New Cockpit Technology: A Human Factors Study. NASA Technical Memorandum 86659, 1-68. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. See Resource details

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: "An almost traditional complaint of computer users is the slow response time, and these pilots were no exception. Usually the complaint concerned their time in the terminal area where they perceived fast flight crew response as a necessity due to ATC changes" (page 13)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: B767
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Curry, R.E. (1985). The Introduction of New Cockpit Technology: A Human Factors Study. NASA Technical Memorandum 86659, 1-68. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. See Resource details

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 14 of the 30 (47%) respondents reported a 4 (= agree) or 5 (= strongly agree) with pc126 automation performance may be limited
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts. See Resource details

  11.  
  12. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 3 of the 30 (10%) respondents reported a 1 (=strongly disagree) or a 2 (=disagree) with pc126 automation performance may be limited
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts. See Resource details

  13.  
  14. Evidence Type: Excerpt from resource
    Evidence: "Expedite climb. During climb-out. Pilots were cleared to climb and maintain 12,000 feet and to cross the waypoint Ventura at or below 10,000 feet. Upon reaching approximately 4000 feet, they were given the instruction to expedite their climb through 9000 feet for traffic separation. Pilots had several automation options to choose from in order to comply with this clearance. Eleven pilots used the EXPEDITE button on the FCU to engage this mode. Also, 5 pilots selected a lower airspeed on the FCU to make the airplane climb at a higher rate. The remaining 2 pilots used the vertical speed mode and dialed in a higher-than-normal rate of climb on the FCU. In the debriefing, 7 pilots were asked why they did not use the EXPEDITE mode, which was designed for this type of situation. They responded that they did not like the fact that in this mode, the automation would drastically increase the pitch angle and slow the aircraft more than they felt was necessary. In addition, some pilots knew about and disliked the fact that the EXPEDITE mode would not honor any preprogrammed constraints. Only 11 pilots (61 %) complied with the altitude constraint at the waypoint Ventura. The other 7 pilots did remember to resume “normal climb” upon reaching 9000 feet, but they selected the “open climb” mode (instead of “managed vertical navigation”), which, similar to the EXPEDITE mode, does not honor constraints programmed into the MCDU." (page 397)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: autoflight FCU
    Source: Sanchez-Ku, M.L., & Arthur, Jr. W. (2000). A dyadic protocol for training complex skills: A replication using female participants. Human Factors, 42(3), 512-520. See Resource details

  15.  
  16. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: "LIKES AND DISLIKES On the first questionnaire, crews were asked ... List the features or modes of the 757 automation, instrumentation, or avionics that you like or dislike. Explain why if you wish." ... 21 pilots of 166 responded as a 'dislike' : "Slowness of FMC to respond to input". [21/166 = 12.7% of pilots surveyed] (page 25)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: B757
    Equipment: FMS
    Source: Wiener, E.L. (1989). Human Factors of Advanced Technology ("Glass Cockpit") Transport Aircraft. NASA Contractor Report 177528. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. See Resource details
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.