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

Evidence for an Issue 10 pieces of evidence for this issue.

pilot's role may be changed (Issue #144) - Automation may change the role of the pilot from that of a controller to that of a supervisor. Because most pilots are not adequately trained for and experienced in this role, errors may result.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: However, their responses also reflect the significance of change. P2: “People say to me ‘what do you do?’... I say I am a systems operator. (page 2)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Bruseberg, A., & Johnson, P. (2004). Should Computers Function as Collaborators?. In Proceedings of HCI-Aero 2004 held in Toulouse, France September 29, 2004 to 1 October 2004. See Resource details

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: Because all four variables showed a significant main effect for level of cockpit automation, post-hoc tests using Bonferroni multiple comparisons (alpha = .05) were computed for all four activities (See Table 4). The lowest level of automation (SP-77) was associated with significantly greater frequencies of hand flying than each of the other three aircraft, and the highest level of automation (300e) was associated with significantly lower frequencies of hand flying than each of the other three aircraft. The post-hoc tests demonstrated that the lowest level of automation (SP-77) was associated with significantly greater frequencies of holding the yoke and manipulating the thrust levers than the other three aircraft. For holding the yoke, there were no other significant differences among the three highest levels of automation aircraft. For thrust lever manipulation, there was one other significant pairwise comparison, namely that the second lowest level of automation (SP-177) was associated with greater frequencies of thrust lever activity than the highest level of automation (300e). Finally, automation level was generally positively related to frequency of manipulation of the controls on the mode control panel. The lowest level of automation (SP-77) was associated with a significantly lower frequency of mode control panel activity than the other three aircraft. There were no other significant pairwise differences among the three highest levels of automation for the mode control panel activity. (page 13)
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Damos, D.L., John, R.S., & Lyall, E.A. (2005). Pilot Activities and the Level of Cockpit Automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(3), 251-268. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. See Resource details

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: Four of the 23 activities—hand flying, holding the yoke while the autopilot was engaged, manipulating the thrust levers, and manipulating any of the knobs on the mode control panel—involved controlling the flight path of the aircraft and were performed by the PF. All four of these activities showed significant differences among levels of cockpit automation (see Table 3). Hand flying showed significant differences among aircraft (F (3, 188)=15.57, p< .0001). Differences among aircraft in the amount of time the PF spent holding the yoke while the autopilot was engaged (F (3, 188)=59.57, p< .0001) and manipulating the thrust levers and controls on the mode control panel (F (3, 188)=27.21, 47.84 respectively, p< .0001 for both analyses) were also significant. As shown in Table 3, automation level was generally negatively related to observation of hand flying, holding the yoke, and manipulating the thrust control levers. (page 12)
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Damos, D.L., John, R.S., & Lyall, E.A. (2005). Pilot Activities and the Level of Cockpit Automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(3), 251-268. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. See Resource details

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: Overall, however, perhaps the most striking result of this study is that the frequency of many activities did not appear to be related to the level of automation. Of the other 19 activities that were examined in this study, only six showed a significant main effect of the level of cockpit automation and two showed a significant interaction between the level of cockpit automation and pilot role. We can offer three explanations for the lack of significant effects. First, many pilot activities, such as listening to ATIS, should be unrelated to the level of automation (baseline activities). Second, the pilots observed in this study engaged in mixed-fleet flying. As such, they move relatively frequently among aircraft. Mixed-fleet flying may reduce differences in the frequency of various activities among the aircraft because the pilots may develop practices or strategies that are common to all four types of aircraft rather than developing practices or strategies that are optimal for each aircraft. Third, because of the many flight specific variables not included in the design (crew, season of year, day of week, arrival and departure cities, day of flight in trip, leg of flight each day), our tests of cockpit automation are admittedly conservative, with inflated estimates of error variance due to many uncontrolled and unaccounted for variables in the design. Thus, the statistical effects of automation on some activities, such as communicating with ATC, may be difficult to detect. (page 24)
    Strength: -5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Damos, D.L., John, R.S., & Lyall, E.A. (2005). Pilot Activities and the Level of Cockpit Automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(3), 251-268. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. See Resource details

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 12 of the 30 (40%) respondents reported a 4 (= agree) or 5 (= strongly agree) with pc144 pilot's role may be changed
    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: 7 of the 30 (23%) respondents reported a 1 (=strongly disagree) or a 2 (=disagree) with pc144 pilot's role may be changed
    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 Survey
    Evidence: Statement 38: "The pilot's role is changing from one of controller of the aircraft to monitor of the automated systems." On the scale in which 1= Strongly Disagree, 25=Disagree, 50=Neither agree nor disagree, 75=Agree, and 100=Strongly Agree, the mean pilot response was 57 and the standard deviation was 26. The minimum response was 1 and the maximum was 100. (page 46, 59)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: B767
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Morters, K. (1988). B767 Flightdeck Automation Research. Research Paper 32:420, 1-141. See Resource details

  15.  
  16. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: Statement 38: "The pilot's role is changing from one of controller of the aircraft to monitor of the automated systems." On the scale in which 1= Strongly Disagree, 25=Disagree, 50=Neither agree nor disagree, 75=Agree, and 100=Strongly Agree, the mean pilot response was 57 and the standard deviation was 26. The minimum response was 1 and the maximum was 100. (page 46, 59)
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: B767
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Morters, K. (1988). B767 Flightdeck Automation Research. Research Paper 32:420, 1-141. See Resource details

  17.  
  18. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: The results of averaging the ratings across participants and components showed that, overall, participants found the automation components to be unobtrusive (4.02), predictable (3.96), extremely helpful for reducing workload (3.81). and they were inclined to use them whenever appropriate (4.39). On the other hand, they were close to the midpoint when it came to the feeling that they were controlling the flight rather than managing the automation (3.28, in which 5 indicates high controlling), and the feeling that they were focusing on the flight rather than on the automation (3.64, in which 5 indicates attention to flight). (page 115)
    Strength: +3
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K.L., Burdick, M., & Rosenblatt, B. (2000). Automation bias and errors: Are crews better than individuals?. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(1), 85-97. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. See Resource details

  19.  
  20. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results of averaging the ratings across participants and components showed that, overall, participants found the automation components to be unobtrusive (4.02), predictable (3.96), extremely helpful for reducing workload (3.81). and they were inclined to use them whenever appropriate (4.39). On the other hand, they were close to the midpoint when it came to the feeling that they were controlling the flight rather than managing the automation (3.28, in which 5 indicates high controlling), and the feeling that they were focusing on the flight rather than on the automation (3.64, in which 5 indicates attention to flight)." (page 115)
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K.L., Burdick, M., & Rosenblatt, B. (2000). Automation bias and errors: Are crews better than individuals?. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(1), 85-97. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. See Resource details
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.