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

Evidence for an Issue 5 pieces of evidence for this issue.

automation use may slow pilot responses (Issue #161) - When using automation, pilot response to unanticipated events and clearances may be slower than it would be under manual control, possibly increasing the likelihood of unsafe conditions.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 21 of the 30 (70%) respondents reported a 4 (= agree) or 5 (= strongly agree) with pc161 automation use may slow pilot responses
    Strength: +3
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts. See Resource details

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 1 of the 30 (3%) respondents reported a 1 (=strongly disagree) or a 2 (=disagree) with pc161 automation use may slow pilot responses
    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

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: To assess the effects of workload and automation on plan selection performance, we examined plan selection accuracy, response time, and choice confidence in three ANOVAs. The main effect of workload was not significant for accuracy (F(1, 27) = 1.21, p > .10), response time (F(1, 26) = 1.41, p > .10), or confidence (F(1, 27) = 1.93, p > .10). The automation main effect was also not significant for accuracy (F(1, 27) = 1.21, p > .10), response time (F(1, 26) = .94, p > .10), but was significant for the confidence dependent variable (F(1, 27) = 8.36, p = .01), suggesting that pilots were more confident in plan selection with the automated aid than without. (page 4)
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Muthard, E.K. & Wickens, C.D. (2003). Factors That Mediate Flight Plan Monitoring and Errors in Plan Revision: An Examination of Planning Under Automated Conditions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 857-62. See Resource details

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: Automated aids were implemented on one half of trials to assist with the plan selection process. A marginally significant main effect was found for automation on plan selection accuracy (F(1, 15) = 3.75, p = 0.07), such that accuracy was 19.1% higher in trials with attention guidance automation (M = 78.1%), relative to the baseline condition (M = 65.6%), though automation had no significant effect on response time (F(1, 83) = 1.25, p > 0.10). The presence of automation also significantly increased confidence by 10.2% (M = 5.4, F(1, 15) = 7.16, p = 0.02), relative to the baseline condition (M = 4.9). For the measures of accuracy, response time, and confidence, no significant interaction was found for plan selection difficulty and automation, F(3, 45) = 1.63, p > 0.10; F(3, 83) = 1.09, p > 0.10; and F(3, 45) = 0.55, p > 0. 10, respectively. (page 32)
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Muthard, E.K. & Wickens, C.D. (August 2002). Factors That Mediate Flight Plan Monitoring and Errors in Plan Revision: An Examination of Planning Under Automated Conditions. Nasa Technical Report AFHD-02-11/NASA-02-8. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center. See Resource details

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Incident Study
    Evidence: In our review of 282 automation-related ASRS incident reports, we found 2 reports (1%) supporting issue161 (automation use may slow pilot responses).
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Owen, G. & Funk, K. (1997). Flight Deck Automation Issues: Incident Report Analysis. http://www.flightdeckautomation.com/incidentstudy/incident-analysis.aspx. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. See Resource details
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.