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.

scan pattern may change (Issue #38) - Display layout in automated flightdecks may change the traditional instrument scan pattern, possibly leading to loss of skills which may be needed upon transitioning to conventional aircraft.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Pilot scan patterns varied as a function of flight control condition. In manual flight, the basic 'T' formed the nucleus of the pilots' scan patterns. This was not true, however, in the coupled flight condition. The decrease in attention to the ADI in coupled flight is similar to that reported by Spady (1977) and is consistent with the pilots' changing role from that of active controller to monitor of system performance." (page 445)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: B767, B757
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Edwards, R.E., Tolin, P., & Jonsen, G.L. (1982). Pilot Visual Behavior as a Function of Navigation and Flight Control Modes in the Boeing 757/767. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 441-445. See Resource details

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "... no consistent differences in pilot visual behavior were observed between the EICAS-equipped cab and the cab containing conventional engine instruments." (page 445)
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: B757, B767
    Equipment: EICAS
    Source: Edwards, R.E., Tolin, P., & Jonsen, G.L. (1982). Pilot Visual Behavior as a Function of Navigation and Flight Control Modes in the Boeing 757/767. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 441-445. See Resource details

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 16 of the 30 (53%) respondents reported a 4 (= agree) or 5 (= strongly agree) with pc038 scan pattern may change
    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

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 5 of the 30 (17%) respondents reported a 1 (=strongly disagree) or a 2 (=disagree) with pc038 scan pattern may change
    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

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "In comparing workload between old and new aircraft types, it is worth noting the substantial anecdotal evidence from first officers reconverting to the 737 after being promoted to the left seat. (One-on-one interviews with 12 pilots provided more detailed evidence.) They report having more difficulty with instrument scan, speed control and situational awareness, and that their overall workload is much greater." (page 3)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: B767
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Roscoe, A.H. (April, 1992). Workload in the Glass Cockpit. Flight Safety Digest, 1-8. See Resource details

  11.  
  12. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: "Automation may reduce crew airmanship and basic skills, even though, 'Automation has not changed the fundamentals of airmanship. Keeping air under the wings, knowing your position in space, being in the right configuration, are still as important as ever.' Pilots reported a decrease in their handling abilities, a loss of (or change in) scan, and a decrease in navigation/position awareness." (page 8)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Rudisill, M. (1995). Line Pilots' Attitudes About and Experience With Flight Deck Automation: Results of an International Survey and Proposed Guidelines. In R.S. Jensen, & L.A. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, April 24-27, 1995, 288-293. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. See Resource details

  13.  
  14. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: "The fundamental change in information gathering on advanced flight decks is likely to affect pilots' proficiency in basic instrument scanning -- a concern mentioned by ten pilots [6%] who expect or know from experience that it is difficult to go back to a conventional aircraft after flying the A-320 for some time." (page 27)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Sarter, N.B. & Woods, D.D. (1995). Strong, Silent, and Out-of-the-loop: Properties of Advanced (Cockpit) Automation and Their Impact on Human-Automation Interaction. CSEL Report 95-TR-01. See Resource details

  15.  
  16. Evidence Type: Excerpt from resource
    Evidence: "When asked whether and in what ways the design of automation interfaces (primarily of the primary flight display) on the Airbus A-320 affects their technique of gathering flight-related information, 49 pilots explained that their scan has become smaller and quicker, as it is now a “one-instrument scan". They considered the primary flight display (PFD) to be the one instrument that provides all necessary information." (page 562)
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: A-320
    Equipment: automation: displays
    Source: Sherry, L. & Polson, P.G. (1999). Shared models of flight management system vertical guidance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(2), 139-153. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. See Resource details

  17.  
  18. Evidence Type: Excerpt from resource
    Evidence: "An important point about system monitoring was made by 14 pilots, who explained that they no longer employ a basic instrument scan (i.e., a standard pattern of recurrently sampling a given set of basic flight parameters). Such a highly trained standardized scanning pattern is used by pilots on conventional aircraft…In contrast, pilots on the Airbus A-320 explain that their information gathering is driven by specific questions that they ask themselves in particular task contexts. Their monitoring primarily serves to verify expected changes in the status and behavior of the automation and to deal with uncertainties about the effects of input on aircraft behavior." (page 561)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A-320
    Equipment: automation: displays
    Source: Sherry, L. & Polson, P.G. (1999). Shared models of flight management system vertical guidance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(2), 139-153. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. See Resource details

  19.  
  20. Evidence Type: Excerpt from resource
    Evidence: "However, another 21 pilots voiced concerns with new monitoring demands imposed by the introduction of cockpit automation (see Bainbridge, 1983; Wickens, 1992). These pilots pointed out that other automation-related indications and displays such as the flight mode annunciations on the PFD, the engine monitoring displays, the multifunction control-display unit (MCDU), and the navigation display on the horizontal situation indicator (HSI) now need to be included in their scan to keep track, not only, of the aircraft but also of the automation configuration and behavior. As a consequence, their scan has in fact become wider and more demanding than on more conventional flight decks." (page 562)
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A-320
    Equipment: automation: displays
    Source: Sherry, L. & Polson, P.G. (1999). Shared models of flight management system vertical guidance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(2), 139-153. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. See Resource details
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.