FDAI logo   ::  Site Map  ::   
Home  |  About This Website  |  Contact Us
Home » ... » Evidence from Resource

Evidence from Resource 2 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Beringer, D.B. (1997). Automation Effects in General Aviation: Pilot Responses to Autopilot Failures and Alarms. In R.S. Jensen & L. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Ultimately, the most interesting questions about these data are how many pilots successfully recovered from the runaway pitch trim down malfunction and whether the auditory warning materially contributed to safe recoveries. ... Although the small sample size precludes statistical analysis, it appears that neither mode of flight nor presence of an auditory alarm materially affected the distribution [of potential unintentional ground contacts and overspeeds]. ... Although the auditory trim malfunction warning provided an immediate cue, no detectable difference was present in performance between the two alerting groups [aural alert present for one group of pilots and not present for the other]. The fact that some pilots reported a failure to hear the [aural] warning suggests that a re-evaluation of criteria for general aviation cockpit auditory warnings may be warranted, with specific attention to noise-exposed and aging populations." (page 4-6)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Attitude indicator (ADI) failure. When the attitude indicator failed, it drifted slowly to approximately 25-30 degrees right bank when the aircraft was in level flight. The result was that the autopilot attempted to follow the failed instrument, placing the aircraft in a left bank. This was not a failure of the AP system but rather, a failure of the sensor feeding data to the system and was comparatively subtle. We were particularly interested in how long pilots took to diagnose the problem. Initial diagnosis (recognition of the general problem) times ranged from 12.7 to 263 seconds (mean = 48.83; median = 34.82). Times to positively identify the failed ADI ranged from 13.83 to 264.6 seconds (mean = 58.79; median= 39.63). Regarding return of the aircraft to level flight, first crossing of zero-degrees bank required an average of 22.11 seconds (median = 21.68). Thus, as would be expected, regaining flight control preceded completed diagnosis. This was aided by the visible, albeit faint, horizon between the cloud layers. Several pilots exhibited persistence of behavior in that they continued to follow the ADI even after an initial leveling in bank. One, in fact, continued to fly in a wide circle until contacted by ATC." (page 3)
    Issue: failure assessment may be difficult (Issue #25) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.