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

Evidence from Resource 16 pieces of evidence from this resource.

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.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Concern ratings showed a clear differentiation of levels (see Table 3). Overall concern grew from 2.35 to 3.29 as automation increased, which was a significant difference, F(2, 220) = 96.001, p < .OOOl . A Tukey test showed that each of the levels differed significantly from the others. These results were highly stable, with concern increasing regularly across levels for a majority of items (see superscripted items in Table 3). Major concerns at the fully automated level were increased head-downtime (4.05) complacency (3.95), and degradation of pilot skills (3.90)." (page 111)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: +4
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results supported the conventional wisdom that automation has reduced physical workload more than it has mental workload. Inspection of the portion of the curve that is above 3.0 (“higher than in conventional cockpits”) shows that Physical workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.04) and taxi before takeoff (3.14). The biggest reduction in physical demands can be seen in the cruise phase (1.69) presumably reflecting the widespread use of flight control and navigation automation. Mental workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.03), taxi before takeoff (3.22), and approach for landing (3.24)." (page 110)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +4
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results supported the conventional wisdom that automation has reduced physical workload more than it has mental workload. Inspection of the portion of the curve that is above 3.0 (“higher than in conventional cockpits”) shows that Physical workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.04) and taxi before takeoff (3.14). The biggest reduction in physical demands can be seen in the cruise phase (1.69) presumably reflecting the widespread use of flight control and navigation automation. Mental workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.03), taxi before takeoff (3.22), and approach for landing (3.24)." (page 110)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +4
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: Concern ratings showed a clear differentiation of levels (see Table 3). Overall concern grew from 2.35 to 3.29 as automation increased, which was a significant difference, F(2, 220) = 96.001, p < .OOOl . A Tukey test showed that each of the levels differed significantly from the others. These results were highly stable, with concern increasing regularly across levels for a majority of items (see superscripted items in Table 3). Major concerns at the fully automated level were increased head-downtime (4.05) complacency (3.95), and degradation of pilot skills (3.90) (page 111)
    Issue: manual skills may be lost (Issue #65) See Issue details
    Strength: +3
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  9.  
  10. 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)
    Issue: pilot's role may be changed (Issue #144) See Issue details
    Strength: +3
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  11.  
  12. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: Concern ratings showed a clear differentiation of levels (see Table 3). Overall concern grew from 2.35 to 3.29 as automation increased, which was a significant difference, F(2, 220) = 96.001, p < .OOOl . A Tukey test showed that each of the levels differed significantly from the others. These results were highly stable, with concern increasing regularly across levels for a majority of items (see superscripted items in Table 3). Major concerns at the fully automated level were increased head-downtime (4.05) complacency (3.95), and degradation of pilot skills (3.90). (page 111)
    Issue: pilots may be overconfident in automation (Issue #131) See Issue details
    Strength: +3
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  13.  
  14. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results supported the conventional wisdom that automation has reduced physical workload more than it has mental workload. Inspection of the portion of the curve that is above 3.0 (“higher than in conventional cockpits”) shows that Physical workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.04) and taxi before takeoff (3.14). The biggest reduction in physical demands can be seen in the cruise phase (1.69) presumably reflecting the widespread use of flight control and navigation automation. Mental workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.03), taxi before takeoff (3.22), and approach for landing (3.24)." (page 110)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  15.  
  16. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results supported the conventional wisdom that automation has reduced physical workload more than it has mental workload. Inspection of the portion of the curve that is above 3.0 (“higher than in conventional cockpits”) shows that Physical workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.04) and taxi before takeoff (3.14). The biggest reduction in physical demands can be seen in the cruise phase (1.69) presumably reflecting the widespread use of flight control and navigation automation. Mental workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.03), taxi before takeoff (3.22), and approach for landing (3.24)." (page 110)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  17.  
  18. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results supported the conventional wisdom that automation has reduced physical workload more than it has mental workload. Inspection of the portion of the curve that is above 3.0 (“higher than in conventional cockpits”) shows that Physical workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.04) and taxi before takeoff (3.14). The biggest reduction in physical demands can be seen in the cruise phase (1.69) presumably reflecting the widespread use of flight control and navigation automation. Mental workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.03), taxi before takeoff (3.22), and approach for landing (3.24)." (page 110)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  19.  
  20. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "To assess whether the dimensions were related, correlations were calculated between every possible pair of dimensions, using the average score across participants for each of the 26 components listed in Table 4 as the data entered into the correlation (n = 26). ...This same cluster of correlated dimensions also related to workload (Dimension F). Parts rated highly distracting (Dimension C) were rated as workload intensive, R = .8933, p < .001, as were parts requiring a high degree of attention to the automation (Dimension A), R = .4034, p < .05. Difficulty in predicting the automation’s behavior (Dimension E) also contributed to high workload, R = .6966, p < .05." (page 116)
    Issue: behavior of automation may not be apparent (Issue #83) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  21.  
  22. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "To assess whether the dimensions were related, correlations were calculated between every possible pair of dimensions, using the average score across participants for each of the 26 components listed in Table 4 as the data entered into the correlation (n = 26). ...This same cluster of correlated dimensions also related to workload (Dimension F). Parts rated highly distracting (Dimension C) were rated as workload intensive, R = .8933, p < .001, as were parts requiring a high degree of attention to the automation (Dimension A), R = .4034, p < .05. Difficulty in predicting the automation’s behavior (Dimension E) also contributed to high workload, R = .6966, p < .05." (page 116)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  23.  
  24. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The one remaining significant correlation concerned understanding of the big picture (Dimension B). In this case, components that contributed to a deeper understanding of the situation (Dimension B) also were rated as demanding attention to the automation (Dimension A), R = -.3955, p < .05." (page 116)
    Issue: automation may demand attention (Issue #102) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  25.  
  26. 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)
    Issue: pilot's role may be changed (Issue #144) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  27.  
  28. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The results supported the conventional wisdom that automation has reduced physical workload more than it has mental workload. Inspection of the portion of the curve that is above 3.0 (“higher than in conventional cockpits”) shows that Physical workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.04) and taxi before takeoff (3.14). The biggest reduction in physical demands can be seen in the cruise phase (1.69) presumably reflecting the widespread use of flight control and navigation automation. Mental workload was rated as being higher than in the past for preflight (4.03), taxi before takeoff (3.22), and approach for landing (3.24)." (page 110)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: -2
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  29.  
  30. 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)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: -3
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation

  31.  
  32. 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)
    Issue: pilot control authority may be diffused (Issue #104) See Issue details
    Strength: -3
    Aircraft: various
    Equipment: automation
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.