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

Evidence from Resource 6 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Johnson, E.N. & Pritchett, A.R. (1995). Experimental Study Of Vertical Flight Path Mode Awareness. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Conclusions... Most pilots showed a lack of awareness of the commanded descent mode and were confused by the resulting aircraft states. All but one of the subjects [11/12 = 92%] allowed the aircraft to deviate significantly from the intended glide path, with ten pilots allowing the aircraft to reach altitudes where ground impact either happened or would be difficult to avoid. This indicates that pilots had a serious lack of autopilot mode and aircraft state awareness when given the displays used in the study." (page 20)
    Issue: mode awareness may be lacking (Issue #95) See Issue details
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: autoflight

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "During the debriefing, all the pilots felt the presentation of Flight Path Angle and Vertical Speed Modes could be improved. In free responses, six pilots stated that the mode annunciations should be made more distinct and identifiable. Three pilots stated the selector for these two modes should be physically separated. One suggestion was to use a different color to highlight the 'non-normal' mode, although no opinion was given about what should be the 'normal' mode." (page 18)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: autoflight

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Six pilots [out of a total of 12, 50%] suggested mode annunciation or graphical cues on the HUD, although three [25%] also expressed concerns about cluttering the HUD and information overload." (page 18)
    Issue: insufficient information may be displayed (Issue #99) See Issue details
    Strength: +3
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: automation

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Two pilots [out of a total of 12, 17%] suggested aural alerts for 'stupid' mode selections. One pilot suggested changes in the procedures used for selecting modes, such as calling out the mode and commanded state value, with a response from the pilot-not-flying." (page 18)
    Issue: insufficient information may be displayed (Issue #99) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A310-304
    Equipment: autoflight

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Conclusions ... Improvements in training and procedures were also suggested by some of the pilots. For example, pilots frequently called out altitudes, DME distances and vertical speeds, but did not have a standard protocol for cross-checking these values with those selected on the Mode Control Panel." (page 21)
    Issue: training may be inadequate (Issue #133) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: automation

  11.  
  12. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "Conclusions ... The display cues cited by the pilots and the instruments in their scan suggest study of some changes in mode presentation and pilot training. To monitor autopilot conformance, pilots must compare between mode annunciations, commanded values selected on the mode control panel, and the aircraft states shown on their Primary Flight Displays and HUD. This requires the pilot to reference several displays and compare between displays in different formats on different screens, sometimes referencing states that are not distinctly quantified (such as Flight Path Angle)." (page 21)
    Issue: information integration may be required (Issue #9) See Issue details
    Strength: +1
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: automation: displays
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.