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

Evidence from Resource 5 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Damos, D.L., John, R.S., & Lyall, E.A. (2005). Pilot Activities and the Level of Cockpit Automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(3), 251-268. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: The PF performed only one housekeeping activity: manipulating the controls of the aircraft systems except for cabin temperature. The PNF performed three activities—manipulating the frequency selectors on the communication radios, manipulating the controls on the communication selector panel, and manipulating the cabin temperature controls—that may be classified as housekeeping activities. Of these four housekeeping activities, only manipulating the cabin temperature controls showed a significant effect of level of cockpit automation (F (3, 188) = 4.02,p< .01). For this activity, only the post hoc comparison of the SP-77 versus the 300e was significant (p <.01). The mean frequencies for each aircraft are given in Table 6. (page 15)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: The remaining two communication activities were concerned with conversations between the two pilots. One represented task-relevant conversation; the other, non-relevant conversation. The mean frequencies are shown in Table 5. A two-way (level of cockpit automation, pilot role) ANACOVA performed on task-relevant conversation showed a main effect of level of cockpit automation (F (3, 188) = 4.71; p <.01). The post hoc comparisons of the SP-77 versus the 300a and of the SP-177 versus the 300a were both significant. Of the variables that we expected to be affected by the length of the climbs and descents, non-relevant conversation was the only one that showed a non-significant effect of the covariate (p = .07). (page 13)
    Issue: inter-pilot communication may be reduced (Issue #139) See Issue details
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: Because all four variables showed a significant main effect for level of cockpit automation, post-hoc tests using Bonferroni multiple comparisons (alpha = .05) were computed for all four activities (See Table 4). The lowest level of automation (SP-77) was associated with significantly greater frequencies of hand flying than each of the other three aircraft, and the highest level of automation (300e) was associated with significantly lower frequencies of hand flying than each of the other three aircraft. The post-hoc tests demonstrated that the lowest level of automation (SP-77) was associated with significantly greater frequencies of holding the yoke and manipulating the thrust levers than the other three aircraft. For holding the yoke, there were no other significant differences among the three highest levels of automation aircraft. For thrust lever manipulation, there was one other significant pairwise comparison, namely that the second lowest level of automation (SP-177) was associated with greater frequencies of thrust lever activity than the highest level of automation (300e). Finally, automation level was generally positively related to frequency of manipulation of the controls on the mode control panel. The lowest level of automation (SP-77) was associated with a significantly lower frequency of mode control panel activity than the other three aircraft. There were no other significant pairwise differences among the three highest levels of automation for the mode control panel activity. (page 13)
    Issue: pilot's role may be changed (Issue #144) See Issue details
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: Four of the 23 activities—hand flying, holding the yoke while the autopilot was engaged, manipulating the thrust levers, and manipulating any of the knobs on the mode control panel—involved controlling the flight path of the aircraft and were performed by the PF. All four of these activities showed significant differences among levels of cockpit automation (see Table 3). Hand flying showed significant differences among aircraft (F (3, 188)=15.57, p< .0001). Differences among aircraft in the amount of time the PF spent holding the yoke while the autopilot was engaged (F (3, 188)=59.57, p< .0001) and manipulating the thrust levers and controls on the mode control panel (F (3, 188)=27.21, 47.84 respectively, p< .0001 for both analyses) were also significant. As shown in Table 3, automation level was generally negatively related to observation of hand flying, holding the yoke, and manipulating the thrust control levers. (page 12)
    Issue: pilot's role may be changed (Issue #144) See Issue details
    Strength: +5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation

  9.  
  10. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Observational Study
    Evidence: Overall, however, perhaps the most striking result of this study is that the frequency of many activities did not appear to be related to the level of automation. Of the other 19 activities that were examined in this study, only six showed a significant main effect of the level of cockpit automation and two showed a significant interaction between the level of cockpit automation and pilot role. We can offer three explanations for the lack of significant effects. First, many pilot activities, such as listening to ATIS, should be unrelated to the level of automation (baseline activities). Second, the pilots observed in this study engaged in mixed-fleet flying. As such, they move relatively frequently among aircraft. Mixed-fleet flying may reduce differences in the frequency of various activities among the aircraft because the pilots may develop practices or strategies that are common to all four types of aircraft rather than developing practices or strategies that are optimal for each aircraft. Third, because of the many flight specific variables not included in the design (crew, season of year, day of week, arrival and departure cities, day of flight in trip, leg of flight each day), our tests of cockpit automation are admittedly conservative, with inflated estimates of error variance due to many uncontrolled and unaccounted for variables in the design. Thus, the statistical effects of automation on some activities, such as communicating with ATC, may be difficult to detect. (page 24)
    Issue: pilot's role may be changed (Issue #144) See Issue details
    Strength: -5
    Aircraft: B737
    Equipment: automation
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.