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

Evidence from Resource 4 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Speyer, J.J., Monteil, C., Blomberg, R.D., & Fouillot, J.P. (1990). Impact of New Technology on Operational Interface: From Design Aims to Flight Evaluation and Measurement. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development No. 301, Vol. 1.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "... the performance gains observed for both the EFIS and FMS were not associated with any increase in the workload perceived by the pilots in the experiments. In fact, they rated (on a 10-point numeric interruption scale) flying with the EFIS as a lower workload situation than flying with conventional instruments. Likewise, use of the FMS was associated with lower rated workload than trials flown without it. Although neither of these latter differences was statistically significant, the results provided the clear implication that pilot workload would be positively influenced by the introduction of these new, electronic flight instruments." (page 11.15)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: A310
    Equipment: EFIS & FMS

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "It is also important to realize that the performance benefits of the NAV condition were achieved without noticeably altering the 'style' in which the aircraft flew the circuit. The tracks produced by the FMS appeared 'normal', i.e., not unlike the intended track or the tracks produced when the pilots flew in the STANDARD condition. There was no apparent cause for concern that flight tracks flown with the FMS in command would differ materially from those flown by aircraft not equipped with an [in sic] FMS. Hence, it could be concluded that the Airbus A310 and similarly equipped aircraft should blend smoothly and easily into the existing ATC environment regardless of the mode in which they are flown." (page 11.14)
    Issue: flightdeck automation may be incompatible with ATC system (Issue #82) See Issue details
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: A310
    Equipment: FMS & autopilot & ATC

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "It is also important to realize that the performance benefits of the NAV condition were achieved without noticeably altering the 'style' in which the aircraft flew the circuit. The tracks produced by the FMS appeared 'normal', i.e., not unlike the intended track or the tracks produced when the pilots flew in the STANDARD condition. There was no apparent cause for concern that flight tracks flown with the FMS in command would differ materially from those flown by aircraft not equipped with an [in sic] FMS." (page 11.14)
    Issue: automation may use different control strategies than pilots (Issue #122) See Issue details
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: A310
    Equipment: FMS & autopilot

  7.  
  8. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The performance benefits of the NAV condition were clearly documented in this study. The FMC appears capable of commanding the AP to navigate the aircraft in the horizontal plane with great precision and repeatability. This frees the pilots to attend to other tasks or simply reduces their workload and makes them more available to respond to unexpected occurrences." (page 11.14)
    Issue: automation may adversely affect pilot workload (Issue #79) See Issue details
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: A310
    Equipment: FMS & autoflight: autopilot
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.