A Comparison of Pilot Scanning Patterns Based on the Type of Cockpit

Sravan Pingali

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in the Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology,

Swinburne University of Technology

Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

An aircraft’s cockpit contains flight instruments that can be displayed in two different types. The traditional method of displaying the instruments is by using analogue dials and needles. This type of cockpit is also known as an ‘analogue cockpit’. The modern cockpit, on the other hand, takes advantage of computerised screens to digitally display the instruments.

This type of cockpit is also known as a ‘glass cockpit’. The differences between the two types of cockpit are in the instrument display and information layout.

Another difference between the two types of cockpit lies in how pilots scan and acquire information from the flight instruments. As a result, a pilot’s performance can differ when flying in an aircraft with a different type of cockpit. This difference can raise several challenges, particularly from a human factors point of view. Hence, it is important to research and understand the issues that might arise in the cockpit types, to help in the training of pilots who are making a transition from one type of cockpit to another.

Traditionally, a pilot made a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit.

Previous studies researched the human factors challenges that originated as a result of this transition. The results of such research made the transition safer. In the past decade, a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit has become more common. Little research has been undertaken into the challenges that arise from such a transition, and there is limited human factors research that studies the effects of this transition. Furthermore, there are no studies that collect objective data on the subject. This thesis fills the literature gap by

ii conducting a series of experiments in different cockpit types, utilising flight simulators and an eye tracking device. The aim of the thesis was to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

Licensed pilots were recruited to participate in the experiments. Each subject flew a simulated route in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The experiments were conducted in visual and instrument flying conditions, and in normal and abnormal situations. This data assessed pilot scanning patterns while flying in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

The results of the study show that there were differences in scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in normal daytime visual flying conditions. However, as the circumstances changed, so did the scanning patterns. In other words, if poor visibility conditions were experienced or an abnormal situation was encountered, then the pilots’ scanning patterns were modified to cope with the condition or situation. This modification reduced the number of differences between cockpit types to just a few or almost zero, based on the circumstance encountered.

The safety implications of the results are discussed, and recommendations are made to assist any pilot who will be making a transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. One of the most important recommendations is the importance of transition training.

Offering such training will help in reducing error and assist in maintaining safety.

iii

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the following academics and industry experts for their advice and support provided during my PhD candidature:

Associate Professor David Newman – This PhD would not have been successfully completed without David’s supervision. His knowledge in the area of Aviation Human

Factors is extensive. His expertise is demonstrated through his portfolio of publications and the positions he holds in the industry. I would like to thank David for his guidance and encouragement throughout my candidature. I am more than grateful to have had him as my primary supervisor. I also look forward to continuing working together in the future.

Captain Terry McMahon – I would like to thank Terry for the assistance he provided me while I was preparing and planning the experiments. Terry is an experienced pilot, with thousands of hours of flying experience. While I was designing the flight plans for my experiments, I was able to get expert advice from Terry. Based on his advice, I was able to modify my flight plans to meet industry standards.

Dr Chrystal Zhang – Finally, I would like to thank Chrystal for being willing to become my main supervisor from Swinburne University, upon David’s resignation.

Chrystal’s readiness to accept me as an additional student meant that I was not left stranded.

Declaration by Candidate

I declare that this thesis:

- is my own work and is original.

- does not contain any material that I have submitted and been accepted for an

award of any other degree. If such material does exist, then I have made due

reference to the material.

- to the best of my knowledge, does not contain any material that has been

previously published or written by another person. If such material does exist,

then I have made due reference to the material.

- is not part of any joint research or publications.

- has been edited and proofread in compliance with the Institute of Professional

Editors (IPEd) guidelines.

Sravan Pingali

Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Acknowledgement iv

Declaration by Candidate v

Table of Contents vi

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xv

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background

Introduction 3

Brief History of the Aviation Industry 3

Pilot Training in the Aviation Industry 6

Employment Opportunities after Obtaining Commercial

Pilot Licence 10

Purpose of this Thesis 13

Thesis Structure 15

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Introduction to the Cockpit 19

Description of the Main Instruments in the Cockpit 20

Different Types of Cockpit 35

Cockpit Evolution 46

Importance of Aviation Human Factors 70

Situational Awareness 72

Decision Making 77

Workload 82

Automation Technology 88

Normal vs Emergency 93

Aviation Accidents 96

Human Error 106

Cockpit Transition 111

Human Factors Issues Arising Due to Cockpit Transition 115

Summary 138

Hypothetical Examples of Transition from a Glass Cockpit

to an Analogue Cockpit 138

Literature Gap 142

Chapter 3 – Flight Simulator Overview and Usage

Introduction to Simulators 147

Examples of Simulators 150

Simulators in the Transportation Industry 153

Types of Simulators used in the Aviation Industry 154

Usage of Simulators in the Aviation Industry 167

Research Applications of Flight Simulators 171

Flight Simulators Used in this Research 178

Redbird FMX Fight Simulator 179

FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator 185

vii

Chapter 4 – Eye Tracker Overview and Usage

Introduction to Eye Trackers 193

Human Senses 193

Types of Eye Trackers 197

Eye Tracker Usage 200

Research Applications of Eye Trackers 203

Eye Tracker Used in this Research 218

Arrington Research Eye Frame Scene Camera Systems 218

Chapter 5 – Visual Flight Rules Study

Introduction 228

Method 230

Subjects 230

Equipment 232

Procedure 233

Statistical Analysis 239

Results 242

Discussion 253

Chapter 6 – Instrument Flight Rules Study

Introduction 262

Method 264

Subjects 264

Equipment 265

Procedure 265

Statistical Analysis 269

Results 270

viii

Discussion 280

Chapter 7 – Unusual Attitude Recovery and Failed Instrument Detection Study

Introduction 287

Method 289

Subjects 289

Equipment 290

Procedure 290

Statistical Analysis 294

Results 295

Discussion 302

Chapter 8 – Rotary Wing Aircraft versus Fixed-Wing Aircraft Study

Introduction 309

Method 311

Subjects 311

Equipment 312

Procedure 313

Statistical Analysis 313

Results 314

Discussion 324

Chapter 9 – Overall Discussion

Discussion 331

Transition Training Recommendation 341

Additional Recommendations 344

Limitations 346

Sample Size 346

Recent Experience 348

Rotary Wing Study 348

Workload Questionnaire 349

Transition Training Hours 349

Further study 350

Real World vs Simulator Study 350

Backup Instruments in the Glass Cockpit Study 352

Transition Training Hours 353

Eye and Head Movement Tracking Study 353

Larger Aircraft Study 354

Chapter 10 – Conclusion

Conclusion 356

References and Appendices

Reference List 359

Appendix A – Email Advertisement Used for Recruiting Subjects 387

Appendix B – Fixed-Wing Experiment Ethics Email 388

Appendix C – Fixed-Wing Experiment Forms 389

Appendix D – Rotary Wing Experiment Ethics Email 391

Appendix E – Rotary Wing Experiment Forms 392

Appendix F – Frequencies and Charts Given to Each Subject 394

Appendix G – YMEN ILS 26 397

Appendix H – YMML ILS 16 398

Appendix I – Demographic Questionnaire 399

Appendix J – NASA TLX 400

List of Figures

Fig. 1: Airspeed indicator in a Cessna 172 22

Fig. 2: Attitude indicator in a Cessna 172 23

Fig. 3: Altitude indicator in a Cessna 172 24

Fig. 4: Heading indicator in a Cessna 172 25

Fig. 5: Turn and bank indicator in a Cessna 172 26

Fig. 6: Vertical speed indicator in a Cessna 172 27

Fig. 7: RPM indicator in a Cessna 172 28

Fig. 8: Fuel quantity indicator in a Cessna 172 29

Fig. 9: Fuel flow and exhaust gas temperature indicator in a Cessna 172 29

Fig. 10: Oil pressure and oil temperature indicator in a Cessna 172 30

Fig. 11: Radio stack in a Cessna 172 32

Fig. 12: Navigational information instruments in a Cessna 172 33

Fig. 13: Global positioning system in a Cessna 172 34

Fig. 14: Analogue cockpit in a Cessna 172 36

Fig. 15: The six primary flight instruments, also known as the six pack 36

Fig. 16: Glass cockpit in a Cessna 172 consisting of the PFD and MFD 37

Fig. 17: Additional information in the primary flight display 38

Fig. 18: Multi-function display in a Cessna 172 39

Fig. 19: Engine instruments in the glass cockpit of a Cessna 172 40

Fig. 20: Backup Flight Instruments in a Cessna 172 42

Fig. 21: Failed heading indicator in an analogue cockpit 43

Fig. 22: Failed heading indicator in a glass cockpit 44

Fig. 23: Switches and controls in a Cessna 172 45

Fig. 24: Cockpit of the DH 106 Comet 48

Fig. 25: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-100 50

Fig. 26: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-200 51

Fig. 27: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-300 52

Fig. 28: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-400 53

Fig. 29: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-500 54

Fig. 30: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-600 55

Fig. 31: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-700 56

Fig. 32: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-800 57

Fig. 33: Analogue instrument displayed in a glass cockpit 57

Fig. 34: Flight instruments and the head up display 58

Fig. 35: Cockpit of a Boeing 787 60

Fig. 36: Glass cockpit of a Cirrus aircraft, showing PFD and MFD 61

Fig. 37: MFD showing a checklist 62

Fig. 38: MFD showing an approach plate 63

Fig. 39: MFD assisting a pilot while landing 64

Fig. 40: MFD showing weather information 65

Fig. 41: Cirrus aircraft with half analogue and half glass cockpit display 66

Fig. 42: Cockpit of the Cessna 400 TTX 67

Fig. 43: Touch screen concept design by Thales 68

Fig. 44: Air France aircraft, photographed seven years prior to accident 98

Fig. 45: DHL aircraft, photographed one month prior to accident 100

Fig. 46: Air France aircraft, photographed five months prior to accident 102

Fig. 47: Emirates aircraft, photographed at Tullamarine after the incident 104

Fig. 48: Example of basic hardware & software required to operate simulator 156

Fig. 49: A screenshot of Microsoft Flight Simulator X 158

Fig. 50: Example of a personal computer flight simulator, with extra hardware 160

Fig. 51: A full motion high end Boeing 737 simulator 161

Fig. 52: Instructor station inside a high-end simulator 162

xii

Fig. 53 : Cockpit with realistic controls, display, instruments and other hardware 164

Fig. 54: The fixed-wing & rotary wing simulators used to conduct experiments 178

Fig. 55: Image taken inside the Redbird FMX flight simulator 184

Fig. 56 : Image taken inside the FlyIt Simulator 187

Fig. 57: Close up of the monitors in the instructor station 188

Fig. 58: Instructor station inside the FlyIt simulator 191

Fig. 59: Arrington research head mounted eye tracker 219

Fig. 60: Computer with eye tracker calibration and data collection software 220

Fig. 61: Sixteen points used for calibration 221

Fig. 62: Example of the data captured by the eye tracker 222

Fig. 63: Example of the raw data saved in text format 223

Fig. 64: Example of raw data converted into a comprehensible text file 224

Fig. 65: Example of data points being analysed in Excel 226

Fig. 66: Flight route for VFR experiment 236

Fig. 67: Scanning pattern for full flight in visual flight conditions 242

Fig. 68: Instrument scan break down for the full flight 243

Fig. 69: Individual instrument scan pattern during full flight 244

Fig. 70: Individual instrument scan pattern during the take-off phase 245

Fig. 71: Individual instrument scan pattern during the climb phase 247

Fig. 72: Individual instrument scan pattern during the cruise phase 248

Fig. 73: Individual instrument scan pattern during the descent phase 249

Fig. 74: Individual instrument scan pattern during the landing phase 250

Fig. 75: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight 251

Fig. 76: Flight route for IFR experiment 267

Fig. 77: Scanning pattern for full flight in instrument flight conditions 270

Fig. 78: Instrument scan break down for the full flight 271

Fig. 79: Individual instrument scan pattern during full flight 272

xiii

Fig. 80: Individual instrument scan pattern during the take-off phase 273

Fig. 81: Individual instrument scan pattern during the climb phase 274

Fig. 82: Individual instrument scan pattern during the cruise phase 275

Fig. 83: Individual instrument scan pattern during the descent phase 276

Fig. 84: Individual instrument scan pattern during the landing phase 277

Fig. 85: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight 278

Fig. 86: Flight route for abnormal scenario experiment 291

Fig. 87 : Scanning pattern during recovery in visual conditions 295

Fig. 88 : Instrument scan break down during recovery 296

Fig. 89 : Individual instrument scan pattern during recovery 297

Fig. 90: Scanning pattern during recovery in instrument conditions 298

Fig. 91: Instrument scan break down during recovery 299

Fig. 92: Individual instrument scan pattern during recovery 300

Fig. 93 : Scan pattern comparison between aircraft types for full flight 314

Fig. 94: Instrument scan break down for the full flight 315

Fig. 95: Individual instruments scan pattern during the full flight 316

Fig. 96 : Individual instrument scan pattern during the take-off phase 317

Fig. 97: Individual instrument scan pattern during the climb phase 319

Fig. 98: Individual instrument scan pattern during the cruise phase 320

Fig. 99: Individual instrument scan pattern during the descent phase 321

Fig. 100: Individual instrument scan pattern during the landing phase 322

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1: Failure detection in different cockpits based on type of flight 301

“Of all the interfaces, that of the aircraft has presented and continues to present challenges to designers and pilot.”

– L. F. E. Coombs, 2005, Ch. 1: How did it all start?

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

Introduction

Brief History of the Aviation Industry

In the transportation industry, the aviation industry is one of the youngest. In the last century the aviation industry has also become one of the most advanced and complex modes of transportation. Human beings have been pursuing their ambition to fly for a long time. The passion to fly started with humans designing and building large wings. They hoped to be able to fly like birds by jumping off tall structures while wearing these wings and flapping them like birds. However, this concept was not successful and humans searched for alternative methods of achieving flight. In the 18th century, balloons were successfully developed to carry humans. During the 19th century, the glider was successfully developed and flown.

This provided humans the ability to fly without requiring any power (Chant, 1978; Wegener,

1991).

December 17 1903 was a significant day in the history of aviation. On that day, humans embarked on their first heavier-than-air powered flight. That event started modern aviation as we know it. Heavier-than-air powered flight meant that bigger aircraft could be built that will still fly due to the power supplied by the engine. It also allowed aircraft to carry passengers and cargo, and to fly longer distances (Taylor & Munson, 1973; Bednarek &

Launius, 2003).

Following the first flight, aircraft were built to transport cargo. They were flown during daytime only, when the visibility was good. Flight was conducted by following landmarks to reach the destination. However, it was not possible to fly at night or if the weather was poor. This created a need for instruments in an aircraft, which would allow a pilot to fly even when he or she was not able to follow the landmarks. The introduction of instruments reduced flight cancellations and increased the number of regular flight services.

This also resulted in passengers being transported using an aircraft. Airlines started forming around the world and passenger air travel became popular (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).

The demand to fly further and faster was increasing, and aircraft manufacturing companies were designing and developing new aircraft. This demand resulted in the introduction of the jet engine into the airline industry. The jet engine made air travel even more efficient. Travel time was reduced and journeys became comfortable, as aircraft were able to fly at higher altitudes where the weather was more stable (Klaus, 2008).

Aircraft evolved significantly over time and offered many usage options. They are used not only as a mode of transportation but also to maintain security and peace (Bilstein,

2001; Rossano & Wildenberg, 2015). They can also be used for miscellaneous tasks, such as searching for natural resources in the mining industry or tracking the migration of animals over a period of time.

Over the past few decades, global air travel has grown (Button, 1997) and global passenger numbers are still increasing. It is also one of the safest methods of transporting

4 passengers and cargo. Statistics show that aviation has fewer fatalities than driving, catching a train or travelling by ship. According to preliminary statistics provided by the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), aviation had the lowest fatalities of all the transportation modes in the year 2016 (NTSB, 2017). There are many reasons for the reduced number of accidents. One of them is that a considerable amount of research and development is conducted to make aircraft reliable and safer (Wells, 2001).

A modern aircraft can fly over ten thousand kilometres while carrying over five hundred paying passengers. These aircraft also offer the luxury of having various levels of entertainment on board. A wealthy customer can afford to pay for a private room in an aircraft. A traveller on a budget can now enjoy benefits such as a quieter and more comfortable journey than in the previous century.

It is also envisaged that within the next decade aircraft will be able to fly non-stop from Sydney, Australia, to London, United Kingdom. This is one of the longest and most popular passenger routes in the world (Hooper, 1985). A journey that once took months in a ship will soon be completed in approximately twenty hours. Such an achievement will be a result of the rapid evolution of the aviation industry.

While larger commercial aircraft are transporting people around the world, smaller aircraft are capable of flying in remote parts of the world and operating from airfields that are not well developed. These aircraft can be a vital source of supplies and assistance. For example, farmers living in remote parts of the Australian outback rely on aircraft to bring

5 them mail and other supplies. At the same time, in the case of an emergency, they rely on an aircraft to bring help.

In addition to serving passengers in remote locations, an aircraft can also be used for recreation. A private buyer or a recreational pilot can fly an aircraft as a hobby. He or she can enjoy soaring in the sky, like the birds. It also offers the opportunity to enjoy scenery from a different perspective. This is the same intention that early humans had when they jumped off tall structures wearing wings.

With the evolution of the aircraft over the last century, flying has become not only possible but also safer and more reliable (Taylor & Munson, 1973). Today humans can fulfil the dream of flying and enjoy it. Apart from flying as a passenger, most humans also have the option to learn to fly an aircraft themselves.

Pilot Training in the Aviation Industry

The commercial aviation industry is expected to double in size over the next decade.

This expansion has mainly been occurring in Asian countries like India and China, and is expected to continue (Croix, 1995). This will require many well-trained pilots in the near future. Training pilots properly is important to maintain the safety record of the aviation industry. Only through appropriate flight training can a pilot take advantage of all the advancements that have been made in this industry over the last century.

In Australia, there are several options available for flight training: through a flight training organisation, in an aviation course at a university, or in the military. Learning to fly independently through a flight training organisation is open to anyone who is interested in flying, either as a hobby or as a career. This option offers flexibility, as a person can start training and progress at his or her own pace. There are generally no requirements placed on a person to start flight training. Although not necessary, knowledge of basic physics and mathematics helps a pilot who is progressing towards a commercial pilot licence (CPL).

Learning to fly through a university is more structured and accelerated than the previous option. The requirements to enrol in an aviation program, for example Bachelor of

Aviation, are high. Because it is a university course, most of the students who are enrolled as aviation students are high-school graduates who have an ambition of having a career as a pilot. For most universities in Australia, the practical training is still conducted at a licensed flight training school. However, the syllabus and time frame are managed by the university.

A student’s progress is also monitored closely to guarantee timely graduation.

Both these options have their advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of enrolling in a university is that a student not only gets a pilot licence, but also a university qualification in aviation. This makes him or her more qualified and employable. On the other hand, the main advantage of learning to fly independently is that a student pilot can reduce the cost associated with obtaining the licence. This can be done by choosing a training

7 organisation which offers the cheapest training rates. A university might not offer the same flexibility of choosing the training provider.

In the civilian world, the practical and theoretical flight training syllabus is the same regardless of the option chosen. A student pilot has to complete the minimum number of hours of practical flight training and pass several theory exams. This will allow him or her to obtain a licence and become a pilot. An individual obtains a student pilot licence in order to start flight training. This licence allows a pilot to learn to fly with the aim of getting her or his full pilot licence. It teaches a pilot all the practical and theoretical knowledge required to complete the first solo flight (CASA, 2017).

The first solo flight is a major milestone in flight training. A student pilot can achieve this milestone after 10–15 hours of flight training. It is the first time that a student pilot flies unsupervised. Following this, he or she continues on with additional training to get a recreational pilot licence. It allows a student to fly unsupervised within 25 nautical miles of the airport. This helps a student to perfect his or her skills before continuing on with further training.

After obtaining the recreational pilot licence, a student pilot is provided with additional training on cross-country navigation and other skills such as managing complex airspaces. Once completed, a student pilot can answer practical and theory exams before obtaining her or his private pilot licence. It takes approximately fifty hours or more to obtain a private pilot licence. This licence allows a pilot to fly anywhere in the country with

8 passengers. For a person who is not interested in flying as a career, this licence is sufficient to legally fly anywhere in Australia.

Flying as a commercial pilot requires further training and flying experience. A CPL requires between 150 and 200 hours of flying experience. Of this, approximately 100 hours must be flown as a pilot in command of the aircraft. Apart from gaining the flying hours, she or he is also required to fly different aircraft types, to broaden their experience. Once a pilot obtains a CPL, it allows him or her to be employed as a pilot, and to earn a living by flying. It also allows him or her to pursue a career in aviation.

Most pilots who want to work as an airline pilot cannot apply for a job in an airline immediately after obtaining their licence. This is because airlines impose several minimum requirements to employ a pilot. One of these requirements is that a person must have several hundred hours of flying experience before she or he can join an airline (Virgin Australia,

2017). As a result, a pilot has to look for interim employment. During that time, she or he can work for a smaller operator and bridge the difference in flying hours.

Starting a career with a smaller operator can be beneficial for a pilot. Not only does it offer a stepping stone into the aviation industry, it also helps a pilot fly a wide range of aircraft and experience various situations. These operators offer a range of opportunities, such as transporting cargo in regional areas or operating scenic flights for tourists.

A dedicated and motivated newly licensed commercial pilot can build this experience and increase his or her flying time to several hundred hours within a year. This will give her or him the minimum hours required to be employed as an airline pilot.

Employment Opportunities after Obtaining Commercial Pilot Licence

A newly licensed commercial pilot has several job opportunities in Australia. For a select few, it is possible to join the airlines immediately after obtaining a CPL. This method of entering an airline is called a cadetship. In this method, a pilot has to go through a selection process similar to that for a job. Once selected, she or he starts flying with an airline and is provided with all required training (Virgin Australia, 2017).

Most newly licensed pilots, however, have to find work with a regional or remote operator. A newly licensed pilot might be required to relocate to a remote township, for example Coober Pedy, and fly with a local operator. While flying with such an operator a pilot could be employed in a single role; for example, a mail run requires a pilot to pick up and drop off mail or cargo between different townships in the outback. There might even be the occasional visit to a large city. Alternatively, a pilot could be employed as a generic pilot who will undertake any flying roles that arise. This could include delivering cargo one day and taking tourists on a scenic flight the next day.

Apart from the flying role, the types of aircraft a pilot flies also vary. Smaller operators in regional or remote areas could potentially face financial challenges (Baker &

Donnet, 2012), because the cost of operating in remote areas is very high; for example, fuel is more expensive. They also might not get regular business providing a steady source of income for their operations. For example, a joy flight operator might not get tourists consistently during all months of the year. As a result, they may not have the budget to regularly upgrade their aircraft, which means that a pilot with these regional or remote operators may fly old aircraft.

The airports they operate to and from also lack infrastructure and can be basic. Most remote airports have a grass or a gravel strip rather than a paved asphalt runway. The airport might also not have any navigational equipment. Without this equipment, a pilot has to use the global positioning system (GPS) and a compass to navigate between airports.

Finally, the conditions a pilot experiences in remote areas can be harsh. From a weather perspective, the temperatures can be very hot during the day and cold at night. The runways can be dusty and have several hazards, such as stones. Wildlife is also a major threat, as wild kangaroos, dingoes or camels can obstruct the runway and prevent flight operations taking place. The living conditions might also offer bare minimum comfort.

All the above challenges can lead to several issues. For example, after learning to fly in a major city like Melbourne or Sydney, a pilot is accustomed to the facilities at an airport.

Relocating to a remote area from a major city, a pilot will have to cope without these

11 facilities. An example is the runway, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. A pilot is required to operate from gravel runways in remote areas. A pilot has to take into consideration additional factors like propeller damage from stones being thrown up from the ground. Wildlife is also another major issue: a pilot who wants to land at a remote airport will not be able to do so if there is wildlife on the runway. Being in a remote area, they also might not have the flexibility to divert to another airport, particularly if the nearest alternative airport is an hour or more away.

Finally, the biggest change they might encounter when commencing employment with a remote operator is in the aircraft’s cockpit. Since most of the aircraft used by remote operators are old, they have old technology in the cockpits. A lot of modern advancements like GPS have been retrofitted in these aircraft. Although all the necessary instruments are still in the cockpit, the way they are displayed and the layout of information can be different.

This change can affect a pilot’s ability to fly the aircraft and the way he or she performs.

With the above challenges and the change of the cockpit instruments, flying in an aircraft with different instrument display and information layout is a potential issue that requires investigation.

Purpose of this Thesis

Being employed as an airline pilot can be a rewarding career; however, it can also be challenging, especially for low-hour pilots. Pilots who obtain their CPL typically have to find interim jobs before they can enter the airline industry. As already discussed, one method used by pilots in Australia to increase their experience is to spend time in a remote location.

During this time, a pilot builds experience by flying smaller propeller aircraft. He or she might also spend most of this time flying older aircraft that might have different instrument displays and information layout.

Most airlines around the world have a relatively modern fleet. With the introduction of new aircraft like the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, airlines around the world are purchasing these aircraft to enjoy the benefits they offer. These benefits include better fuel efficiency, higher passenger comfort and more reliable operations. One of the biggest improvements in aircraft over the last few decades has been in the cockpit or the flight deck.

Aircraft instruments were traditionally displayed using round dial instruments in what is known as an ‘analogue cockpit’. In this type of cockpit, dials and needles were used to present the information on the instruments. The modern cockpit is equipped with several computerised screens that digitally display the instruments; hence, it is commonly known as the ‘glass cockpit’. Information is presented in a different method in a glass cockpit: it uses a combination of digital numbers and digital dials to present the information on the instruments. The glass cockpit became successful in the commercial airline industry and, as a result, was also introduced in the general aviation industry.

Prospective pilots learn to fly in the general aviation industry. They also build their experience in the general aviation industry before moving into the airline industry. The introduction of the glass cockpit in the general aviation industry was successful. When asked about a cockpit preference, many pilots prefer a glass cockpit over an analogue cockpit

(Wright & O’Hare, 2015). As a result, over the last decade a glass cockpit became a common type of instrument display in the general aviation industry. This means that a new student pilot starts his or her flight training in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. During the training, he or she spends almost all the time learning to fly in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit.

After obtaining the CPL, a pilot finds himself or herself flying an older aircraft which is not equipped with the glass cockpit. This is not only true for commercial pilots who are employed in remote locations, it is also true for many other pilots in the general aviation industry. Private pilots who learn to fly in modern aircraft might also encounter an analogue cockpit, because there are still many planes around which have the analogue instruments.

Alternatively, if a private pilot is interested in restoring a historical aircraft, it will have an analogue cockpit. A commercial pilot employed in the airline industry flies a modern aircraft with a glass cockpit every day. He or she may also make a transition to an analogue cockpit, if he or she goes on a joy flight in a smaller aircraft. There are many other reasons for a pilot to make a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. As a result, there are many pilots today making a transition from an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit to an aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit.

Thesis Structure

The aim of this thesis is to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit. The research focuses on the civilian aviation industry. Although large commercial aircraft will be mentioned and discussed, the emphasis is on the smaller propeller aircraft.

This thesis concentrates on the Australian general aviation industry; experiments were conducted at an Australian university using only local pilots. Finally, this thesis assumes that the reader has basic prior aeronautical knowledge.

Chapter 1 (this chapter) provides a brief history of the aviation industry, outlines the various methods of becoming a pilot, and describes the existing problem that this thesis will be focusing on (i.e. the transition between different types of cockpit).

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature. It discusses the flight instruments in the cockpit, along with the layout of information. The comparison between a glass and an analogue cockpit is also made. Evolution of the cockpit display is briefly discussed, along with photographs of cockpit displays. Human factors issues that exist in the aviation industry are mentioned. Topics covered include situational awareness, decision making and pilot interaction with automation. These issues show why it is important to understand them when there is a change in the cockpit display types. Current literature related to pilot interaction with different types of cockpit will be analysed. This will also show the importance of understanding the human factors issues before making a transition from a glass cockpit to an

15 analogue cockpit. Finally, the gap in the existing literature is highlighted. The importance of this study will be evaluated based on the existing literature review.

Chapters 3 and 4 provide details of the equipment used for the experiments. Flight simulators and eye trackers are introduced and reviewed. Their importance and use in conducting human factors research is also mentioned. In particular, the importance of understanding a pilot’s scanning pattern will be discussed. These two chapters will include further literature relevant to simulators and eye trackers. The simulators and the eye tracker used in this research are also described in detail.

Four experiments were conducted as a part of this research. Chapter 5, 6, 7 and 8 discuss each of the experiments in detail. Each includes a brief introduction and purpose, and the procedures and results of each experiment are mentioned. Finally, each discussion includes an explanation of the results and the relevance to current literature.

Chapter 5 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition in visual flight conditions. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information in different types of cockpit, when they can rely on the instruments and also the outside world.

Chapter 6 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition in instrument flight conditions. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information in different types of cockpit when they only have the instruments to rely on.

Chapter 7 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition and experience an abnormal situation. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information in different types of cockpit when they are recovering from unusual attitude.

Chapter 8 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition from a fixed-wing aircraft to a rotary wing aircraft. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information when they are flying in different types of cockpit in different aircraft types.

Chapter 9 is the discussion chapter. In this chapter the discussions from Chapters 5, 6,

7 and 8 are further linked to existing research. The implications of this research are described.

Recommendations are made for a pilot who is making a transition from one type of cockpit to another type. Limitations of this study along with suggestions for future work are also mentioned.

Chapter 10 is the final chapter. It concludes the thesis and provides an overall summary of the main findings of this research.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Introduction to the Cockpit

The cockpit, also known as the flight deck in the commercial aviation industry, contains all the flight instruments that are required to fly an aircraft. These instruments provide a pilot with all the necessary information to safely fly the aircraft. A pilot acquires information from the instruments and the outside world to make decisions and perform actions related to the flight.

All aircraft have the basic flight instruments, engine instruments and additional instruments that help a pilot to navigate and manage the flight (Collinson, 1996). However, the number of instruments that are displayed in the cockpit varies. This variation depends on several factors, including the type, size and complexity of an aircraft. For example, a larger commercial jet aircraft has more instruments to display the engine status and the flight management information. A smaller single-engine propeller aircraft does not require as many instruments to display the engine information. It also does not require a complex flight management system.

The essential flight instruments which are included in all aircraft are discussed in the next section. These instruments are crucial as they provide critical flight information to a pilot and play a vital role in all stages of the flight. If required, it is possible to safely fly an aircraft using these basic instruments only. With good visibility outside the aircraft and calm weather, it is also possible to fly an aircraft just by looking at the outside world—this is how pioneers in aviation flew aircraft. Instruments play an important role when it is not possible to

19 follow landmarks from the outside world due to high altitude flight or poor visibility. Within the first decade of powered flight, aviators realised the need for instruments to fly when there are no cues in the outside world (Coombs, 2005). The addition of flight instruments helped aviators fly in daytime under good visibility conditions, and also in poor visibility and at night.

Description of the Main Instruments in the Cockpit

For the purpose of this thesis, the instruments in the cockpit are divided into two main categories, the primary flight instruments and the aircraft system status instruments. Only the instruments included in these two categories will be discussed. The switches and controls in the cockpit will not be discussed, as the purpose of this thesis was to investigate how a pilot acquires information based on the type of cockpit.

First, each instrument in the cockpit will be discussed in detail. Following that, the instrument display and information layout will be compared between a glass and an analogue cockpit. The instruments discussed here are common in all aircraft of the same type; for example, all Cessna 172s should have the same instruments in an analogue cockpit. However, there can be some minor variations as a result of a pilot’s personal preference to have additional instruments. For example, a pilot might prefer to install a radio altimeter, which is not standard in a Cessna 172. It is different to the normal altimeter, as it shows the height above the ground rather than the height above sea level. This instrument is valuable when flying in locations with varying terrain that is higher than sea level.

The instruments discussed here are the same instruments that are analysed in the experiments described in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. To maintain consistency between all the chapters, all the photographs of the flight instruments have been taken from Microsoft Flight

Simulator X (Microsoft © Flight Simulator X, 2006). This has been done because the experiments for this study have been conducted in a simulator using this software.

Photographs of real-world aircraft cockpits are also included in the next section of this chapter.

There are six primary flight instruments that provide a pilot with the vital information about the aircraft. A pilot needs to acquire information from these instruments regularly to maintain a safe flight. Hence, these instruments are displayed in front of a pilot, making it easy for him or her to scan and obtain information from them. The six primary flight instruments are the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator, heading indicator, vertical speed indicator, and turn and bank indicator.

The airspeed indicator provides a pilot with information about the speed of the aircraft. Figure 1 shows an airspeed indicator from a Cessna 172. The moving dial indicates the current speed of the aircraft. The green arc is the safe operating speed of an aircraft. The white arc shows the speed range in which the flaps can be extended. The yellow arc shows the speed range in which an aircraft can fly with extreme caution, generally when there is no turbulence and the air is smooth. Finally, the red line indicates the maximum speed, which an aircraft must never exceed. Exceeding this speed would result in structural failure and can

21 damage the engine. Other aircraft have additional information on this instrument; for example, aircraft with retractable gear also have an indicator that shows the speed at which the landing gear can be deployed.

Figure 1: Airspeed indicator in a Cessna 172.

The attitude indicator (also known as the artificial horizon) provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s orientation in relation to the outside world’s horizon. Figure 2 shows an attitude indicator from a Cessna 172. The white horizontal line with the dot in the middle of the instrument represents the aircraft. The blue top half represents the sky and the brown bottom half represents the ground. This instrument shows whether or not an aircraft is in straight and level flight. When an aircraft is in straight and level flight, the artificial aircraft points at the white horizon line, which is located between the blue and brown halves. When an aircraft is climbing, the artificial aircraft will point up towards the blue part. The angle of

22 climb is also indicated in the blue section. The small black line represents five degrees of climb, whereas the larger black horizontal line represents ten degrees of climb. An aircraft’s angle of bank is also shown in this instrument. White lines above the blue sections represent the angle of bank. From the centre to the sides, they represent ten degrees, twenty degrees, thirty degrees, forty-five degrees and ninety degrees of turn respectively. These lines provide valuable information that help judge the angle of an aircraft’s turn. Similar to the information in the blue part of the instrument, the brown part has information that helps a pilot know the aircraft’s angle of descent and angle of bank.

Figure 2: Attitude indicator in a Cessna 172.

Figure 3: Altitude indicator in a Cessna 172.

The altitude indicator (also known as the altimeter) provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s height above sea level. Figure 3 shows an altitude indicator from a Cessna

172. This instrument has two dials. The thick long dial is the fastest moving dial and shows the altitude change in hundreds of feet; that is, it moves if the aircraft climbs or descends one hundred feet. The slightly shorter dial shows the altitude change in thousands of feet. The small white kite symbol, near the number zero, shows the altitude change in increments of ten thousand feet. This symbol moves gradually as the aircraft climbs and is near the number one when the aircraft reaches ten thousand feet. This instrument also allows a pilot to set the air pressure at mean sea level, which will show the correct altitude based on the current weather conditions.

Figure 4: Heading indicator in a Cessna 172.

The heading indicator (also known as the direction al gyro) provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s heading. Figure 4 shows a heading indicator from a Cessna

172. This instrument is like a compass and shows the direction in which an aircraft is flying.

An image of the aircraft shows its direction as a degree based on the 360o circle. North, east, south and west are also marked on the instrument (using N, E, S and W). This instrument requires regular recalibration on long flights. In some modern aircraft, such calibration is performed automatically by the aircraft’s computer. On several aircraft, there is also a heading bug, which is an indicator that a pilot can manually set to the direction in which she or he wants to be heading. This bug helps during navigation and makes it easy for a pilot to maintain an assigned heading.

The turn and bank indicator provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s rate of turn and whether the turn is coordinated. Figure 5 shows a turn and bank indicator from a

Cessna 172. An aircraft pointing horizontally represents a straight and level flight. When an aircraft is turning, the artificial aircraft in this indicator also turns in the same direction, depicting the aircraft’s turn. The ball below the artificial aircraft shows whether or not the turn is properly coordinated, and whether an aircraft is slipping or skidding while turning. To maintain a properly coordinated flight, the ball must be in the centre; if it is not, a pilot will have to use the rudder to achieve a properly coordinated turn. Apart from demonstrating good flying skills, a properly coordinated turn will also improve pilot and passenger comfort.

Figure 5: Turn and bank indicator in a Cessna 172.

The vertical speed indicator provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s rate of climb or descent per minute. Figure 6 shows a vertical speed indicator from a Cessna 172.

On this indicator, a dial points to an aircraft’s vertical climb or descent and moves to show the rate of climb or descent. It shows the rate of climb or descent up to two thousand feet per

26 minute. Every five hundred feet is marked on the indicator with the appropriate number. This instrument is valuable during turning, as it helps to maintain the assigned altitude while the aircraft is turning. It is also helpful during landing, when an aircraft has to descend at a certain vertical speed, i.e. five hundred feet per minute. This instrument is also prone to constant changes unlike the altitude indicator; hence, it is important for a pilot to be aware of this fact and not over-control the aircraft.

Figure 6: Vertical speed indicator in a Cessna 172.

Aircraft system status instruments provide additional information to a pilot, which helps him or her maintain a safe flight. These instruments show information about the engine instruments, fuel instruments, navigation instruments, GPS, radio stack, etc.

The engine instruments provide a pilot with information about an aircraft’s engine status. In a Cessna 172 the main engine instruments are the revolutions per minute (RPM)

27 indicator, oil temperature and oil pressure. The RPM, as shown in Figure 7, measures the revolutions of the propeller per minute. This information is important during all phases of a flight. The correct RPM setting in different phases of flight will help a pilot achieve the correct aircraft performance. For example, during approach the RPM is brought back to 1500, allowing an aircraft to descend at 500 feet per minute at a speed of 75 knots. This setting can vary depending on other factors such as weather. The RPM indicator has a green arc which indicates the ideal operating range during cruise. If the weather is turbulent, regular changes in RPM might be required during approach and cruise to maintain consistent aircraft performance. The red line in the RPM indicator shows the maximum RPM, which should not be exceeded. This indicator also has a counter which is used by a pilot to determine how long he or she has been flying an aircraft.

Figure 7: RPM indicator in a Cessna 172.

Figure 8: Fuel quantity indicator in a Cessna 172.

Figure 9: Fuel flow and exhaust gas temperature indicator in a Cessna 172.

Engine and fuel instruments show the aircraft’s engine and fuel status. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show these instruments in a Cessna 172. The fuel quantity indicator shows the amount of fuel an aircraft has on board. The fuel capacity of a Cessna 172 is 26 gallons. Based on the

29 amount of fuel an aircraft has, a pilot can calculate how long an aircraft can keep flying. The fuel flow indicator shows a pilot how much fuel an aircraft is consuming, in gallons per hour.

The green arc represents the normal fuel flow rate while cruising.

Figure 10: Oil pressure and oil temperature indicator in a Cessna 172.

The radio stack allows a pilot to tune in to various frequencies required during the flight. Figure 11 shows the radio stack of a Cessna 172. This includes the appropriate frequencies for communication with air traffic control and frequencies that assist in navigation. The communication frequencies allow a pilot to tune in to the appropriate radio frequency that will allow her or him to talk to air traffic control. It also has a standby frequency, which allows a pilot to tune in to a second frequency that might be required at a later time. Entering the standby frequency will allow a pilot to reduce workload while flying.

Pilots can switch to the standby frequency by pressing a button. Apart from having the second frequency on standby, it is also possible to listen to both the frequencies at the same time. However, he or she can only communicate on one channel at a time.

Apart from communication, the radio stack also offers two channels for selecting navigational frequencies, which provides navigational assistance to a pilot. For example, while coming in to land at an airport, a pilot can enter the instrument landing system (ILS) frequency in the radio stack and activate the ILS information on the instruments. These instruments are shown in Figure 12. The instruments provide information about the aircraft’s lateral and vertical position. A pilot can use this information to safely navigate to the runway and land the aircraft.

The other important navigational frequency that can be entered into the radio stack is the non-directional beacon (NDB) frequency. NDBs are common and help with cross-country navigation. Once the frequency is entered in, the instruments (shown in Figure 12) show whether an aircraft is flying towards the selected NDB, and whether the aircraft is on the correct flight path towards the NDB.

The navigational information provided by these instruments is particularly important when the visibility in the outside world is poor. When a pilot cannot follow landmarks in the outside world, he or she can rely on these instruments to successfully navigate between two points. Apart from poor visibility conditions, these instruments are also beneficial at night or when flying over terrain without any geographical features or landmarks.

Figure 11: Radio stack in a Cessna 172.

Figure 12: Navigational information instruments in a Cessna 172.

Finally, the transponder allows a pilot to enter the code provided to him or her by the air traffic controller. This provides the air traffic controller with the aircraft’s information, such as altitude, which helps the air traffic controller monitor and direct the aircraft safely through the airspace.

In a Cessna 172, the radio stack also has the autopilot option. This allows the pilot to take their hands off the controls and let the aircraft fly automatically. The autopilot manages altitude, navigation or heading, along with a few other functions. It does not offer an auto- throttle option: airspeed has to be manually managed, even when the autopilot is being used.

Figure 13: Global positioning system in a Cessna 172.

Along with the navigational instruments, the aircraft also has a GPS. The GPS in a

Cessna 172 is shown in Figure 13. This provides information on an aircraft’s location on a moving map. The GPS provides immense benefits, as it makes it easy for a pilot to always be aware of the aircraft’s geographical location. It also helps in navigation and can be linked to the autopilot for basic navigational assistance. GPS technology in an aircraft ranges from basic to very complex, and discussing its full potential is beyond the scope of this section.

Different Types of Cockpit

Flight instruments in today’s aircraft can be displayed in two different types of cockpit. The traditional method is known as an analogue or round dial cockpit, and the modern method is known as a glass or digital cockpit. The same instruments are displayed in both types of cockpit; however, the layout of information on the instruments can be different between the two types of cockpit.

An analogue cockpit, as shown in Figure 14, displays each instrument separately.

Hence, there are many instruments in an analogue cockpit. The primary flight instruments are displayed together and are commonly known as the six-pack, as shown in Figure 15. These instruments include the airspeed at the top left corner, the attitude indicator in the middle of the top row, and the altitude indicator in the top right corner. The turn and bank indicator is on the bottom left corner, the heading indicator is in the middle of the bottom row and the vertical speed indicator is on the bottom right corner. This layout includes the main instruments organised in a ‘T’ format to facilitate easy scanning.

Figure 14: Analogue cockpit in a Cessna 172.

Figure 15: The six primary flight instruments, also known as the six-pack.

The aircraft system status instruments are normally displayed around the primary flight instruments. The RPM, which is of vital importance, is displayed below the vertical speed indicator. The radio stack and the GPS are displayed on the right of the primary flight instruments. Fuel status instruments are displayed on the left of the primary instruments. It is important to note that the display of the aircraft system status instruments varies between the

Cessna 172s. As a result, not all 172s will have identical layout.

The glass cockpit (as shown in Figure 16) integrates all the flight instruments and displays them on digital screens. As a result, there are two main screens: the primary flight display (PFD) and the multi-function display (MFD). The glass cockpit shown here is the

Garmin G1000 (Garmin © G1000, 2004). This is an advanced glass cockpit offered in a number of new general aviation aircraft.

Figure 16: Glass cockpit in a Cessna 172 consisting of the PFD (left) and MFD (right).

The PFD, as the name states, includes all the primary flight instruments. The primary instruments that are displayed in the ‘T’ format in an analogue cockpit are also displayed in a similar ‘T’ format in a glass cockpit. However, the airspeed and altitude information are shown in numeric form, known as tape display, rather than in the form of a dial. For example, an analogue cockpit points to the speed or altitude using a needle, whereas in a glass cockpit the instrument shows the exact speed or altitude in numeric form. This is not the only difference. The vertical speed indicator and the turn and bank indicator are also displayed in numeric form. The turn and bank indicator is integrated into the attitude indicator, and the vertical speed indicator is shown next to the altitude indicator. This also makes room for showing other parameters on the PFD.

Figure 17: Additional information in the primary flight display.

Apart from the primary instruments, the PFD also has a massive amount of additional information incorporated into the display. The additional information provided is extensive and only the main features are mentioned here. Figure 17 shows some of the additional information that can be displayed on the PFD. Radio and navigational frequencies can be brought up on the bottom right corner of the screen. A small moving map can also be displayed on the bottom left corner of the screen. The top section of the PFD displays the current and standby frequencies selected. Information related to the autopilot status is also provided. The heading indicator in the PFD also offers more information than the heading indicator in an analogue cockpit. This indicator shows whether or not an aircraft is on course, and shows other navigational information including the ILS and NDB information. Finally, a list of warning or cautions, if any, is displayed on the right side of the screen.

Figure 18: Multi-function display in a Cessna 172.

Figure 19: Engine instruments in the glass cockpit of a Cessna 172.

The MFD shows an aircraft’s system status instruments. This display is shown in

Figure 18. The main feature of the MFD is a display of a large moving GPS map. This map shows the position of the aircraft, along with other details such as airports, landmarks, and even traffic or weather in the area. One of the other main features of the moving map display is the ability to create a complex flight path, which is a valuable tool for cross-country flights.

This is also integrated with the autopilot. Detailed information on all airports and all the frequencies associated with a particular airport are also available in this display. This GPS moving map has several other advanced features, which cannot be discussed in detail here.

To the left of the large moving map display are the engine and fuel instruments. These instruments are shown in Figure 19. The RPM indicator is displayed as a digital dial.

However, all the other instruments are displayed as a tape display. These displays show a horizontal tape with a moving bar that indicates the current status of that instrument. All instruments have green and red bars or lines, which show the ideal operation range along with the maximum limits of an aircraft.

A glass cockpit offers backup instruments which are not offered in an analogue cockpit. The three backup instruments offered in a glass cockpit, shown in Figure 20, are the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator and altitude indicator. These instruments are included in case there is an electrical failure and the two main displays black out. In the event of an electrical failure, a pilot can use the information from these instruments to safely land an aircraft. These backup instruments are not included in an analogue cockpit, as there is no

41 threat of an electrical failure. Apart from having these backup instruments, a glass cockpit also has the ability to duplicate the PFD screen on the MFD screen. This can be beneficial during flight training, when the instructor is sitting in the right-hand seat and needs better access to the PFD instruments. It can also be used if only the PFD screen fails; in such a scenario, the MFD screen can be used as the PFD screen.

Figure 20: Backup flight instruments in a Cessna 172.

Instrument failure is a rare occurrence, although a glass cockpit includes a risk of total instrument failure and individual instruments can fail in either type of cockpit. A failure is indicated on the instrument, to show the status of that instrument to a pilot. The heading instrument failure is shown and discussed below. This instrument failure is specifically discussed here, as it is a part of the experiment conducted in Chapter 7.

Figure 4 shows the heading indicator in an analogue cockpit of a Cessna 172 while it is working properly. Microsoft flight simulator does not differentiate between a failed and a

42 working heading indicator in a Cessna 172, therefore a failed heading indicator is shown from a different aircraft in the flight simulator.

Figure 21 shows the heading indicator in an analogue cockpit while it is not working or has failed. The only difference between the working indicator and the failed indicator is a small red flag with the letters ‘HDG’ in the top right corner, denoting that the heading indicator is not working.

Figure 21: Failed heading indicator in an analogue cockpit.

Figure 17 showed the heading indicator in a glass cockpit, integrated into the PFD.

This figure shows the heading indicator while it is working. Figure 22 shows this heading indicator when it is not working or has failed. The difference between the working and failed indicator is significant: the numbers, or the compass directions, on the instrument are

43 removed; there is a red cross in the rectangle showing the current heading; and the number in the rectangle is replaced by the letters ‘HDG’.

Figure 22: Failed heading indicator in a glass cockpit.

Unlike an analogue cockpit, in a glass cockpit the failure is distinctly presented on the heading indicator. This makes it hard for a pilot to miss it. Several other instrument failures are also displayed in a similar fashion in a glass cockpit, which makes it easy to be aware of the instrument status in a glass cockpit. However, it can be a challenge in an analogue cockpit, particularly when a pilot makes a transition to an analogue cockpit without any previous experience or training.

Despite the differences in flight instruments, there is no difference in the location and layout of switches and flight controls.

Figure 23: Switches and controls in a Cessna 172.

Figure 23 shows some of the switches and flight controls in a Cessna 172. These are used to start the aircraft and provide power supply to the flight instruments. They also help in controlling the navigational lights and other lights of the aircraft. Other controls include throttle control, trim setting and fuel selection. The image in Figure 23 does not show two of the major controls, the yoke and the rudder pedals.

As the figures show, the flight instruments included in a glass and an analogue cockpit are the same. However, the way the instruments are displayed and the information layout are different. This difference has been a result of decades of cockpit design and evolution. The advent of technology also helped in changing an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. The evolution of the aircraft’s cockpit was not just a result of available technology, it also arose from a need by pilots. The next section will briefly discuss cockpit evolution over the past century, with some illustrations.

Cockpit Evolution

The Wright Flyer was the first powered aircraft to fly. This aircraft did not have a cockpit as we see them today. For the first decade of powered flight, a pilot mainly flew an aircraft based on the sound and feel of the engine. Most flights were conducted at maximum engine power. However, if any adjustments were required to be made, it was done by hearing the engine and adjusting the power. Also, pilots did not have an enclosed area, they were exposed to the elements of nature. The Avro Type F was the first aircraft to have a closed cabin in which a pilot could sit (Anderson, 2002; Coombs, 2005).

Powered aircraft in the early days crashed regularly due to poor management of airspeed. Since these aircraft were mainly constructed with timber and they flew at low altitude and at slow speed, the number of fatalities was minimal. However, these crashes raised concerns and emphasised the importance of having instruments that would provide a pilot with information on an aircraft’s performance (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).

It was not until thirteen years after the first powered flight that the first aircraft with a cockpit was manufactured. The Jenny JN-4 was the first aircraft to provide a specific place for a pilot to sit. There were also instruments in the cockpit which provided a pilot with information about the aircraft’s performance. These instruments were displayed using analogue dials and gauges. A pilot was now able to not only judge engine performance based on the sound, but also had instruments to confirm the assumptions. Apart from the engine

46 information, a pilot was also provided with other vital information such as the aircraft’s speed

(Stoff, 2001).

These instruments revolutionised aircraft and made it possible to fly during daytime or night-time. It also became possible to fly in poor visibility conditions, such as through clouds. As a result, the aircraft became a reliable mode of transportation, which increased its popularity and usage (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).

Transporting passengers using an aircraft became successful. Aircraft manufacturers were building larger and more comfortable aircraft to increase the popularity of passenger air travel. In the 1950s, the de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the first commercial passenger jet aircraft to be mass-produced (Chant, 2002). Figure 24 shows the cockpit of the DH 106. It includes analogue instruments and mechanical flight controls. While aircraft were being manufactured, human factors scientists were also conducting research to develop and design the cockpit (Plant, Harvey, & Stanton, 2013). Prior to this, aircraft cockpits were cluttered with instruments and there was no specific layout of instruments.

Research conducted during this time helped standardise the instruments in the cockpit.

The primary flight instruments were ordered into the six-pack layout, also known as the ‘T’ instrument display layout. This layout places the six primary instruments in front of the pilot and copilot in a consistent order, regardless of aircraft type. The engine instruments were located in the centre of the cockpit display, allowing both the pilot and copilot to easily scan and acquire the information.

Figure 24: Cockpit of the DH 106 Comet (Nicholson, 2012).

The early commercial passenger jets included over fifty instruments to provide a pilot with all the necessary information to safely fly an aircraft. With the introduction of the

Boeing 747 in the 1970s, an aircraft’s cockpit was becoming crowded with instruments.

Although the instruments were necessary to be included in the cockpit, the increasing number was making it difficult for a pilot to scan and monitor them. Research conducted by human factors scientists provided a solution, and developments in computer technology were used to develop a new digital cockpit.

The 1970s also saw the introduction of the glass cockpit into the commercial aviation industry. The glass cockpit made it easier for a pilot to scan the instruments, as several instruments were integrated together onto one screen (Coombs, 1990), which reduced the number of instruments in the cockpit. It also created space in the cockpit to include additional features. A moving map display, also known as the GPS display, was included in the glass cockpit. This display offers a pilot accurate information on the position of an aircraft (Clarke,

1998) and improves a pilot’s awareness of an aircraft’s location. With benefits like this, pilots preferred a glass cockpit over an analogue cockpit. New aircraft were being manufactured with glass cockpits instead of analogue.

The glass cockpit has become common over recent decades. Today, all new commercial passenger aircraft are being built with a glass cockpit as a standard option. Due to the popularity of the glass cockpit, it was also introduced in other industries, and the general aviation industry and recreational industry offer a glass cockpit as a standard option.

The benefits offered by the glass cockpit outweigh any challenges it might cause. The glass cockpit is also visually appealing. The large screens offer an immense amount of information to a pilot, much of which was not available in the older analogue cockpit.

Figure 25: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-100 (Potesta, 1994).

The Boeing 737 is one of the most popular commercial aircraft. Due to its popularity, it is still in production and there are over five thousand aircraft on backorder (Boeing, 2017).

It is primarily used as a passenger aircraft, transporting between 150 and 200 passengers, depending on the configuration. It started as a short haul commercial passenger aircraft; however, with advancements in technology and aircraft design, its range has increased significantly. The Boeing 737 was introduced in the 1960s and has significantly evolved since then. When it was first launched, it included a full analogue cockpit. This is one of the only aircraft to be transformed from a full analogue cockpit to a full glass cockpit. In this section the change in the instrument display will be discussed briefly.

Figure 26: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-200 (Johnson, 2013).

The Boeing 737-100 and 737-200 variants were introduced in the 1960s. The cockpit of the 737-100 and 737-200, as shown in Figures 25 and 26, include a full analogue display of the flight instruments. The primary flight instruments are displayed in front of the pilot, and the engine and aircraft status instruments are displayed in the centre of the cockpit. The screen above the throttle quadrant in the 737-200 is the weather display; this was the only digital instrument in the cockpit. The autopilot option was also available; however, it had limited functionality.

Figure 27: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-300 (Flightdeckimages, 2014).

The Boeing 737-300 was introduced in the 1980s. The cockpit, as shown in Figure 27, has some differences. Most of the analogue instruments are identical to the Boeing 737-200.

However, the 737-300 has a more advanced autopilot. It also offers the flight management system (FMS), which provides immense capabilities that will not be discussed here. The development and integration of the FMS resulted in one major change in the cockpit: it reduced the flight crew from three to two, by automating the role of the flight engineer.

Figure 28: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-400 (Desa, 2007).

The Boeing 737-400 was also introduced in the 1980s. The cockpit, as shown in

Figure 28, offers some significant changes in the flight instrument display. The primary flight display uses digital glass cockpit technology. The attitude indicator and heading indicator are displayed on electronic screens. The heading indicator is also incorporated into the navigational information on the screen. This offers a pilot more information to fly the aircraft.

Finally, the engine instruments also offer a digital display instead of using analogue dials.

This is an example of a half glass, half analogue cockpit.

Figure 29: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-500 (Herren, 2003).

The Boeing 737-500 was introduced in the late 1980s. It is interesting to note that within each variant there were several sub-variants. These were either specifically made with certain features or they were reserved for certain organisations such as the military. The cockpit of the 737-500, as shown in Figure 29, is similar to that of the 737-400. It uses the same digital screens for the attitude indicator and the heading indicator. The autopilot and flight management computer are also similar to the previous version, and most of the instruments are displayed in the same way as in the 737-400 series.

Figure 30: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-600 (Laszlo, 2005).

The Boeing 737-600 was introduced in the 1990s. The cockpit, as shown in Figure 30, offers even more changes in the flight instrument display compared to the 737-500. This variant no longer uses the analogue instruments as the primary method of display. Instead, all the main instruments are integrated onto a digitalised computer screen. This is an example of a full glass cockpit. The analogue instruments offered in this type of cockpit are for backup only. There are six main screens that provide the pilot with all the required information. The screen in front of the pilot shows all the primary flight information, the screen next to it shows the navigational information, and the screen in the centre shows the engine status information.

Figure 31: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-700 (Yu, 2015).

The Boeing 737-700 was also introduced in the 1990s. The cockpit, as shown in

Figure 31, has similar screens to the 737-600 and provides the same information.

The Boeing 737-800 was also introduced in the 1990s. The cockpit, as shown in

Figure 32, is similar to the previous versions; however, it comes with the option to be fitted with the head up display (HUD). Figure 34 shows a close-up view of the HUD. As seen in this photograph, this display provides the primary flight information. It allows the pilot to easily acquire information about the important flight parameters. It also reduces a pilot’s head movement, as a pilot does not have to look down to acquire primary flight information.

Figure 32: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-800 (Yuxiaobin, 2006).

Figure 33 : Analogue instrument displayed in a glass cockpit (Hom, 2005).

Figure 34 : Flight instruments and the head up display (Havenga, 2008).

Figure 33 shows a traditional display setup in a modern glass cockpit. In this type of glass cockpit, the primary flight instruments are still displayed electronically as analogue displays. Such a display can offer great benefits to a pilot who is transitioning from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. A pilot requires training before being able to use a glass cockpit efficiently. The literature associated with this is discussed in the subsequent sections.

A pilot who is unfamiliar with a glass cockpit can have the option to display the instruments in analogue format. This allows a pilot to fly with the instrument display that they are familiar with, which might make it safer for a pilot to fly an aircraft.

While these photographs show differences in the cockpit flight instrument display, it is important to note that there are also differences within the individual variations of 737s.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that all aircraft can be retrofitted with modern flight instruments. For example, it is possible to convert a Boeing 737-300 into a full glass-cockpit- equipped aircraft. This allows older aircraft to be operated with newer technology. It also allows pilots of older aircraft to take advantage of the benefits offered by modern technology, such as reduced workload and improved situational awareness.

The digital nature of a glass cockpit allows information to be presented in interactive pages format. This provides aircraft manufacturers with the opportunity to include enormous amounts of information in the digital screens. Information such as airport approach charts and terminal maps can be embedded into the displays; these are known as the electronic flight bag

(EFB). Such an option was not available in the static analogue cockpit.

Figure 35: Cockpit of a Boeing 787 (Borisov, 2014).

The Boeing 787, as shown in Figure 35, has incorporated many of the advancements that were made in the 737 family and taken them a step further. As seen in the photograph, the 787 includes five screens. These screens are larger and provide the pilot with more information. The cockpit also includes the head up display to improve the pilot’s performance. There are two screens on the left and right side of the cockpit that provide the pilot with the EFB.

Similar to the 787, the Airbus A350 was introduced in 2015. This aircraft has bigger screens to display more information and improve the pilot’s performance (Kingsley-Jones,

2008).

As a result of the success of the glass cockpit in commercial aircraft, it was also introduced into other industries. The automobile industry is developing a similar version of a glass cockpit, in which vehicle information is displayed on the dash board using digital technology (Meyer & Heers, 2007). In the aerospace industry, the space shuttle was also retrofitted with a glass cockpit (NASA, 2000). Even in the general aviation industry, smaller single-engine propeller aircraft are being built with a full glass cockpit. A newly purchased

Cessna 172 is equipped with a Garmin G1000, which is a highly advanced and automated glass cockpit (McCracken, 2011).

Figure 36: Glass cockpit of a Cirrus aircraft, showing PFD and MFD (Folkeringa, 2003).

Cirrus Aircraft manufacture general aviation aircraft. They offer many different models of fixed-wing aeroplanes. They have also been offering the glass cockpit as a standard option for any plane purchased since the early 2000s (FAA, 2003). As seen in

Figure 36, there are two main screens that display the flight instruments and navigational information. There are three backup analogue instruments in case there is an electrical failure.

There are two additional GPS screens, which are useful in case the MFD is used to access other information.

Figure 37: MFD showing a checklist (Savit, 2004).

The MFD offers a wide range of information. The photograph in Figure 37 shows a comprehensive checklist that a pilot can access on the MFD.

Figure 38: MFD showing an approach plate (DJ, 2008).

The MFD also shows approach charts or plates on the display, as shown in Figure 38.

This allows a pilot to access and study charts on the display rather than having to carry paper charts. It also reduces the weight a pilot has to carry on board, as all documents are available electronically. These approach charts help during the landing at a busy airport, as shown in

Figure 39 . If the aircraft has to go around, a pilot can follow the flight path indicated on these electronic charts. This reduces the workload as the information is displayed in front of a pilot and he or she does not have to search for it on paper charts.

Figure 39: MFD assisting a pilot while landing (Brackx, 2007).

The MFD can also provide valuable weather information, as shown in Figure 40. This information is overlaid on the moving map display and, as a result, the weather information is accurately displayed over the area it affects. In addition, the MFD in this photograph shows areas of high terrain. A pilot can take into account these two factors to avoid areas of deteriorating weather and high terrain while choosing a different flight path. Once again, having such information shown on the display significantly increases the situational awareness of a pilot. It helps him or her make better decisions during the flight.

Figure 40: MFD showing weather information (Leibowitz, 2005).

Although the glass cockpit is a standard option, Cirrus does offer the option of a traditional analogue cockpit as shown in Figure 41. A pilot or buyer can choose to have analogue cockpit instruments in the aircraft. Figure 41 is an example of a half glass and half analogue cockpit. The PFD is replaced with round dials, but the MFD is still displayed as a digital instrument. This still provides the pilot with all the information in the second screen, which has been discussed above. In this option, there are no backup instruments. This is because the full glass cockpit included the analogue instruments as backup instruments, whereas in this case they are standard instruments.

Figure 41: Cirrus aircraft with half analogue and half glass cockpit display (Walczak, 2002).

Cirrus Aircraft have gained popularity and fame due to their glass cockpit technology.

Despite the analogue option, most Cirrus Aircraft are equipped with a glass cockpit. This is because of the benefits a glass cockpit has to offer, such as lower workload and a higher level of situational awareness. Following the success of the Cirrus Aircraft, other general aviation manufacturers such as Cessna and Piper also incorporated glass cockpit technology into their aircraft. As a result, a glass cockpit has become a standard option for any new general aviation aircraft purchased today. Few aircraft are sold equipped with analogue instruments, although, similar to the analogue options available with Cirrus Aircraft, other aircraft manufacturers also offer the analogue cockpit option.

A glass cockpit offers the advantage of advanced automation. One of its benefits is reduced pilot fatigue, as the automation controls the manual flying task. The autopilot was first developed in the first decade of powered flight (Oakes, 2007); however, it was not until the middle of the previous century that it had a significant impact on the industry. One of the biggest changes it brought in was the automation of a flight engineer’s role (Knight, 2007), which saw the reduction of the flight crew from three to two. Today, automation has evolved by taking advantage of computing technology. Mechanical flight controls have been replaced with digitalised controls, also known as fly-by-wire technology (Schmitt, Morris, & Jenney,

1998). This uses electrical signals to adjust the control surfaces of an aircraft, rather than mechanical cables. This improvement in an aircraft’s cockpit also reduced the overall weight of an aircraft. As a result, more paying passengers can be carried.

Figure 42 : Cockpit of the Cessna 400 TTX (Michalzechen, 2015).

Figure 42 shows a glass cockpit from the Cessna 400. This is a full glass cockpit with additional features. The PFD also includes additional information about the outside world.

This is called the synthetic vision display. This display provides geographical terrain information, digitally recreating major natural and artificial landmarks to increase a pilot’s navigational and spatial awareness. The backup instrument included in this cockpit also uses digital screens. However, the power sources for the main instruments and the backup instrument are different. Finally, this cockpit utilises the touch-screen technology, offering additional opportunities.

Figure 43: Touch screen design concept by Thales (Avionics 2020, 2015).

The evolution of the cockpit is an ongoing process. The past decade saw the invention of touch-screen technology. Aircraft manufacturers are taking advantage of this technology and are conducting research to develop and incorporate it in the cockpit (Plant et al., 2013).

This will increase the productivity and performance of a pilot while flying an aircraft.

However, it will also introduce new challenges. The layout of the touch-screen technology needs to be studied and understood. It is important to ensure that the screens are in easy reach of a pilot, and it is important that the options not be accidentally selected on the touch screen.

An example of a futuristic cockpit is shown in Figure 43. This is a single touch screen, fully integrated cockpit. This cockpit is still being developed by Thales and is expected to be released in the next few years (Avionics 2020, 2015).

Aircraft manufacturers take advantage of new technology, integrating it into the cockpit and improving pilots’ performance and aviation safety. However, with every new inclusion come additional unknown challenges. Hence, it is important for human factors researchers to continually study and understand how a pilot interacts with new types of cockpit. The results of such research help reduce the human factors issues that arise due to a cockpit transition.

Importance of Aviation Human Factors

Aircraft have evolved significantly in the past century, as a result of several factors.

One of the biggest reasons was the need for rapid improvement due to the popularity of the jet aircraft as a mode of transporting passengers (Kaps & Phillips, 2004). This also required a considerable amount of research and development from scientists in the aircraft manufacturing industry, commercial airlines, government agencies and universities.

Research was conducted in several areas to design and assemble reliable and efficient aircraft. These areas include aerodynamics, chemistry, economics, physics, mathematics and engineering (Truitt & Kaps, 1995; Johnson, Hamilton, Gibson, & Hanna, 2006; Barker,

NewMyer, Truitt, Kaps, & Fuller, 1995). These areas help in the physical design and also improve the efficiency of aircraft, such as better fuel consumption and increased passenger capacity.

Aircraft were designed to be used by humans for humans. As a result, studying and understanding how humans interact within an aircraft was, and still is, an important aspect of the aircraft design process. Scientists conduct research in physiology, psychology, sociology and other fields to make an aircraft human-friendly. Such research helps humans to use and operate an aircraft competently and safely. It also provides additional benefits such as reducing workload of pilots and increasing well-being of passengers. Aviation human factors is one of the disciplines in which such research and development has been conducted. This scientific discipline was created as the aviation industry expanded and there was a worldwide

70 demand for aviation safety. The definitions below highlight the importance of aviation human factors.

Edwards (1988, p. 9) defined human factors as:

“Human factors (or ergonomics) may be defined as the technology concerned to optimize the relationship between people and their activities by the systematic application of the human sciences, integrated within a framework of system engineering.”

Christensen, Topmiller and Gill (1988, p. 7) defined human factors as:

“Human factors is an eclectic field encompassing disciplines such as psychology, engineering, ergonomics, anthropometry and psychophysiology. Specifically, human factors is that branch of science and technology that includes what is known and theorised about human behavioural, cognitive, and biological characteristics that can be validly applied to specification, design, evaluation, operation, maintenance of products, jobs tasks, and systems to enhance safe, effective, and satisfying use by individuals, groups and organisations.”

In the aviation industry, human factors scientists conduct research to understand various aspects of human performance. These include cockpit (flight deck) design (Graeber,

1999, Harris, 2011); sleep and fatigue (Wiener & Nagel, 1988); physical exercise suitable while flying in an aircraft (Hawkins & Orlady, 1993); ground crew and passenger safety;

71 maintenance (Johnston, McDonald, & Fuller, 1994); pilot decision making (Martinussen &

Hunter, 2009); situational awareness (Salmon et al., 2009); flight instruction (Kaps &

Phillips, 2004); engineering the cockpit (Wickens, Gordon, Liu, & Lee, 1998; Abbott, 2001); and several other topics (Jensen, 1997). The results of these studies help in making the industry safer and expanding even more. For example, sleep and fatigue studies help in understanding the circadian rhythm of pilots, enable better crew rostering, and assist in scheduling breaks to avoid fatigue.

Flying an aircraft is a complex task. To fly safely, a pilot needs to acquire information from several sources, including the instruments inside the aircraft and cues from the outside world. They have to constantly change their attention between the different sources, and they must acquire the information in a timely manner. This helps a pilot maintain good situational awareness.

Situational Awareness

Situational awareness (SA) refers to a person’s ability to be aware of what is taking place around him or her. A person can maintain a high level of SA by obtaining information from his or her surroundings and knowing what is happening. Achieving SA is important in any scenario and for everyone involved in that scenario. A surfer needs to be aware of the intensity of the waves and also whether there is any unwanted wildlife in the area. Hikers need to be aware of their geographical location, personal abilities and the weather conditions.

Knowing what is happening around a person can directly affect the person or can have no relevance to the person at all. A person walking on the side of the road monitors the traffic on the road to maintain a good level of SA. This information can be of great benefit to a person if he or she is thinking of crossing the road; however, it might be of no relevance if he or she is planning to stay on the same side of the road.

Situational awareness is not just achieved and maintained at an individual level. In environments such as hospitals, SA also has to be maintained at a team level. In order to successfully perform surgery on a patient, doctors and nurses have to maintain individual and team-level SA. This helps the team members perform their individual tasks and their team tasks in an efficient manner. Apart from people, SA is also affected by the equipment that is being used. Modern technology helps people maintain good SA and conduct their tasks more efficiently (Zhang et al., 2002). Understanding SA is important as it helps in improving performance and reducing human error (Wright, Taekman, & Endsley, 2004).

In the aviation industry, a pilot must obtain information from several sources, including the outside world, the copilot, cabin crew and air traffic controllers, to build a picture of what is happening to and around the aircraft. Hence, SA in the aviation industry is achieved and maintained at an individual and team level.

Achieving SA is important for a pilot. In order to land at an airport, a pilot needs to acquire information about the airport and its altitude, and also about the elevation of the terrain around the airport. To attain traffic awareness around that airport, a pilot can listen to

73 air traffic control and build a picture of the traffic density and movement around the airport.

While flying to a cross-country destination, a pilot has to be aware of the weather in the area of the intended flight. Maintaining SA helps her or him to fly the aircraft safely.

A pilot can be highly skilled and experienced, but if she or he does not actively gather information from the sources and maintain good SA then it can result in incidents or accidents. This is because SA lays the groundwork for safely flying an aircraft.

Several scientists have defined situational awareness. Below is one of the commonly used definitions (Endsley, 1995a, p. 36) :

“Situation awareness is the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.”

According to Endsley’s (1995a) definition, there are three main levels of achieving situational awareness. The first level is to gather the appropriate information from the available sources. For a pilot, this information can be gathered from the flight instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit. Information can also be obtained from the air traffic controllers and/or other crew members, either in the aircraft or on the ground. For example, a pilot can obtain traffic information from either the air traffic controller or the multi-function display. This information builds the foundation on which a pilot can achieve situational awareness.

Without obtaining this information a pilot cannot build a picture of what is happening around the aircraft, which is part of the next level of SA.

The second level requires a pilot to understand the information that she or he has obtained. This level entails a pilot recognising the importance and relevance of the information acquired. A pilot processes information and creates a mental model based on the information attained. This model is a mental representation of what is happening around the aircraft, and it helps a pilot understand the situation which the aircraft is in. For example, after obtaining the traffic information, a pilot can understand the position of the traffic in relation to his or her aircraft. This mental model also helps a pilot predict the future status of the aircraft, which is part of the next level of SA.

The final level involves a pilot determining what is going to happen in the near future.

This requires a pilot to make appropriate predictions of the future, based on the information that was gathered and understood. Following on from the previous example, a pilot can now predict the flight path of the other traffic around his or her aircraft. This will help him or her judge whether the other traffic creates a potential threat or not.

Achieving situational awareness based on these three levels not only helps a pilot be aware of what is happening around the aircraft, it also helps the pilot know what will happen in the near future. The above example helps us understand SA, and also illustrates the importance of knowing what is going on around the aircraft to achieve a safe flight (Uhlarik

& Comerford, 2002). As illustrated above, without knowing and understanding the

75 information about the position of the traffic in the area, a pilot might not be able to maintain the highest level of safety. This could lead to errors by a pilot, as she or he might detect the traffic very late and have a near-miss encounter, or might not be aware of the traffic. This could lead to a disaster.

SA is an important concept for both pilots and human factors scientists (Patrick &

Morgan, 2010). For a pilot, it is important to maintain good SA. For a scientist, it is important to understand how a pilot’s performance is affected by his or her ability to achieve and maintain SA. It is particularly important to understand the reasons for poor SA. Human factors scientists strive to understand these issues and address them by conducting appropriate research. In recognition of the importance of this concept, there is extensive research being conducted in this area (Sorensen, Stanton, & Banks, 2011; Endsley &

Garland, 2000).

Each pilot can differ in the way he or she achieves and maintains SA (Endsley &

Bolstad, 1994). Individual differences in the ability to recognise, remember and interpret information can help a pilot have a higher level of SA than others. The human being, the operational environment and a pilot’s ability to interact with the environment help in achieving SA (Stanton, Salmon, Walker, & Jenkins, 2010). It cannot be achieved just by a pilot’s cognitive ability or the way information is presented in the environment. It is a combination of all the three factors that helps a pilot to achieve and maintain SA.

Situational awareness is the first step in maintaining safe flying skills. Once a pilot has a good level of SA, it helps her or him make good decisions at the right time. In contrast, poor SA may result in making an inaccurate decision or not making the required decision at all.

Decision Making

Decision making (DM) refers to a person’s ability to make choices based on obtained information. Once a person is aware of the surroundings, he or she can then decide on the actions to perform. Good decision making is vital to accomplishing goals successfully. A surfer can decide whether or not to go surfing after being aware of the wave conditions. A hiker can decide to go on a longer walk once she or he knows that it will not be too hot, or a shorter walk if rain is forecast in a few hours.

Similar to SA, the decisions a person makes can affect him or her as well as others. A pedestrian wanting to cross the road has to decide where to do so safely. This depends on a person’s awareness of the traffic intensity. During peak hour traffic, the safest option might be to walk to the nearest pedestrian crossing. This decision will help a pedestrian safely reach the other side and will also make it easier for the motorists to maintain their safety.

Similar to SA, DM is also performed at an individual level and at the team level.

Doctors make decisions, with the help of nurses, to successfully perform surgery. This

77 requires team members to share the information obtained at individual level to make a joint team decision. Decision making is also assisted by using additional equipment and/or technology.

Decision making is a part of daily life and is required in every industry. It is not unique to human beings only—even automated systems are programmed to make decisions.

Whether it is humans or systems, good decision making is essential for performing appropriate and safe actions.

A shop manager has to make decisions about how much stock to order. This decision ensures that there are enough products available at all times. It also safeguards the reputation of the shop (Grigorak & Shkvar, 2011). A manager also makes many kinds of decisions to continue and improve their service to the customers. Maintaining stock level is a regular repetitive decision; however, obtaining new products for sale can be an innovative decision.

This requires her or him to conduct surveys analysing consumer needs. Such investigation helps in determining which new products to introduce.

On the other hand, consumers are making more purchases online. Online shopping offers several products to choose from and, due to the global nature of online stores, it also offers the flexibility of buying products which are not locally available. Whilst technology offers several advantages, it also changes the way a person makes a decision. For example, online shopping requires a person to make purchase decisions in a different way than shopping instore. With the vast options available online, a consumer can browse many

78 products at the same time. She or he chooses a small group of items from the available products, and the smaller group is then further analysed based on personal needs and requirements. This analysis can be detailed, and factors in the product’s features and reputation. This is then followed by the final decision and the purchasing of a product (Häubl

& Trifts, 2000).

In the aviation industry, a pilot has to make many routine, and at times non-routine, decisions to safely fly an aircraft. A pilot obtains information from several sources and then uses that to make appropriate decisions that result in the successful completion of a flight. By knowing the elevation of an airport and the terrain around the airport, a pilot can decide on a safe altitude to maintain while on descent to land. While flying to a cross-country destination, a pilot can also choose the best flight path by factoring in the weather conditions and avoiding flying into cloud or severe turbulence. Finally, by listening to air traffic control, a pilot can build a picture of other aircraft that are in close proximity, which helps avoid any close encounters.

Decision making is defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (1991a, p. 4) as:

“Aeronautical decision making is a systematic approach to the mental process used by aircraft pilots to consistently determine the best course of action in response to a given set of circumstances.”

According to this definition, the step that precedes decision making is a pilot’s knowledge of what is happening around the aircraft. In other words, a pilot must be situationally aware and have the most up-to-date information of what is happening to and around the aircraft. Having this information will help a pilot build a mental model of what is happening, and will then help a pilot make suitable decisions.

Poor decision making will result in errors, which can lead to incidents or accidents

(Simpson, 2001). Hence, it is important to learn good decision-making skills. Some of these skills can be learnt during training. For example, one of the emergencies that a pilot trains for regularly is an engine failure. By practising the procedures to perform during an engine failure, a pilot learns the decisions that have to be made. Such practice enables him or her to make the correct decisions in the case of a real engine failure. This helps resolve the situation quickly and with the least risk (Zsambok & Klein, 2014).

Not all scenarios can be scripted like an engine failure. One of the poorest decisions that a general aviation pilot makes is flying into bad weather (Hunter, Martinussen, &

Wiggins, 2003). This can be due to several factors, including lack of awareness or desperation to reach the destination. A pilot can often start a flight in good weather conditions and experience deteriorating conditions while flying towards the destination. Hence, being aware of weather patterns and alternative airports in the flight route area is important.

A low-hour general aviation pilot, especially a pilot who has not been trained to fly in low visibility conditions, should avoid flying into areas of deteriorating weather. This

80 requires a pilot to obtain and understand the weather information regularly (Wiggins, Hunter,

O’Hare, & Martinussen, 2012). Regular information acquisition will help a pilot constantly update his or her mental model. This helps in making appropriate decisions regarding whether it is safe to keep flying.

Apart from detecting and comprehending the weather, he or she can also recollect reports of other pilots’ experiences of flying into bad weather (O’Hare, Mullen, & Arnold,

2009). This will help a pilot realise the risks associated with the wrong decision and avoid an unnecessary flight into poor weather conditions. If a pilot does encounter reduced visibility while flying, then she or he has to utilise all available resources and skills to successfully return to safety (O’Hare, 1992), such as communicating with air traffic controllers and using on-board GPS to divert to a different airport.

Decision making is an active process. A pilot has to constantly make new decisions and also revise old decisions if necessary. This requires a pilot to constantly update his or her

SA to determine if the previous decision needs changing or if a new decision needs to be made. A good example of this is low-hour pilots making weather-related decisions, as mentioned above. When a pilot receives information about bad weather, he or she will have to act on it by making decisions to avoid it. Failure to make appropriate decisions has resulted in pilots flying into deteriorating conditions that have caused accidents or incidents (Detwiler,

Holcomb, Hackworth, & Shappell, 2008). A pilot, especially a low-hour pilot, needs to constantly update her or his awareness of the weather, because the weather constantly changes and a novice pilot might not be equipped with the skills to handle adverse weather

(Hunter et al., 2003).

Individual differences such as personality also affect decision making (Wiegmann &

Goh, 2003). A pilot’s risk-taking personality might make him or her underestimate the severity of weather in a certain area. This will provide an unrealistic confidence that she or he can safely fly through the storm. In addition to the influence of a risk-taking personality, it is also believed that a pilot who proceeds into deteriorating conditions might not precisely understand the severity of the conditions (Wiegmann & Goh, 2003). This is a result of poor awareness of the conditions. As a result, a pilot who has the best SA can make appropriate decisions and choose not to fly into poor conditions. Apart from the individual personality, a pilot can also make risky decisions when there are time constraints (Grigorak & Shkvar,

2011). If a pilot has to reach the destination at a certain time, there is a higher chance of continuing to fly the original planned route even if there is bad weather predicted in the area.

Decision making is a vital task that every pilot has to perform. It is important to understand how a pilot makes decisions to reduce the number of incidents (Murray, 1997).

Situational awareness and decision-making skills help in managing workload.

Workload

Managing workload is an important skill to learn. It is important for every human being to be able to manage his or her work in a timely and orderly fashion, whether as a student, an employee of a large organisation, a postal delivery driver or even a parent.

A postal delivery driver has to deliver a certain number of parcels to the customers within a given time frame. This is achieved by planning the best route to all the different customer locations. If a driver is running late, then there will be delays in delivery. A driver might try to improve his or her performance by speeding or taking short cuts. This increases the risk of error, which could result in an accident. Errors can be made by taking the wrong turn and getting lost, and an accident can occur if a driver exceeds the speed limit allowed on a certain road and is unable to stop in time at the traffic lights.

Workload cannot be avoided; however, it can be delegated to other people. To maintain integrity and reliability a person has to complete the assigned workload by himself or herself. This requires proper workload management skills, which will result in the successful completion of a task. This will also allow for the task to be completed safely, as risks will not be taken to speed up the process and get the task done on time.

For the purpose of this discussion, time management will also be included with workload management, since workload management is generally determined by the amount of time available (Kember & Leung, 1998).

Similar to situational awareness and decision making, workload management can also be achieved at an individual and team level. Tasks completed as a team require the work to be evenly distributed and completed. Additional equipment also helps in managing and reducing the workload, while completing tasks by the deadline.

In the education industry, students are often required to complete assignments as a group. This requires them to distribute the task amongst the group members with everyone making an equal contribution. This also requires the group to come together regularly to discuss the overall progress and work completed. Finally, they have to integrate individual components into one report. Equipment, such as computers and online storage platforms, helps the group to easily integrate the individual contributions into one report.

A student is often placed under immense workload. Educational institutions have increased the amount of work performed by a student to offer competitive qualifications. The design of courses and classes has always been a challenge. In order to be successful, a student not only has to attend classes, but also has to spend time outside scheduled classes to study

(Kember & Leung, 1998). The workload is high not only for a student but also for the teacher. One of the reasons for this is reduced staff levels due to the economic pressures, meaning that fewer teachers are required to take an increasing number of classes and spend time between classes to grade assignments (Easthope & Easthope, 2000).

In the aviation industry, a pilot encounters an enormous workload. The workload starts well before a pilot enters the aircraft, beginning with pre-flight checks and other preparations. She or he also has to perform a considerable amount of work after the flight is complete. The level of workload is unevenly spread, as it varies during different phases of the flight (Wilson, 2002). For example, the cruise phase has one of the lowest levels of workload

84 and the landing phase has one of the highest. During the busy phases a pilot manages the workload with the help of the copilot and the available equipment to safely fly the aircraft.

Workload is a combination of a pilot being situationally aware, making appropriate decisions, and performing accurate actions (Orlady & Orlady, 1999). For example, while landing an aircraft a pilot has to constantly monitor the cockpit instruments to obtain the necessary information. In particular, a pilot has to monitor the airspeed to ensure that the aircraft’s speed is within the recommended range. Regular monitoring will help him or her achieve situational awareness and make appropriate decisions. If the aircraft is landing at the recommended speed, then a pilot only has to make small adjustments to the power to maintain the landing profile. This situation presents a pilot with a normal level of workload.

In the same scenario, if the aircraft was approaching the runway at a higher speed, then the workload of a pilot increases as he or she has to make more decisions and perform more actions to bring the speed within the recommended range. The best solution for a pilot in this scenario is to go around and come back for a second landing attempt. By doing so, he or she will be solving the problem of an unstable approach and achieving a successful landing on the second attempt. This also ensures a pilot practises safe flying skills.

The workload of a pilot affects his or her flying performance (Morris & Leung, 2006;

Svensson, Angelborg-Thanderez, Sjöberg, & Olsson, 1997). A pilot who experiences higher than normal workload can have difficulty concentrating and accomplishing a task. She or he can make errors while performing a routine task like tracking and maintaining the assigned

85 heading. This can reduce situational awareness and increase the risk of errors. A pilot can also reflect on his or her past experiences to perceive the workload of the situation they encounter (Hancock, Williams, & Manning, 1995). Such recollection helps in better management of the workload.

Workload can be measured using subjective questionnaires. One of the well-accepted workload questionnaires in the aviation industry is the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX) (Hart & Staveland, 1988; Hart, 2006; NASA,

1986); refer to Appendix J. This questionnaire includes six questions which require a person

(or a pilot) to rate her or his perceived workload. A pilot is required to rate the workload on a twenty-point Likert Scale. The six questions address mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration level.

The question on mental demand requires a pilot to rate how hard he or she had to think while completing the task. The physical demand question requires a pilot to rate how physically demanding the task was. The question on temporal demand requires a pilot to rate whether or not he or she felt that sufficient time was available to complete the task. The performance question requires a pilot to self-judge how well she or he performed on the task.

The effort question requires a pilot to indicate how much effort she or he had to put in to complete the task. Finally, a pilot has to rate her or his level of frustration while completing the task.

After completing the rating scales, a pilot has to weigh which loads she or he feels contributes more towards the workload. A pilot is provided with fifteen combinations of two loads, for example effort vs temporal demand, frustration level vs physical demand. A pilot has to pick the one he or she felt contributed more towards the workload while completing the task. This allows the researcher to calculate an overall workload score for the pilot.

The NASA TLX helps researchers gather data on workload. Although the questionnaire provides subjective data, it helps scientists understand how a pilot perceives the workload intensity. The results from such research help in improving pilot performance and aviation safety (Warm, Dember, & Hancock, 1996). The immense success of this questionnaire in the aviation industry has resulted in it also being incorporated into other industries (Hart, 2006).

Workload is affected by a pilot’s situational awareness and decision-making skills. A pilot can maintain and achieve good situational awareness by acquiring the information from the instruments regularly. It helps him or her in decision making and in performing necessary actions, thereby reducing the workload. Instruments help a pilot obtain a lot of important information; hence, proper display of instruments and layout of information is crucial.

Technology has changed the instrument display and information layout in the cockpit, providing benefits of reduced workload and improved situational awareness due to the immense amount of information presented on the flight instrument. Finally, technology has also introduced new features such as automation and the autopilot.

Automation Technology

With the advent of computer technology, automation has become a part of daily life.

Every industry is taking advantage of technology to improve efficiency. At the same time, technology also has some disadvantages. For example, a car-manufacturing company uses automation technology to increase the number of cars produced per year. This is done by increasing the speed at which cars are manufactured, as automated processes can yield higher productivity while maintaining efficiency. On the other hand, the negative effect of this is the reduction in the number of employees. Since automation technology can replace a lot of manual labour, fewer employees are required. These employees also take on a different role, monitoring the automation and the overall system rather than performing manual activities themselves. Another disadvantage is that automation requires a much higher initial expense.

In order to buy and install an automated product, large capital is required, and the cost takes years to recuperate before the company can start making profit as a result of the automated product.

The aviation industry is no exception. In fact, automation technology is widely used in aviation. Aircraft manufacturing companies are developing new aircraft using a high level of automation. One of the biggest areas of automation in a modern aircraft is the cockpit. This is because a pilot prefers the benefits it provides and automation offers great reliability during a normal flight. A pilot also exhibits a great deal of confidence in the automated systems when it is performing as expected (Muir, 1994; Muir & Moray, 1996).

Automation has also introduced a new type of aircraft, the unmanned aerial vehicle

(UAV) (Gottschalk, 1996; Dalamagkidis, Valavanis, & Piegl, 2011). This is a fully automated aircraft that flies just like a conventional aircraft. The only difference is in the cockpit. Most of these aircraft do not have a traditional cockpit, as they are fully automated and a pilot is not required to be physically sitting in the aircraft. Instead, a pilot can be located in an office on the other side of the world. She or he can also be managing and controlling more than one UAV simultaneously. Such a task is only possible because the UAVs are highly automated.

This technology has become popular in military aviation and is being used widely due to its greater operational flexibility. Also, in the case of an accident the government loses an expensive aircraft but, with a UAV, they preserve a much greater asset: the human pilot.

Despite the popularity in military aviation, UAVs have not gained popularity in the commercial airline industry yet. This is mainly because fare-paying passengers feel more comfortable having a human pilot physically present in an aircraft’s cockpit, available to bring the aircraft to safety in an emergency (MacSween-George, 2003).

The modern cockpit takes advantage of automation to provide a pilot with plenty of information. At times, a pilot is provided with more information than required (Curtis,

Jentsch, & Wise, 2010). This information allows a pilot to maintain a high level of situational awareness and helps in making appropriate and timely decisions. A pilot’s decision making and action execution are also made easier in an automated cockpit. For example, a pilot can overlay traffic and weather information on the instruments, allowing her or him to choose the

89 best route for a cross-country flight. Finally, automation reduces a pilot’s workload; not only does it provide abundant information, it can also perform several tasks using the autopilot.

Technology has made it possible to perform tasks that could not previously be performed. One of the best examples is the autopilot, which today is advanced and is capable of performing even the most complex flying tasks. It helps a pilot fly for much longer than was possible before its introduction. This is because it does not require manual control of an aircraft, therefore a pilot’s fatigue is reduced and he or she can fly for longer durations. This changes the role of a pilot, as she or he is no longer actively controlling an aircraft. Instead he or she is passively monitoring the aircraft’s systems. This affects the pilot’s performance in an aircraft’s cockpit, because, while flying in an automated aircraft, a pilot trusts the autopilot to perform the correct actions.

Automation is reliable and a pilot who utilises it regularly develops a significant amount of trust in it (Mosier, Skitka, Heers, & Burdick, 1998). This eventually results in reduced monitoring and crosschecking of its accuracy. Apart from not checking the accuracy, a pilot also does not confirm with other crew members about its accuracy (Bowers, Deaton,

Oser, Prince, & Kolb, 1995). A pilot may not scan the instruments in an automated cockpit in the same way as a non-automated aircraft (Endsley, 1996). Automation has the capability to perform a lot of actions in the background without a pilot’s knowledge. When combined with the reduced level of monitoring by the pilot, this characteristic puts the pilot out of the loop about what the automation, or the aircraft, is doing (Endsley & Kiris, 1995).

Automation results in over-trusting by pilots, which is called automation-induced complacency (Singh, Molloy, & Parasuraman, 1993). A pilot who is complacent and does not constantly monitor the instruments will not have good situational awareness. This can have negative implications when a pilot has to make decisions, and it affects his or her workload, particularly in the case of an emergency.

Automation offers several advantages and disadvantages. All the issues discussed such as situational awareness, decision making and workload can be experienced either positively or negatively when flying in an automated aircraft. Automated cockpits provide a lot of information to a pilot, and make decision making easier and faster (Crocoll & Coury,

1990). However, this can also be a problem as more time might be spent searching for the required information (Hamblin, Miller, & Naidu, 2006). There is evidence to suggest that automation reduces workload (Billings, 1991). This is an advantage, but others have also suggested that a lower level of workload can lead to loss of awareness of the situation (Durso

& Alexander, 2010). This is because workload and situational awareness are related. Periods of higher or lower workload can affect a pilot’s attentional ability. There have been suggestions made to instead have a balance between workload and automation (Harris,

Hancock, Arthur, & Caird, 1995). However, this works best when the operations are normal and no abnormal or emergency situations arise (Endsley, 1999).

A pilot who is familiar with the automated display in the cockpit is able to use it much more efficiently than someone who has never experienced it before (Meintel, 2004). A pilot who has never used automation might be overwhelmed by it and can be fixated on a particular task (Endsley & Strauch, 1997). For example, a pilot flying in an automated

91 cockpit can spend too much time looking at an instrument trying to understand the information that is being presented. Hence, automation requires additional knowledge and skills to operate (Wise, Tilden, Abbott, Dyck, & Guide, 1994). Due to its complexity, a pilot has to learn about the automated cockpit and also the extra information that it provides. They have to learn how to use it properly and learn the functions that the automation can perform in the background. This requires additional training before a pilot can successfully operate it

(Billings, 1997).

As mentioned earlier, automated aircraft are capable of performing tasks in the background without a pilot’s input or knowledge. This could potentially put a pilot out of the loop. If a pilot is out of the loop, then the benefits offered by automation can be instantly eliminated, particularly in an emergency. During such an event, a pilot ideally takes full manual control of the aircraft. If he or she is not aware of the tasks that automation has completed in the background, then a pilot faces additional challenges and workload on top of the emergency situation. This increases the chances of mistakes made by a pilot (Norman,

1990).

An example of this is stall recovery. When an aircraft is climbing at a high pitch angle, the autopilot might use significant nose-up trim to maintain the rate of climb. This also affects the speed performance of an aircraft. An unexpected change in weather, such as a strong gust of wind, can result in a stall. Once an aircraft enters a stall, a pilot might disengage the autopilot and take full manual control. She or he reduces the pitch angle to gain speed and to recover to a normal flight. However, this action might not instantly produce a

92 successful result if a pilot is not aware of the high nose-up trim status. This was the reason for the 2009 Air France accident (BEA, 2012), and is discussed further in the following section.

Automation technology helps a pilot achieve and maintain a high level of situational awareness, make good decisions and reduce workload. It helps a pilot not only during normal flying conditions but also during abnormal situations or emergencies.

Normal vs Emergency

In the event of an emergency, a pilot uses years of theoretical knowledge and practical experience to achieve safety. This helps him or her to not only survive, but also to handle the event calmly and confidently. At the same time, automated technology can assist in dealing with the event and successfully resolving the problem.

In the aviation industry, an emergency situation is potentially fatal. An emergency has to be handled quickly and efficiently to avoid a disaster. A pilot who experiences an emergency has to control the situation either individually or with the help of the copilot or other crew members. If a copilot is present, the workload can be shared to reduce the stress and increase the performance. However, if a pilot is flying individually, then he or she has to use the available resources, including technology, to reach safety.

One example of an emergency in the aviation industry is engine failure. During such an event, a pilot must land at the nearest airport as soon as possible. However, this is only possible if an aircraft has several engines and only one has failed. In a smaller, single-engine aircraft, an engine failure would require a pilot to land in the nearest open area like a farm paddock or a sports field. With the loss of the only working engine, a pilot has no power source to keep flying and instead the aircraft’s gliding ability is used to reach the open area and safely land. A pilot practises such a scenario several times during training. Hence, in the event of a real emergency, the procedures are clearly known (Burian, Barshi, & Dismukes,

2005). However, other unanticipated situations might require a pilot to use every available resource and skill to respond to the situation.

Handling an emergency situation during flight requires the highest priority. This is because the number of options available might be limited. It also comes with an additional time challenge. An emergency might be unique and require a pilot to act quickly due to the limited time available (Burian et al., 2003). In the above example of a single-engine aircraft with engine failure, a pilot does not have the flexibility of a second landing attempt. Because the first attempt is the only chance to get the aircraft safely on the ground, prompt action is required. This might also present unique challenges as there might be limited open spaces in a populated area.

A pilot’s situational awareness, decision-making skills and workload have to be maintained and managed efficiently during an emergency. Any error could reduce the likelihood of attaining safety. Although an emergency situation might not have a prescribed solution, it is important to follow the basic flying principles (Schutte & Trujillo, 1996). This

94 includes flying an aircraft first and making sure that it is operated within its performance capabilities; navigating towards the intended location or destination; and communicating with others about the aircraft’s status.

By following the above strategy, a pilot can manage the situation more efficiently and reduce the potential number of mistakes he or she might make. Planning and managing the situation is also an important part of handling an emergency. With a highly automated cockpit, a pilot has the option to utilise it to her or his advantage. This can be done by getting additional information from the displays and spending time planning the actions (Johannsen

& Rouse, 1983). This increases the likelihood of a safe landing.

Reducing incidents and accidents is a high priority for human factors scientists. The aviation industry uses a secure and confidential incident reporting system to learn and keep a track of near misses and other events. One of the most popular examples is the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Aviation Safety Reporting System, NASA ASRS

(NASA, 1976; Reynard, 1986). This system has improved aviation safety by acting on previous incidents and preventing such events from happening again (Degani, Chappell, &

Hayes, 1991). The positive results obtained from this system have resulted in similar systems being incorporated into other industries (Wu, Pronovost, & Morlock, 2002).

Human factors scientists aiming to improve safety in the medical industry conduct research similar to that of the aviation industry (Barach & Small, 2000). The medical industry also utilises a similar method of reporting emergencies as the aviation industry, such as the

Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS). ICUSRS reports are also confidential and voluntary (Holzmueller et al., 2005), allowing the medical industry to improve safety by learning from past mistakes (Degani et al., 1991).

Handling an emergency situation properly and quickly is a very important skill for a pilot to master. Poor management of the situation could lead to an accident.

Aviation Accidents

An accident occurs when an emergency is not handled properly. Accidents can be a result of mistakes made by humans or machines. A person operating heavy machinery might lose control of the equipment due to brake failure and this could result in an accident.

Alternatively, she or he might lose control due to operating the machinery outside its recommended operating procedures.

Accidents can involve just an individual or several people. An example of an accident involving a single person is a motorist losing control of a car she or he is driving and crashing into a tree. An accident involving several people might include a motorist losing control of a car in the city centre and injuring others on the sidewalk.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB, 2015, para. 1) defines an aviation accident and an aviation incident as:

“An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.”

“An incident is an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations.”

As the definition states, an accident can lead to injuries or fatalities, and injuries can be serious or minor. An incident is not as serious, but still affects safety. Each country has its own aviation safety authority that aims to investigate incidents or accidents and reduce them in the future. These authorities and their investigation processes will not be discussed here, as it is outside the scope of this thesis.

Aviation accidents and incidents can be a result of several factors (Aeronautica Civil of the Republic of Columbia, 1996). Human error is one of the biggest reasons (AOPA, 2006;

AOPA, 2010; Lenné, Ashby, & Fitzharris, 2008). This error could be made by many people, for example a pilot in the cockpit, an engineer maintaining an aircraft, or an air traffic controller. Finally, an error made by crew can also be detected and corrected before it results in an accident. Below are some examples of accidents and incidents that have resulted from human error. It is important to note that the accidents discussed below are a result of several

97 contributing factors, but for this brief discussion only the errors relevant to this thesis will be mentioned.

Air France flight AF 4590 (BEA, 2000) is an example of an accident caused by an error made by a maintenance engineer. This accident occurred on 25 July 2000 and involved a single Aerospatiale Concorde passenger aircraft (Figure 44). Continental Airlines flight CO

55 was also indirectly involved in this accident. The aircraft used by Continental Airlines was a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 passenger aircraft.

Figure 44: The Air France Aerospatiale Concorde aircraft involved in the July 2000 accident, photographed seven years prior to accident (Dallot, 1993).

The Concorde flight was schedule to fly from Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris, France, to John F Kennedy International Airport in New York, United States of

America. While taking off, the aircraft tyre ran over foreign object debris (FOD) on the runway. This resulted in a tyre blowout and caused a large piece of the tyre to hit and puncture the fuel tank. The ruptured fuel tank caught fire and caused the aircraft’s engine to fail. The pilots were unable to control the crippled aircraft and it crashed soon after take-off.

All crew and passengers on board the aircraft perished.

The accident was attributed to a number of causes. However, the main reason was that the aircraft ran over a metal strip that was on the runway. This FOD was left on the runway by a Continental Airlines DC-10 aircraft that took off from the same runway approximately five minutes earlier. The reason for the FOD being dropped on the runway by the DC-10 was attributed to poor maintenance.

The DC-10 was maintained approximately a month prior to this accident. The metal strip was incorrectly replaced on the DC-10’s engine. The strip was not installed according to the manufacturer’s specifications, which resulted in the metal strip breaking loose and falling on the runway on the day of the accident. If the maintenance engineer had made the correct decision and did not make the error, this accident would have been avoided.

The Überlingen midair collision (BFU, 2004) is an example of an accident caused by an air traffic controller’s error. This accident involved two aircraft that collided in midair while cruising at high altitude. It occurred on 1 July 2002 and involved Bashkirian Airlines

99 flight V9 2937 and Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn (DHL) flight QY 611. The Bashkirian Airline aircraft was a Tupolev Tu154 passenger aircraft, and the DHL aircraft was a Boeing 757-200 cargo aircraft (shown in Figure 45).

Figure 45: The DHL Boeing 757-200 aircraft that was involved in the July 2002 accident, photographed one month prior to the accident (Gladines, 2002).

The Bashkirian Airline flight originated from Domodedovo International Airport in

Moscow, Russia, and was flying to Barcelona International Airport in Barcelona, Spain. The

DHL flight was flying from Orio al Serio International Airport in Bergamo, Italy, to Brussels

International Airport in Brussels, Belgium. The two aircraft collided while flying towards their destination. They collided over the township of Überlingen in southern Germany.

100

The aircraft were at thirty-six thousand feet and flying towards each other. The air traffic controller noticed this problem at the last minute. The controller, whose workload was high, asked the Bashkirian Airline crew to descend to thirty-five thousand feet. Both aircraft had technology on board to prevent the accident, called the traffic collision avoidance system

(TCAS). While the controller asked the crew to descend to thirty-five thousand feet, the

TCAS instructed the crew to climb to a higher altitude. At the same time, the TCAS in the

DHL aircraft instructed the crew to descend to avoid a collision.

The DHL aircraft descended to a lower altitude. The Bashkirian Airline aircraft ignored the TCAS, and followed the air traffic controller’s instruction and also descended to a lower altitude. Both the aircraft descended to thirty-five thousand feet, where they collided.

There were no survivors as a result of this collision.

Although there were several factors involved in this accident, the error made by the air traffic controller was one of the biggest causes. If the controller had noticed the potential collision course of the two aircraft, he could have diverted one of them earlier. However, he did not notice the problem until it was too late. Not only was the controller’s workload high, his situational awareness was low. This resulted in poor decision making by him. The pilots could have also prevented this accident by following the instructions issued by TCAS.

However, they decided to follow the controller’s instruction instead. They also had a low level of awareness regarding the technology available in the cockpit.

101

Air France flight AF 447 (BEA, 2012) is an example of an accident caused due to an error made by the pilots. This accident involved a single aircraft, an Airbus A330-200 passenger aircraft, shown in Figure 46. It occurred on 1 June 2009.

Figure 46: The Air France Airbus A330-200 aircraft that was involved in the June 2009 accident, photographed five months prior to the accident (Balzer, 2009).

The aircraft was flying from Galeao International Airport in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to

Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris, France. The aircraft took off and was cruising towards the European destination. While in the cruise phase over the Atlantic Ocean, the aircraft experienced high altitude icing. This resulted in conflicting speed readings

102 between the pilot’s and copilot’s flight instruments. As a result, the autopilot was disconnected and the crew took control of the aircraft.

The crew exhibited poor situational awareness and decision-making skills. They did not understand the situation properly and applied the incorrect technique to handle it. Despite their experience, they did not follow the standard operating procedures outlined by the manufacturer in the case of inconsistency in the display of airspeed. The pilot flying the aircraft did not know that the aircraft was flying too slowly, and erroneously increased the pitch of the aircraft. This action resulted in a high-altitude stall. Moreover, when manual control was taken, the status of the trim setting was also not comprehended. Hence, the aircraft did not recover from the stall and everyone on board the aircraft perished.

This accident is also a good example of a pilot’s overdependence on automation.

Today all commercial passenger aircraft are fully automated and offer the autopilot.

Autopilot is used extensively by pilots while flying in a modern commercial aircraft. Only the take-off and landing phases are manually performed by a pilot. As a result, a pilot does not spend an extensive amount of time manually flying an aircraft in other phases of flight. A pilot spends most of the time monitoring the flight instruments and the autopilot. Such over- reliance on automation also has negative implications, one of which is the lack or degradation of manual flying skills. This was one of the main contributing factors in the Air France AF

447 accident.

103

Emirates flight EK 407 (ATSB, 2009) is an example of an incident that could have resulted in a major accident. However, in this scenario an error made by the pilot was discovered and preventative actions were taken. This incident involved a single aircraft, an

Airbus A340-500 passenger aircraft, shown in Figure 47. It occurred on 20 March 2009.

Figure 47: The Emirates Airbus A340-500 aircraft that was involved in the March 2009 incident, photographed at Tullamarine after the incident (Canciani, 2009).

The flight was scheduled to fly from Melbourne Tullamarine International Airport,

Australia, to Dubai International Airport, United Arab Emirates. The aircraft experienced difficulty during the take-off phase, as an incorrect amount of thrust was used. This was a result of pilot error. The total weight of the aircraft was entered erroneously in the flight

104 management system during the pre-push-back preparations. This incorrect entry was not detected by either crew members prior to the take-off phase. However, the error was detected and rectified while rolling on the runway during the take-off phase.

During the take-off phase, the captain noticed the situation and applied maximum power immediately. This helped the aircraft get airborne, but it incurred damage from a tail strike. Figure 47 shows the section of the aircraft where the damage occurred. The aircraft made it back to the airport safely and no one was hurt. This incident is an example of the pilot being aware of the situation and promptly making the correct decision to attain safety.

This incident is also an example of improper usage and understanding of the automation, which was poorly managed. An automated aircraft requires a lot of time to be spent on systems management. One of the biggest tasks in an automated aircraft is entering data into the flight management system (FMS), one of the main components of a modern aircraft. The FMS helps a pilot manage the flight path, autopilot, auto throttle, etc. Accurate entry of data into the FMS is important for the safety of the flight. In the Emirates EK 407 incident, the data was not entered correctly, and the weight that was entered was 100 tonnes too low. As a result, the FMS calculated and recommended a lower thrust for take-off.

The above examples provide an insight into how incidents or accidents have resulted from human error in the aviation industry. Such errors can be made due to many factors, such as a lack of situational awareness, poor decision making, and lack of automation understanding.

105

Human Error

Aviation safety authorities around the world collect data on accidents and incidents, to investigate the cause of each in an attempt to avoid a similar event in future (NTSB, 2015;

Wells, 2001; Helmreich, 2000). Each of the above-mentioned events has been investigated by the relevant safety organisations, and a report has been prepared on each, detailing the causes and steps to prevent such occurrences from happening again.

Although a pilot is a highly skilled and trained individual, she or he can still make errors by failing to pay attention to the available information. This information can be displayed on the flight instruments in the cockpit, offered by cues in the outside world, or communicated by other crew members. It is also possible to make mistakes by skipping or forgetting to complete all the steps in the checklist. Finally, a pilot can perform an action and the outcome might not be as expected, resulting in a decision-making error (Endsley, 1995a;

Sarter & Alexander, 2000; Endsley & Rodgers, 1994).

Errors are not always a result of pilot incompetence. Instead, they could be a consequence of the threats in the operational environment. Errors made by a pilot could be due to the time pressure that he or she is placed under, unexpected malfunctions with the aircraft, or a mistake made by another human outside the aircraft (Helmreich & Anca, 2010).

106

As discussed in the previous section, human error is one of the main causes of aviation accidents. It is estimated that three in every four accidents are caused by human error

(Sarter & Alexander, 2000); that is, 70% to 80% of all aviation accidents are caused by mistakes or errors made by humans. It is not possible to expect humans to not make any mistakes (Shappell & Wiegmann, 1997). Instead, it is important to attempt to reduce the number of errors made by humans (Garland, Wise, & Hopkin, 2010; Green, 1996).

This requires aircraft manufacturers, commercial airlines and government agencies to support and encourage a pilot to recognise and reduce his or her error rate (Sarter &

Alexander, 2000). Instead of blaming a pilot for making mistakes, it is important to help him or her understand human limitations (Dekker, 2012). Apart from focusing just on a pilot, the operations in the entire aviation industry need to be studied. This will help to understand all the operational threats that can potentially cause pilot error. It will also allow a pilot to improve his or her performance, which will increase the safety of the aviation industry

(Helmreich & Davies, 2004).

In particular, it is important to understand the potential problems that can arise when there is a change introduced in the aviation industry. Introducing change in any industry can be challenging. Change is introduced for several reasons. It can be either necessary or voluntary. Typically, systems and procedures are changed to enhance existing products and services. However, this comes with initial drawbacks and difficulties (Hayes, 2014).

107

It takes time to reap the benefits of introducing a change, particularly a major change.

During this period, it is important to ensure that the current tasks are being performed flawlessly. Change requires dedication by the users and supervisors for successful execution.

Finally, it requires additional work on top of the existing load to cope with and manage the change (Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005).

It is important for everyone to accept and positively implement the change. This is particularly important for supervisors (Aladwani, 2001). Managing change efficiently is vital and poor management can result in resistance from users (Waddell & Sohal, 1998), which can result in a failure to incorporate the change. Research conducted to understand the effects of change helps in successful management (Todnem, 2005; Kramer & Magee, 1990). Such research describes the theory behind change management. For example, they mention the different types of change and offer strategies to successful implementation.

Training is an important part of implementing a change in any industry (Hayes, 2014).

In the aviation industry, proper training helps a pilot to cope with the change efficiently and maintain safe flying skills. Improper training can result in unwanted incidents or accidents.

The challenges of introducing a change are especially emphasised during an emergency. This can be highlighted with an example of an accident from the aviation industry.

British Midlands flight BD 92 (AAIB, 1990) is an example of an accident that was caused by a lack of transition training. This accident, also known as the Kegworth accident, occurred on the 8 January 1989. It involved a single aircraft, a Boeing 737-400.

108

The aircraft was scheduled to fly from Heathrow International Airport in London,

United Kingdom, to Belfast International Airport in Belfast, United Kingdom. While en route, the aircraft suffered a mechanical failure, which also resulted in the cabin being filled with smoke through the air conditioner unit. The aircraft diverted to Kegworth in

Leicestershire, United Kingdom, to execute an emergency landing.

While diverting to Kegworth, the crew diagnosed the problem and tried to manage it.

The crew were not aware of the situation that unfolded, they used the wrong mental models to handle it, and made incorrect decisions as a result. They tackled the problem with their knowledge of the previous type of aircraft that they were used to.

In order to prevent the cabin being filled with smoke, the crew shut down the right- hand engine, where they thought the air conditioner unit was installed. However, the crew was flying a new type of aircraft, which included a different air conditioning system. As such, the crew shut down the only working engine. Unaware of the aircraft’s status, the crew also pumped fuel into the malfunctioning engine, which caused further deterioration in the situation. The aircraft was unable to safely reach the airport it was diverted to, and it crashed only half a kilometre from the runway. More than a third of the passengers died and over half were seriously injured.

This accident is a good example of pilot error made because of a change in information layout and poor training. Flight simulator training is provided to a pilot when she

109 or he transitions from one type of aircraft to another. This helps a pilot learn the similarities and differences in the new type of aircraft. The crew that were involved in the Kegworth accident were not provided with any simulator training. Hence, they were not familiar with the 737-400 aircraft’s systems and instruments and they used their knowledge and skills from the 737-300 aircraft to manage the emergency situation.

There are substantial differences between the aircraft. The engine instruments use different methods to provide information to the pilots. Whereas the 300 series has big needles inside the instrument, the 400 series includes a smaller light-emitting diode (LED) indicator to show the engine’s vibration. This resulted in difficulty obtaining information. The 300 series also has an unreliable vibration indicator, whereas the 400 series includes reliable indicators. However, the pilots were unaware of this enhancement due to their inadequate training. Despite the improvements made in the newer 400 series aircraft, the pilots exhibited poor situational awareness and decision making due to lack of transition training. This resulted in improperly managing an event that could have resulted in a safe landing if the single working engine been used.

The above accident highlights the importance of training when making a transition from one type of aircraft to another. The differences between the two types of aircraft were not significant. However, even such small modifications resulted in a major disaster. This accident shows that a small change in instrument display and information layout is very important to understand, and pilots must be educated about it. If a small change needs to be studied, then a bigger change needs extensive research to understand the human factors implications.

110

Cockpit Transition

When the modern glass cockpit was introduced in the aviation industry, it was a revolutionary change. This required considerable research and understanding of the new cockpit technology to ensure successful implementation. For example, one of the challenges a pilot faced after transition was being unaware of what the automation was doing in the background. This problem was understood through research, and it was suggested that a pilot be given regular feedback by the automation to help her or him be aware of the automation status (Woods & Cook, 2002). A pilot was also offered training before making a transition from an analogue cockpit aircraft to an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit.

Today, pilots in the aviation industry are making a new kind of transition. As mentioned in Chapter 1, more pilots are making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit aircraft. Due to the differences in instrument displays and information layout, a pilot’s ability to scan and acquire information from the two types of cockpit can be different. As discussed in the previous section, acquiring information forms the basis of safe flying skills. It builds a pilot’s situational awareness and allows him or her to make good decisions and perform appropriate actions.

Understanding a pilot’s attention strategies is very important. This is because if a pilot does not pay attention to the available information, he or she can make mistakes. A survey conducted in 1996 showed that approximately three-quarters of the situational awareness

111 errors made by a pilot were due to a failure to monitor and obtain data from the instruments and the outside world (Jones & Endsley, 1996). In other words, this is a failure at the first level of situational awareness. Regular attention or scanning of available information is a vital skill a pilot has to learn and maintain to safely fly an aircraft.

Regular monitoring is an active process that all pilots have to perform, and it can be easily hindered. A disruption, such as from a conversation with another crew member or a warning light flashing, can affect the way a pilot monitors the instruments and the outside world following the distraction (Debroise, 2010; Flight Safety Foundation, 2014). This can also affect a pilot who makes a transition between cockpit types. A disruption in scanning patterns in an unfamiliar analogue cockpit could make it even more challenging to regain.

The modern glass cockpit is highly advanced and automated, which makes a pilot rely extensively on the automation. This results in him or her not monitoring the instruments regularly (Skitka, Mosier, Burdick, & Rosenblatt, 2000). As a result, whether flying individually or with a copilot, a pilot fails to obtain the information from the automated instruments. On the other hand, research also suggests that recent experience with automation helps reduce the number of errors that result from lack of information acquisition (Fennell,

Sherry, Roberts, & Feary, 2006).

The above research suggests that recent experience in a glass cockpit helps with improving a pilot’s scanning strategies. However, it is also important to note that extensive experience in a glass cockpit could introduce complacency. Complacent behaviour can be

112 overcome by introducing adaptive automation (Di Nocera, Camilli, & Terenzi, 2007). This technology allows the pilot to control the level of automation, so that automation does not complete all the tasks. This allows her or him to be actively involved in the flying process.

Such technology can also assist in the transition to an analogue cockpit, because a pilot will be able to perform certain tasks by controlling the level of automation in a glass cockpit.

Hence, when she or he makes a transition to an analogue cockpit, their flying performance will not suffer due to over-reliance on automation.

As discussed, obtaining and maintaining a good level of situational awareness lays the foundation of safe flying skills. Situational awareness is achieved by acquiring information from all the available sources. One of the sources is the flight instruments. As a result, when there is a change in the instrument display, it is important to study and understand how it affects a pilot’s information acquisition. The results of such research will help in providing recommendations to a pilot who is making a transition to a different type of cockpit, and will ensure that her or his scanning patterns are not affected in the new type of cockpit.

Achieving situational awareness helps a pilot to make appropriate decisions and perform actions in a timely manner. This will also help a pilot to manage workload efficiently. Proper decision making will ensure that a pilot does not make any unwanted mistakes. At the same time, if an error has been made by a pilot or someone else, she or he will have spare workload capacity to deal with the situation. This will ensure that any unexpected events are handled quickly and disasters are avoided.

113

When making a transition from a glass cockpit aircraft to an analogue cockpit, a pilot’s decision-making skills and workload are affected. A glass cockpit offers a much higher level of situational awareness, due to the immense amount of information that is presented on the instruments. As a result, a pilot is able to make quick decisions which are backed up with an enormous amount of information. This detailed information also reduces a pilot’s workload in a glass cockpit. However, an analogue cockpit does not offer the same amount of information. As a result, a pilot’s performance can be affected by the lack of the information in an analogue cockpit.

The next section will discuss the performance differences when there is a change in the instrument display and information layout in an aircraft’s cockpit.

114

Human Factors Issues Arising Due to Cockpit Transition

Flying requires a pilot to learn and develop several complex skills, including physical skills, mental skills, emotional skills and interpersonal skills. Flying is more than just the ability to control an aircraft using the yoke and the rudder (ECA, 2013).

The skills required to fly an aircraft can be divided into two main categories: technical skills and non-technical skills. The technical skills include a pilot’s ability to manually fly an aircraft using the flight controls in the cockpit. The non-technical skills include a pilot’s ability to acquire information, to understand and use that information to make decisions, to manage workload, to communicate with others, etc. Therefore, a pilot’s performance can be judged by studying her or his technical skills and/or non-technical skills.

Aviation human factors scientists design cockpits to provide a pilot with the best environment while flying (Jensen, 1997) and to be intuitive, with the best instrument display and flight control layout. This allows a pilot to easily fly an aircraft an also helps in faster transition between different cockpit types. At the same time, it is beneficial in case of an emergency.

In the event of an unexpected problem in the cockpit, such as an electrical failure in an automated glass cockpit, a pilot can still manually fly the aircraft. She or he can remember the basic skills of flying that were learnt during flight training and can maintain safety

115

(Roscoe, 1980). In such a scenario, a pilot can gather information from other available sources to safely fly the aircraft. This can include judging the power setting by listening to the sound of the engine.

It is possible to safely fly a general aviation aircraft just by listening to the sound of the engine. This skill is still taught by many flight training schools, so that in the case of instrument failures a pilot can still safely fly.

Flight instruments offer a good source of information to a pilot, and instrument failure is a rare event. Hence, good instrument display is vital to aircraft manufacturers and pilots alike. Literature suggests that the attitude indicator is one of the most important instruments in the cockpit (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig, Anders, &

Tautz, 1999). This instrument shows the orientation of an aircraft in relation to the outside world, as described previously in this chapter. This information can be provided as an inside- out display or an outside-in display. Inside-out display keeps the artificial aircraft in the attitude indicator fixed, while the artificial horizon moves when an aircraft is turning or climbing. Outside-in display keeps the artificial horizon fixed, while the artificial aircraft moves to indicate pitch or roll changes.

Studies comparing the two types of displays show that pilots maintained the highest level of situational awareness when the outside-in display was used (Andre, Wickens, &

Moorman, 1991). This is because the information presented in the outside-in attitude indicator is more natural to comprehend. It is a more accurate representation of what is

116 happening in the real world, because the aircraft is pitching and rolling rather than the horizon. However, a third type of attitude indicator display called the arc-segmented attitude reference (ASAR), which is mainly used in military aviation, results in the highest pilot performance. A study comparing unusual attitude (UA) recovery in all three types of attitude display showed that pilots recovered from UA fastest when using ASAR (Self, Breun, Feldt,

Perry, & Ercoline, 2003).

Information laid out in the most accessible configuration on the instruments improves safety and allows for quick acquisition. This is true for low-hour general aviation pilots and for experienced commercial aviation pilots. For example, it is important to have a good understanding of the weather while flying. For a low-hour general aviation pilot, in the event of a change in the weather and reduction in visibility in the outside world it is imperative to find the nearest airport and land. In commercial flight, instruments help in continuing the flight safely in deteriorating weather.

The modern glass cockpit provides aircraft manufacturers with the ability to present information in many ways, such as using text, graphical overlay on maps, and aural methods.

A study comparing graphical format, text format and a combination of both formats was conducted by O’Hare and Waite (2012). This research revealed that pilots were able to recall the highest amount of weather-related information when they used the combination of both displays. However, due to the greater amount of information provided by the combined display, it also took the pilots more time to acquire the information.

117

Another study by William (2001) found similar results. Weather information was displayed either in graphical format or text format. It revealed the graphical display to be a better way to display information. In deteriorating weather conditions, pilots were able to find the nearest airport fastest when the graphical display was used. There was also an improvement in pilots’ performance when the map was displayed with geographical north facing the top of the display. However, Olmos, Liang and Wickens (1997) suggested that, while flying cross-country, the map displayed with an aircraft pointing towards the top of the display resulted in the best performance. This display, also known as track-up display, helped a pilot maintain the highest level of navigational situational awareness. Hence, proper information layout is vital to achieving the best flying performance.

The above research comparison shows that just changing one instrument display or laying out the information in a different manner can affect a pilot’s performance. Hence, it is even more important to understand how the performance is affected when the entire cockpit is changed, when the instrument display and information layout can be very different.

Technology makes it easy to design, modify and evolve flight instruments. It is possible to provide a pilot with a lot of information by incorporating it into the instruments.

This additional information improves a pilot’s situational awareness, decision making, workload, etc. For example, a pilot has the highest level of awareness of the traffic around an aircraft when he or she is provided with the information on instrument displays. Research by

Strybel, Vu, Battiste and Johnson (2013) showed that a pilot was able to maintain adequate traffic separation when she or he was aware of the traffic around the aircraft.

118

Military aircraft offer a head up display (HUD), which takes advantage of technology and improves a pilot’s performance. Some civilian aircraft also offer a similar display. The

HUD provides the ability to fly in poor conditions and land an aircraft even when visibility is below the prescribed minimums (Kramer, Bailey, & Prinzel, 2009). The inclusion of outside visual cues, such as terrain, in the form of a synthetic vision on the HUD offers great benefits

(Snow & French, 2002). It allows for better navigation and improves a pilot’s decision making, particularly during the landing phase.

The HUD allows a pilot to maintain a higher level of situational awareness during critical phases of flight (Goteman, Smith, & Dekker, 2007). This is achieved because a pilot can be aware of the important flight parameters and can also easily scan the outside world.

This reduces workload, as the information can be quickly acquired just by looking at one instrument. However, this does raise other human factors issues. For example, it might be challenging for a pilot to focus on the outside world at decision height (Kramer et al., 2009;

Goteman et al., 2007), and she or he might pay more attention to the instrument than to obtaining cues from outside. Although this technology is not available in the general aviation industry, it is a possible solution for the future.

Introducing a new instrument display, changing the information layout or offering additional information can have a significant impact on a pilot’s performance. This impact can be positive or negative. The highway-in-the-sky (HITS) display is a novel way of providing navigational flight information on the PFD in a glass cockpit. This is similar to the

119 synthetic vision in HUD. HITS provides an artificial flight path in the PFD and helps a pilot navigate between two points. Although this display positively improves navigational awareness, it can have a negative impact on the acquisition of other information. One of the major effects of this display is on the amount of time a pilot spends looking outside. Looking outside is very important, as it helps a pilot observe traffic, terrain, weather, etc. A study by

Williams (2002) found that a pilot who over-relies on HITS has a lower level of situational awareness of the primary flight information, like airspeed and altitude. This shows that, although a pilot can maintain good situational awareness in one aspect of the flight information, he or she might lack awareness of other vital information.

Displays such as the HITS and the HUD are developed to provide extra information and to increase a pilot’s performance. This is particularly true when the visibility in the outside world is poor. However, as the above research shows, introducing a new display can also have negative effects. A pilot might become fixated, or focus all of his or her attention, on a display rather than seeing the overall big picture (Endsley & Strauch, 1997). This is particularly true in a glass cockpit, where the digital displays are made visually appealing and attention capturing (Andraši, Novak, & Bucak, 2016). In a similar way, the information presented on the display can also be time consuming to obtain. For example, a glass cockpit uses a pages format to display all the information (Curtis et al., 2010). It is therefore possible that a pilot might spend a lot of time searching for the information she or he is looking for

(Hamblin et al., 2006). It is important that a pilot acquires information from all the sources regularly to help her or him maintain safe flying skills. The above-mentioned features of a glass cockpit make it considerably different to an analogue cockpit.

120

The glass cockpit was introduced into commercial passenger jet aircraft in the 1970s.

Since then it has become a standard option for instrument display in the commercial passenger jet aircraft. Consequently, many pilots made a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit aircraft, and pilots who flew in an analogue cockpit had to be trained to use and manage the sophisticated glass cockpit. This training was necessary as a glass cockpit provided several new features that had to be learnt before being used. An example of these features is the autopilot mode awareness (Sweet, 1995; Wiener, 1989).

The complex autopilot included in a glass cockpit offers several autopilot modes, and choosing the correct mode depends on the phase of the flight. A wrong selection could lead to an incident or an accident. Incorrect mode selection was one of the reasons for the Asiana

Flight 214 accident (NTSB, 2014). Another major issue faced by a pilot in a glass cockpit is the awareness of what the autopilot is doing. The computerised nature of the autopilot allows it to complete the entire flight without any input from a pilot. This raises issues, as a pilot can be unaware of the autopilot status and can be surprised when he or she gets unexpected results from the automation (Sarter & Woods, 1994, 1995, 1997). As a result, it is important that a pilot not only knows how to use the glass cockpit, but also when to use it. This helps him or her utilise a glass cockpit in the most efficient manner. Such challenges are not only present in commercial airlines, they can also be an issue in general aviation and can affect student pilots.

The advances in technology and the popularity of the glass cockpit have made it a standard option for any new aircraft purchased today. This is true even in the general aviation

121 and the recreational aviation industry. Due to the ease of availability, it is also being used for training ab initio pilots (AOPA, 2005).

Universities in the USA are incorporating glass-cockpit-equipped aircraft into their training fleet, replacing the older aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit. As an alternative to purchasing new aircraft, a cost-effective method is to retrofit older aircraft with a glass cockpit. Younger pilots welcome this transition more than older pilots, because a glass cockpit uses computer technology, which the younger generation has grown up with (Smith,

2008; McDermott & Smith, 2006). In recent years, glass cockpit aircraft have also been incorporated into flight training schools in other parts of the world. This includes Australia, where most large flight training schools’ aircraft fleets comprise only glass-cockpit-equipped aircraft (CAE Oxford Aviation Academy, 2014).

Government agencies and industries are developing training programs to properly utilise the modern glass cockpit (Dornan, Craig, Gossett, & Beckman, 2004). As mentioned, flying in a glass cockpit requires a pilot to learn new skills that are independent of, and additional to, any previous experience a pilot has in an analogue cockpit (Hamblin, Gilmore,

& Chaparro, 2006). The manual flying skills required in an analogue cockpit aircraft and a glass cockpit aircraft are the same; the differences are in the cognitive skills needed. This is because a pilot has to learn how to manage and utilise the advanced functionality of a glass cockpit (NTSB, 2010a).

122

Today, a pilot can obtain his or her licence by completing all the flight training in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. He or she might not come across an analogue cockpit aircraft during training. There are no regulatory requirements that require a pilot to spend a certain number of hours in each type of cockpit while learning to fly. There are also no restrictions on the type of cockpit a pilot flies in after obtaining his or her licence (FAA,

2011). As a result, a pilot can learn to fly in a modern aircraft equipped with an advanced automated glass cockpit and, after obtaining a licence, can fly in an older aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit. This transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit raises several human factors issues which require further study by researchers (Wright & O’Hare,

2015).

A pilot must be aware of differences in information layout on the instrument displays.

She or he must be trained to properly acquire information from an unfamiliar or new display.

As the above discussion shows, changing only one instrument display, changing the information layout, or adding a new instrument can impact a pilot’s performance. This is also highlighted in the British Midlands accident (AAIB, 1990), as discussed in the previous section. As such, training is especially necessary when the entire cockpit has changed.

A pilot making a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit might experience an initial reduction in performance (Chidester, Hackworth, & Knecht, 2007), as he or she experiences a higher level of workload and a lower level of situational awareness. This decrease in performance can be overcome by training (Casner, 2003).

123

A survey conducted by McCracken (2011) compared results of a flight test conducted in a glass cockpit following a test in an analogue cockpit. The results revealed that almost half of the students found a glass cockpit to be more difficult to fly in than an analogue cockpit. Results from Wright and O’Hare’s (2015) study revealed a similar trend. Subjects with no prior flying experience were tested on their performance between the two types of cockpit. Results showed a consistently poorer performance in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit, with flight parameter deviations higher in a glass cockpit than an analogue cockpit. Despite the poorer performance, a glass cockpit was preferred over an analogue cockpit. However, a survey of commercial passenger jet aircraft revealed that most altitude deviations were detected in a glass cockpit (Degani et al., 1991).

The results from the above studies reveal an interesting and important point: pilots who were not trained to fly in a glass-cockpit-equipped aircraft failed to perform well, but airline pilots who were experienced in flying glass cockpits performed considerably better.

Although it offers many benefits and is preferred among pilots, a glass cockpit requires a pilot to be trained in its use (Chidester et al., 2007). Proper training is essential, and helps a pilot reap its benefits. Airline pilots who were trained to use a glass cockpit indicated that they use the automated glass cockpit because of the benefits it offers (Curry, 1985). Good training is not only important for qualified pilots, it is also important for a student pilot who is learning to fly in a glass cockpit aircraft (McCracken, 2011) and for anyone who is making a transition between cockpit types.

When making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit, a pilot has to preserve his or her technical and non-technical skills. Technical skills can be easy to transfer,

124 because the flight controls are generally in the same location and layout in both types of cockpit. However, the non-technical skills can be more challenging to transfer. Failure to properly transfer the non-technical skills can also negatively impact the technical skills after the transition (Boehm-Davis, Holt, & Seamster, 2001; O’Connor, Flin, & Fletcher, 2002).

Utilising a glass cockpit aircraft to train a pilot has its challenges and promises. A preliminary report from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation (AOPA, 2005) revealed that one of the reasons for accidents in a glass cockpit aircraft is the lower amount of time spent in them.

This could also be a result of a glass cockpit aircraft not being around for many years, which was true at the time the report was published. Another document showed that fatality rates for low-hour pilots in a glass cockpit aircraft were higher than in an analogue cockpit aircraft

(AOPA, 2007). Once again, it is important to note that these are initial conclusions. In addition, comparison between accidents in glass cockpit and analogue cockpit aircraft is challenging, as accident reports in general aviation might not state the cockpit type at the time of the report. It is expected that this information will be added to accident reports, which will make future comparisons easier.

A general aviation pilot also prefers a glass cockpit over an analogue cockpit, as mentioned earlier. She or he understands the challenges that can be faced in a glass cockpit

(Casner, 2008). To attain the benefits offered by a glass cockpit, it is important that a pilot learns and understands how to use the modern technology. This will help a pilot maintain high levels of safety while flying (Fiduccia et al., 2003). Likewise, a student pilot who is learning to fly in the advanced glass cockpit can achieve high levels of safety through proper training (AOPA, 2005; Dahlstrom, Dekker, & Nahlinder, 2006). This is crucial, as a pilot

125 uses different mental models when flying in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit (Sarter

& Woods, 1994; Sarter et al., 2003; Baxter, Besnard, & Riley, 2007; Hamblin et al., 2006).

Learning to fly is different in a glass cockpit compared to an analogue cockpit, due to the different instrument display and information layout. As already mentioned, a student pilot is provided with an immense amount of information. A flight instructor can take advantage of this and teach a student pilot advanced navigational skills during the introductory lessons.

These advanced skills are normally taught later in the flying syllabus. If a flight instructor does offer these lessons early in the syllabus, then it increases the workload of a student pilot initially, but they benefit with a lower workload later in their training (Craig, Bertrand,

Dornan, Gossett, & Thorsby, 2005). As such, proper syllabus development is also vital.

A glass cockpit offers enormous functionality. One of them is the large moving map display, which can make the navigational task easy. A pilot can also over-depend on the automation in visual flight rules (VFR) conditions (Casner, 2005). A subsequent study revealed that a pilot who is actively involved in the navigational task has a higher level of awareness; this is achieved by crosschecking the navigational information on the display with the landmarks in the outside world (Casner, 2006).

In an analogue cockpit, a pilot does not have a large moving map display. As such, a pilot’s performance can be affected after making a transition. For example, cross-country navigation requires a pilot to be aware of the aircraft’s location. Without the moving map display, a pilot’s navigational awareness might be reduced. However, performing a minimal

126 task like crosschecking navigational information with a map can make it easier for a pilot to transition to an analogue cockpit (Casner, 2006). This is because the reduced level of information will be substituted by a pilot’s active involvement.

A pilot who transitions between the types of cockpit encounters different instrument display and information layout, which has an effect on her or his scanning pattern (Hayashi,

Oman, & Zuschlag, 2003; Hayashi, 2003). Understanding a pilot’s scanning pattern is vital as it lays the foundation of safe flying skills, and proper scanning patterns help him or her acquire the information to make appropriate decisions and reduce error.

Flying in instrument conditions requires a pilot to maintain a good scanning pattern

(Tole & Harris, 1987). The instruments have to be regularly scanned to maintain situational awareness. One of the reasons for the importance of an effective scan is the lack of outside cues. The complexity of flying in such conditions requires a pilot to perfect basic flying skills before starting this advanced training.

The difference between instrument conditions and visual conditions lies in a pilot’s non-technical skills, not in the technical skills (English, 2012). This is only true when a pilot is flying in the same type of cockpit in both conditions, although technical skills can also be affected when a pilot is making a transition between cockpit types (Lindo, Deaton, Cain, &

Lang, 2012). Consequently, it is important to examine and understand a pilot’s scanning patterns when making a transition.

127

In visual flying conditions, a pilot can safely fly an aircraft by scanning the instruments and using the cues from the outside world. The instruments scanned by a pilot in visual conditions can depend on the phase of flight. For example, the airspeed indicator is one of the most important instruments scanned during the take-off phase, whereas the altitude and heading indicator also have to be scanned in the cruise phase.

In instrument flying conditions, a glass cockpit offers the benefit of improved performance by using the moving map. This can be a challenge initially, which can be overcome through practice (Casner, 2004). A pilot flying in instrument conditions has to land an aircraft using the instrument landing system (ILS landing). While flying in an automated glass cockpit aircraft, a pilot can use the autopilot to fly the aircraft. The large map display also assists a pilot while landing the aircraft. A pilot who makes a transition to an analogue cockpit might not have the assistance of the autopilot or map display, meaning that she or he has to land the aircraft using manual flying skills.

Research suggests that using the automated glass cockpit reduces the ability to manually fly an aircraft (Young, Fanjoy, & Suckow, 2006). Similarly, Haslbeck and

Hoermann, (2016) showed that long-haul commercial pilots experience degradation in their manual flying skills. This is mainly due to the reduced amount of time spent manually flying an aircraft equipped with an automated glass cockpit. This also has implications for a pilot making a transition to an analogue cockpit, because an analogue cockpit aircraft does not have the same level of automation as a glass cockpit and a pilot will be required to use more manual flying skills. Hence, it could be an issue after the transition. However, this issue can

128 be overcome by regular manual flying during certain phases of flights, such as the landing phase (Curry, 1985).

Apart from manual flying skills, a pilot’s scanning pattern also differs between flying using automation or manual skills (Young et al., 2006). Spady (1978) showed that pilots use different scanning techniques when manually landing an aircraft compared to when landing with automation assistance. Therefore, a pilot’s scanning patterns might also be affected when transitioning to and flying in an analogue cockpit.

A pilot uses a specific scan path when flying in instrument conditions (Jones, 1985).

Four of the six primary instruments, also known as the ‘T’ instruments, are scanned regularly in instrument conditions. These instruments are the airspeed indicator, the attitude indicator, the altitude indicator and the heading indicator (Rinoie & Sunada, 2002). The attitude indicator is one of the main instruments that a pilot scans. A pilot begins his or her scan at the attitude indicator, then scans another instrument and returns back to the attitude indicator

(Pennington, 1979). This type of scanning pattern is called the ‘T’ scan path, and is commonly used in instrument flying conditions where the visibility in the outside world is very poor. As a result, a pilot only has the instruments to rely on to obtain information about the flight parameters. The ‘T’ layout of the primary flight instruments is similar in a glass and an analogue cockpit. However, the ‘T’ scan path was developed in an analogue cockpit.

There are no documented studies that compare the ‘T’ scan path between the two types of cockpit.

129

The above studies illustrate the difference in performance between pilots in the two types of cockpit when flying in visual and instrument conditions. However, the effects of making a transition between the two types of cockpit are emphasised during an abnormal or emergency situation.

There are many reasons for an aircraft to enter an abnormal situation. It could be due to a mechanical failure or pilot error, and errors can be made intentionally or unintentionally

(Dismukes, 2017). However, a pilot is less likely to take risks and make errors if he or she is aware of the outcome (Simpson & Wiggins, 1999). For example, a pilot is less likely to fly into bad weather after learning about accidents that were a result of such an action.

A study conducted on Airbus A320 pilots in a flight simulator showed that a pilot’s scanning pattern is affected when there is a malfunction (Van de Merwe, Van Dijk, & Zon,

2012). In this study, after a fuel leak was introduced the pilot’s attention shifted from the primary flight display and the navigational display to the electronic centralised aircraft monitoring display. This display received the most attention once the malfunction was introduced and this continued until it was resolved. Russi-Vigoya and Patterson (2015) also found that a pilot’s scanning pattern changes during an abnormal event or in poor visibility in the outside world. In addition, they indicated that proper training can help a pilot cope with such scenarios.

Training for such events can be conducted in a simulator. Chapter 3 discusses the skill transfer between a simulator and a real aircraft. Training in a personal computer simulator

130 and theory classes on unusual attitude recovery help a pilot to transfer their skills to a real aircraft and successfully recover from UA (Rogers, Boquet, Howell, & DeJohn, 2010). The information layout on the instruments also helps a pilot in recovery (Beringer & Ball, 2009;

Lee & Myung, 2013; Braithwaite et al., 1998). Results from these studies show that the attitude indicator is one of the main instruments that help in recovery, therefore this is an important instrument to scan when an aircraft is in or entering UA. Presenting the attitude information on the HUD also helps in recovery and can reduce the time taken to return to normal flight (Huber, 2006; Wickens, Self, Andre, Reynolds, & Small, 2007).

The attitude indicator is also one of the main flight instruments scanned during normal flight. As such, it is the subject of a lot of research and development. An example of different types of attitude indicator display was discussed in the beginning of this section.

The location of the attitude indicator is the same in the two types of cockpit, and the attitude information is also displayed in a similar manner. Despite the similarities in the attitude indicator, other instruments differ between the two types of cockpit. In particular, information is presented differently in the airspeed indicator and the altitude indicator. In an analogue cockpit, the information is displayed using a dial and a needle, and in a glass cockpit, the information is displayed using a tape and a number. Because of these differences, these instruments receive a lot of attention from researchers (Harris, 2004). The parameters provided by these instruments are vital for flight safety, and poor information layout can result in a pilot being unable to understand the information, which can lead to an incident

(ICAO, 1962; ICAO, 1959).

131

Hiremath, Proctor, Fanjoy, Feyen and Young (2009) exposed the challenges of UA recovery in a glass cockpit, with a study that concluded that recovery in a glass cockpit was slower than in an analogue cockpit. A pilot took longer during recovery to acquire and understand the airspeed and altitude information in a glass cockpit. It was easier to obtain and process the information in an analogue cockpit. This is because the analogue instruments provide the overall representation, whereas in a glass cockpit a pilot had to visualise the overall representation, as the tape displays do not show the full range of flight parameters

(Zhang, Johnson, Malin, & Smith, 2002; Gordon & Etherington, 2004). However, a tape display does offer realism by presenting the higher altitude at the top of the display and lower altitude at the bottom (Roscoe, 1968), which helps during a normal flight.

A study by Wesslen and Young (2011) showed similar results. During a normal flight, altitude was maintained best when flying in an analogue cockpit. Despite this, a glass cockpit was preferred over an analogue cockpit, which is similar to the conclusion of Wright and

O’Hare (2015). This also indicates a disassociation between the subjective preference and the objective performance of a pilot (Roberts, Gray, & Lesnik, 2016; Andre & Wickens, 1995).

As already discussed, flying skills can be divided into two main categories: objective performance, which includes the technical manual flying skills, and subjective preference, which includes the non-technical cognitive skills and even the opinions of a pilot.

A pilot transitioning between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit will encounter either a dial or a tape display in the instruments. Apart from the airspeed and altitude, even the system status instruments use a tape display in a glass cockpit. Tape display presents information using digits, compared to a dial display which points using a needle. The changes

132 in these displays result in a difference in information acquisition (Hosman & Mulder, 1997) and also require a different mental model from a pilot (Baxter et al., 2007; Hamblin et al.,

2006).

The tape display presents a major challenge, because it has continuous information fluctuations (Rolfe, 1965; Sanders & McCormick, 1993). For example, in the cruise phase an aircraft constantly experiences small changes in altitude. In a dial display, these small changes do not cause major variations on the instrument. However, in a tape display, any deviation in the altitude can change the information on the instrument. This can lead to misunderstanding or constant processing of information, and can also surprise a pilot who is not experienced in a glass cockpit. This requires a pilot to spend more time understanding the information acquired from a glass cockpit (Sanders & McCormick, 1993; Harris, 2004).

These differences highlight the importance of proper instrument display and information layout. A combination of dials and a numeric display can offer a better solution, as discussed earlier. It can also help in meeting the subjective preference and objective performance of a pilot (Curtis et al., 2010; Hiremath et al., 2009; O’Hare & Waite, 2012).

Studying and understanding a pilot’s performance in different types of cockpit is vital.

This is true for all aircraft types. The above literature shows that there is a difference in performance between different types of cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft. However, there are few studies that compare the performance of a fixed-wing aircraft and a rotary wing aircraft.

When considering rotary wing aircraft, most of the empirical research conducted on scanning

133 patterns has been in the military (Kirby, Kennedy & Yang, 2012; Barnes, 1972; Temme &

Still, 1996), and there is limited research on civilian rotary wing pilots.

A preliminary study conducted by Pingali, McMahon and Newman (2014) showed that, during autorotation, a pilot spends most of the time looking outside searching for a suitable place to land. Within the cockpit, a pilot mainly looks at the rotor revolutions per minute (rotor RPM). The instrument looked at second most often is the airspeed indicator.

These two instruments are vital for a successful landing after engine failure. For example, maintaining enough forward airspeed is crucial to reaching the chosen landing spot. Hence, these instruments are scanned regularly. The results also showed that, during autorotation, a pilot scans specific instruments to obtain the required information. This study provides an initial insight into the unique and different scanning patterns of a rotary wing pilot. For example, the rotor RPM instrument is only installed in helicopters. During normal and abnormal flight, it is important to scan this instrument regularly to ensure safe operations.

Because this instrument is not present in a fixed-wing aircraft, it is only incorporated into the scanning pattern of a rotary wing pilot.

Another study conducted by Pingali, McMahon and Newman (2015) reveals similar results for pilots who were performing unusual attitude recovery in a simulator. Most of the time was spent looking outside. The instrument that was scanned first during recovery was the attitude indicator. This instrument is important during recovery as it provides information about the aircraft’s pitch and roll. This instrument helps a pilot bring the aircraft back to normal flight. Hence it was scanned first, to obtain information about the aircraft’s status.

134

The results of this study are similar to the results of the fixed-wing UA recovery study mentioned earlier, which stressed the importance of the attitude indicator.

These initial rotary wing studies show the similarities and differences between the scanning patterns in the two types of aircraft. However, there are not enough empirical studies comparing a pilot’s scanning patterns between the two types of aircraft.

It is also important to note that the above-mentioned rotary wing studies were only conducted in an analogue cockpit. This is because the glass cockpit is still not a common feature in rotary wing aircraft. Nevertheless, comparing and understanding scanning patterns in fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft can be beneficial, partly because, although they are both analogue cockpits, some of the instruments in a rotary wing aircraft are unique to helicopters.

The aviation industry today has several types of aircraft. These vary in many aspects including size, capabilities, performance and features. One of the biggest variations is in the cockpit. As discussed, there are two main types of cockpit, an analogue cockpit and a glass cockpit. Within these cockpit types, it is common to have slight variations in instrument display between different aircraft. This raises human factors issues, as these differences could lead to variations in pilot performance.

135

The transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit was researched intensively to ensure a safe transition, as discussed in the literature review above. Similarly, it is also important to understand the transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit, because a pilot who transitions to an analogue cockpit can also experience several issues. For example, a pilot might not be familiar with the instrument display or the information layout, which can affect performance (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011; Lindo et al., 2012). It might also be hard to cope with the reduction from the immense amount of information that was present in the pages format in a glass cockpit (Curtis et al., 2010).

Literature also suggests that the transition to an analogue cockpit can be more challenging than the transition to a glass cockpit (Lindo et al., 2012). In a glass cockpit, it takes longer to understand the obtained information (Lindo et al., 2012; Hiremath et al., 2009;

Wesslen & Young, 2011; Harris & Christhilf, 1980), although this can be overcome through training (Wright & O’Hare, 2015). Similarly, it is necessary to find out what training can be implemented to make the analogue transition easier.

Due to the differences between the two cockpit types, a pilot’s scanning patterns can also be different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001; Van de Merwe et al., 2012). Hence, these patterns need to be further researched to understand how they are affected by a transition between cockpit types. Once again, results of such research can help train pilots to use the correct scanning patterns after making the transition.

136

Most new aircraft are equipped with a glass cockpit and many older aircraft are being retrofitted with a glass cockpit. However, there are still many aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit, therefore the transition to an analogue cockpit is an issue that needs to be studied by scientists (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011). Since this is a recent issue, few studies have been conducted to understand the human factors challenges when making this transition

(Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011).

The above literature highlights the differences in performance when making a transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit aircraft. The next section provides hypothetical examples of a pilot making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit and discusses the challenges that arise due to the transition.

137

Summary

Hypothetical Examples of Transition from a Glass Cockpit to an Analogue Cockpit

The transition from the new type of cockpit to the old type raises several human factors issues. This section discusses some hypothetical situations encountered by a pilot when making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. There are many reasons for a pilot to make such a transition, including employment, availability, financial, and aircraft ownership. These have been discussed in Chapter 1. One of the biggest reasons for making the transition is that most pilots are now trained in a glass cockpit, however, once they complete their training, not all pilots will continue to fly in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. This hypothetical section will consider a pilot who learns to fly in a glass cockpit aircraft and then makes a transition to an analogue cockpit aircraft.

The Cessna 172 is an aircraft commonly used for basic and advanced flight training, and has been used for training for several decades. The aircraft has evolved over time, although its overall structure has not changed. The main flight controls in the cockpit, such as the rudder, yoke and throttle controls, are in the same position. The main change is the way that flight instruments are displayed in the cockpit. Historically, this aircraft was equipped with an analogue instrument display. The modern aircraft is equipped with a glass instrument display. Most flight training schools that have recently upgraded or acquired new aircraft have a glass cockpit fleet. As a result, a pilot who learns to fly in a Cessna 172 aircraft encounters a high-level cockpit like the Garmin G1000 or equivalent, which is sophisticated

138 and complex. A pilot who learns to fly in an aircraft with this technology is provided with ample information. The information usage can depend on the type of flight and also the phase of flight.

A student pilot who is learning to control an aircraft and learning skills like climbing and turning may not find all the additional information very useful. She or he has to focus on the primary flight display and acquire the basic flight parameters, such as airspeed and altitude, to successfully complete a manoeuvre. While learning and practising circuit patterns, a pilot might benefit from the additional traffic information that is overlaid on the moving map display. This map display provides many features, including weather and terrain overlays, and detailed information about airports and airspace. This GPS display benefits a student pilot significantly during cross-country flying, because a pilot can create a flight plan that helps in navigation. This map provides information about the location of an aircraft and shows whether it is on track or off track. This information is also integrated into the attitude indicator and the heading indicator on the primary flight display. This helps a pilot to maintain a high level of situational awareness just by scanning the instruments on the primary flight display, which means that they are able to make decisions quickly and maintain a low level of workload.

After obtaining a pilot licence, a pilot might fly in an aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit, which will not have all the additional information that was offered in a glass cockpit. Apart from the lower level of information, the layout of information and the display of instruments are also different. This change can be challenging to a pilot, and might increase her or his workload. He or she might not be able to maintain the same level of

139 situational awareness in an analogue cockpit aircraft, and will have to work more to make decisions.

In a glass cockpit, a pilot could see traffic information on the instrument display. Such information is not available in an analogue cockpit. This information has to be supplemented by regular additional scanning of the outside world and listening to the air traffic on the radio.

While this scanning is also performed in a glass cockpit, the traffic display reduces the workload. Also, a pilot does not maintain the same level of situational awareness while flying cross-country in an analogue cockpit. The primary flight instruments no longer display the additional navigation information, and a pilot has to constantly scan the primary instruments and crosscheck with GPS or paper maps to maintain awareness of the flight path.

In good weather conditions, a pilot flying cross-country can scan for landmarks in the outside world while navigating. A pilot who transitions to an analogue cockpit can still navigate to the destination, by looking for landmarks and crosschecking it with paper maps.

This provides a pilot with additional information, which increases navigation situational awareness. However, this can only succeed if visibility outside an aircraft is good. In poor visibility conditions, such as in cloud cover, a pilot will not be able to acquire information from the outside world. A pilot flying in an analogue cockpit in such a situation might find it difficult to maintain navigation situational awareness. Airport information provided in a glass cockpit, such as navigational frequencies and elevations, has to be manually obtained and entered in an analogue cockpit. This increases the workload of a pilot in a situation that is already demanding.

140

A glass cockpit provides weather information that is overlaid on the moving map display. A low-hour pilot has to avoid bad weather while flying. This is not only a regulatory requirement but also a safety requirement. A pilot who transitions to an analogue cockpit has to monitor the weather by performing extra tasks, including listening to air traffic control, and manually calculating weather patterns based on the weather information obtained before flying. A glass cockpit offers the ease of looking at a display, whereas an analogue cockpit requires higher workload to make weather-related decisions. In an analogue cockpit, the extra work is necessary to ensure that a pilot does not fly into deteriorating weather.

This transition is particularly important to understand when a pilot encounters an emergency. Apart from the loss of information in an analogue cockpit, the layout of information is also different. For example, the altitude indicator and airspeed indicator are displayed as round dials rather than tape displays. This requires a pilot to process the information differently in an analogue cockpit. A pilot who is flying at a low speed or turning too steeply needs to carefully monitor the instruments. He or she also needs to know and comprehend the flight parameters, to ensure that an aircraft does not enter a stall or an unusual attitude. If an aircraft does enter an unusual attitude, then it is important that a pilot acquires the necessary information from the instruments to recover promptly. This is important as the outside-world cues for unusual attitude recovery might not always be available, for example, if a pilot is flying in a cloud. Hence, it is important that a pilot understands the instrument display and information layout in an analogue cockpit to avoid unnecessary incidents.

141

The above examples provide a glimpse of the challenges that a pilot might face when making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit.

Literature Gap

The literature discussed in this chapter highlights the importance of human factors in the aviation industry. A pilot needs to understand and use this knowledge to safely fly an aircraft. At the same time, scientists need to continue researching the human factors issues that pilots face while flying.

The literature shows that making a transition from one type of cockpit to another raises several human factors issues. Factors such as a pilot’s situational awareness, decision making and workload are affected by the type of cockpit they fly in. A pilot has to understand the instrument display and information layout to safely fly an aircraft.

When commercial passenger aircraft were being manufactured with a glass cockpit as a standard option, a pilot had to be trained before making the transition. A pilot was taught the skills to acquire information from a glass cockpit, and was taught how to manage the glass cockpit and utilise it efficiently. Without this training, a pilot was overwhelmed by the automated glass cockpit and had difficulty understanding the processes that a glass cockpit can perform. Sometimes a pilot was also surprised with the procedures a glass cockpit completed in the background, which reveals that a pilot felt out-of-the-loop in a glass cockpit

142 aircraft. Hence, training was necessary before making a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit.

Today the aviation industry is facing the opposite problem, and many pilots are making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. This transition has not been investigated in detail, because it is a recent issue. Only in the last decade did the transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit become a reality.

The hypothetical situations, explained in the previous section, show that a pilot who flies in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit can maintain a higher level of situational awareness and also have a lower level of workload. Once he or she makes a transition to an aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit, his or her performance is affected, situational awareness can be reduced, and workload can increase. Hence, there is an impact on the decision-making ability of a pilot. A pilot also uses different mental models when flying in a different type of cockpit. Ultimately, the real challenges of making the transition might be uncovered in an emergency scenario. As a result, it is important to recognise and study this transition to help future pilots make the transition easily.

This thesis examines the transition by conducting several experiments in a simulator.

An eye tracking device was used to collect objective data of where a pilot was looking while flying. Scanning patterns were compared between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit, to assess whether scanning patterns were different between the two cockpit types.

143

It is possible for a pilot to fly a small aircraft just by obtaining visual cues from the outside world. With good visibility and by listening to the sound of the engine, a pilot can successfully fly and navigate the aircraft. Hence, this thesis also compares how a pilot performs in poor visibility conditions that require him or her to rely only on the instruments.

If there were any challenges to acquiring information from the instruments in instrument conditions, they were highlighted.

Additionally, an abnormal scenario was introduced. This helped understand if a pilot was able to acquire information and recover similarly in both types of cockpit. In addition to the fixed-wing studies, this thesis also compared scanning patterns between a fixed-wing and a rotary wing aircraft.

The visual, instrument and abnormal experiments compared the scanning pattern between the two types of cockpit. The rotary and fixed-wing comparison was made in an analogue cockpit only. Because the analogue cockpits in the two types of aircraft have several differences, scanning patterns were compared.

The above experiments compared pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit, to assess whether she or he was able to scan the instruments similarly and obtain the necessary information. As discussed in the literature, obtaining the information from the available sources is the first step in maintaining good situational awareness. This allows a pilot to make good decisions, which results in efficient management of workload and a

144 reduced rate of error. As such, a pilot will fly safely and the chances of accidents will be minimal.

There are few studies that compare the performance between the two types of cockpit.

There are no studies that compare the scanning patterns of a pilot who is making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. Most of the comparison studies are based on subjective personal opinion.

Objective scientific data is required to understand the effects on the transition and prevent accidents (Haslbeck & Hoermann, 2016; Lindo et al., 2012; Whitehurst, 2014;

Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011, 2012; Wright & O’Hare, 2015). Understanding the scanning pattern is important as it shows how a pilot gathers information from a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. Proper information acquisition is a vital skill and lays the foundation for safe flying skills.

The transition from an advanced glass cockpit to a conventional analogue cockpit is a recent issue. Hence, there are few studies in this area. This thesis fills the gap in the literature by conducting the above-mentioned experiments. The aim of this thesis is to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

145

Chapter 3

Flight Simulator Overview and Usage

Introduction to Simulators

A simulator offers a replication of the real world. It provides an artificial imitation of a real-world system, either digitally or mechanically. This chapter will primarily focus on the digital computerised flight simulators used in the aviation industry.

Simulators are popular and commonly used as games. The improvements in computer technology have made advanced simulator software highly realistic and easily accessible. It is possible to acquire a simulator for almost any real-world system. Although simulators are essentially gaming technology, they can be used for several other purposes. These are discussed in the next section.

Simulators have several advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include their role in training and learning, which is particularly beneficial for a novice learning new skills.

Because simulators offer an alternative to real-world training, they help both novices and experts to learn how to use a system. It is also a cheaper and safer method of building experience than using a real-world system.

Apart from learning new skills, simulators are also helpful in maintaining proficiency.

This is particularly advantageous for pilots who are flying in a modern aircraft. The automation of a modern aircraft reduces the amount of time a pilot spends manually flying an aircraft. To ensure that manual flying skills do not decay, a pilot can spend time in simulators

147 practising these skills. These skills, also known as the technical skills, can be rehearsed and perfected in a simulator.

Apart from the manual flying skills, simulators are also beneficial to learning and maintaining non-technical skills. These skills are just as important as the technical skills.

Non-technical skills include management of the aircraft’s systems, interaction with other crew members, managing workload, and managing personal limitations such as fatigue.

While flying an aircraft, the workload varies during different phases of the flight, and simulators can help in planning and managing this workload. In addition to workload management, simulators also help in making decisions and executing actions. They assist in learning to acquire information from the appropriate sources and to maintain situational awareness. They are beneficial in learning the procedures and skills required in different phases of flight. Multi-crew skills and teamwork can also be learned and practised in simulators, which helps an individual learn crew resource management skills.

Despite the advantages offered by simulators, they are not accepted by everyone as a valuable tool. This is due to the disadvantages that might arise when using a simulator.

Spending too much time in a simulator can negatively affect the way a pilot behaves and interacts with the real-world system. A person might also behave differently in a simulator compared to the real-world system. In other words, a pilot might not be willing to engage with the simulated system in the same manner as he or she would with the real-world system.

This affects a pilot’s performance in a simulator. He or she might be willing to take a higher level of risk in a simulator rather than the real world, or might not follow procedures correctly in a simulator. For example, checklists may be ignored, or she or he might attempt

148 landing an aircraft even if it is in an undesired state, such as deploying the flaps despite the speed being too high.

A simulator might not offer an accurate representation of the real-world system, particularly with lower-end simulators. At the same time, higher-end simulators that offer a high level of realism tend to be very expensive, and smaller operators or individuals cannot afford to buy or even temporarily rent them. The cost depends on the complexity of the simulator. Flight simulators are developed and designed using computer software., which can be time consuming and challenging to design. On average, simulator software can have more than half a million lines of code and high-end simulator software can have over a million lines of code. This complex code provides more detail and realism. Running such software also requires high-end computer hardware to cope with the complexity, which further increases the cost. However, it is possible to purchase custom-built hardware and software to a specific budget.

It is important for a user to understand the advantages and disadvantages offered by a simulator. Proper use of flight simulators can outweigh the disadvantages and make it a valuable device. Effective use can help in attaining skills that can be transferred to real aircraft. Along with other benefits discussed above, this also increases the safety of the aviation industry. For example, a pilot can refer back to his or her simulator training when an unexpected situation is faced while flying in a real aircraft. This unfamiliar situation can be managed efficiently and effectively by recollecting the skills learnt in the simulator.

149

Examples of Simulators

Simulators are used in many industries, including transportation, education, medicine, mining, and space. They can be used for numerous purposes, including training, testing, development, analysis, mathematical prediction, engineering, education, entertainment, scientific modelling, and research. This section briefly discusses how simulators can be used in various industries for the above-mentioned purposes. As mentioned in the previous section, simulators offer a realistic replication of the real world, which helps in training and learning.

This is particularly beneficial for novices who can gain and understand new knowledge through practical simulated training. Simulators are the only way to train students in some industries. For example, astronaut training is conducted only in simulators, because it is not feasible to take new astronaut candidates into space to train them. Similar training is also conducted in other high-risk industries, such as the nuclear industry and law enforcement.

Military organisations regularly simulate war scenarios to train new soldiers. This simulation includes real people, although fake weapons are used to teach novice soldiers how to advance in the battlefield during combat. Such simulated training can be effective, as a novice soldier may be required to spend weeks in a remote area and this prepares him or her physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Apart from training students or novices, simulators are also used for regular testing.

Experts who work in a particular field can be regularly tested to ensure that their skill has not degraded and that they maintain proficiency. For example, airline cabin crew are regularly

150 tested on their evacuation skills. This ensures that they have not forgotten this vital skill and can evacuate an aircraft quickly during emergencies.

Simulators are used for developing and engineering new products. This offers a cost- effective alternative while designing a new product. New products, such as new car models, can be complex to design and develop. Using simulators to virtually engineer a new car is cheaper and more effective. All aspects of the new car can be engineered using the simulator, including aerodynamics, physical design, and interior layout. This allows for it to be easily modified and perfected before building a real-world car.

Aircraft manufacturing companies can also use simulators to virtually build new aircraft before building a real aircraft. This allows them to test various aspects of the new design, including aerodynamics, weight and balance, and fuel efficiency. It is also a cost- effective method of designing a new aircraft. Similarly, architects can use simulators to design a building before constructing the real building.

University students can use simulators for educational purposes. Students enrolled in a medical degree can use simulators to replicate various medical scenarios. Students can practise performing a surgery on a dummy patient. Alternatively, with the advancements of computer technology, this same surgery can be practised in a virtual reality simulator which offers even more realism. Such training prepares a student with practical, albeit simulated, experience. This also offers a more interactive education, educating the students while also preparing them for employment.

151

Simulators also offer casual entertainment to the general public. An example is allowing the general public to use high end flight simulators, which are the same as those used by airlines for training pilots. This not only offers entertainment to the public but also offers an insight into the airline industry. It allows a person to appreciate the complexity of flying a modern aircraft while enjoying being at the controls of an aircraft, in a flight simulator, for a period of time. As discussed in the introductory paragraphs, simulators are also commonly used as games which offer entertainment. Such games are often installed on personal computers and even mobile phones. Although such simulators offer entertainment, they can be poor quality.

Researchers use simulators for scientific modelling. Theoretical concepts can be practically understood by using simulators, and simulators provide a practical insight into theoretical ideas. Astronomers use simulators to understand several theoretical concepts, such as the merging of two galaxies. Such an event can take millions or billions of years to occur, but the process can be sped up and practically observed using simulation.

Meteorologists use simulators in a similar way to predict weather patterns over a period of time, using complex computer software that simulates the weather patterns. This software can predict the weather over the course of hours, days, weeks or years. It is also possible to plan for disasters using such simulations. For example, towns and cities can be evacuated if severe weather is expected in the area. Economists can also use simulators in a similar way, to predict the growth or decline of businesses using simulators.

152

Finally, simulators can be used for research purposes. This is one of the biggest uses of simulators in the scientific industry. In the transportation industry, car simulators can be used to study factors such as the effects of texting while driving or the effects of fatigue while driving at night. This helps scientists understand the behaviour of a person when encountering certain situations. Such behavioural studies can include measuring reaction times, stress and workload management, and situational awareness. Based on the results of those studies, recommendations can be made to improve road safety.

Simulators in the Transportation Industry

Simulators are extensively used in the transportation industry for all the purposes mentioned above. For example, government agencies use driving simulators to test the driving skills of a person. This allows a learner driver to demonstrate his or her driving skills in the safety of a simulator before getting behind the wheel of a real car. Similarly, train drivers and ship captains use simulators to learn and perfect their skills. The safety advantage offered by simulators makes them a preferred choice for training and/or testing, especially for a novice. This is because an operator can safely walk away even if she or he makes mistakes in the simulator, whereas in the real world a mistake might lead to an unwanted incident or a disaster. Hence, using simulators is beneficial, especially in a high-risk industry such as transportation.

153

This is predominantly true for the aviation industry. Operating an aircraft requires complex skills and knowledge that takes time for a pilot to learn. Student pilots use flight simulators to practise the skills required to become a pilot. Licensed pilots and experienced pilots use simulators to maintain their flying proficiency. They also use simulators to learn and practise more advanced flying skills, particularly managing emergency scenarios that might arise. Due to high cost and risk, it is not possible to learn these skills in the real world.

For example, an airline pilot cannot practise engine failure in a real aircraft, because it would put the life of the pilot at risk and increase the chances of an accident. Hence, the aviation industry has adopted the use of flight simulators extensively and they have become a common asset for every airline and even flight training school. There are several types of flight simulators that are used in the aviation industry, varying in almost every aspect, from complexity and design to fidelity and cost. The main types of simulators used in the aviation industry will be discussed in the next section.

Types of Simulators used in the Aviation Industry

Simulators in the aviation industry are used for numerous processes, including simulating flight, aircraft design, and prediction and management of air traffic. The following sections will discuss in detail simulators used for pilot training, also known as flight simulators.

Flight simulators offer the user a replication of flying an aircraft in a virtual world.

Simulators can be used by a person in many ways, some of which have already been

154 discussed in the previous sections. A person can use it as a game, with no intention of learning to fly. A person interested in flying can use it to enjoy a virtual flying experience.

Student pilots can use it to practise and perfect their skills, and experienced pilots can do the same. Researchers can use it to conduct scientific experiments in a safe environment, to improve understanding of how pilots fly an aircraft and improve aviation safety.

The two main components of flight simulators are the hardware and the software. The hardware required to run a flight simulator can vary in complexity. It can start with a basic personal computer, which includes the standard equipment like monitor, keyboard, etc.

Additional equipment can be purchased and added, such as screens, flight controls, and hard switches. This additional equipment offers more realism to the flight simulator.

Apart from the hardware, it is necessary to have the appropriate software installed on the computer. Flight simulator software is widely available for purchase from gaming stores.

One of the most common examples is Microsoft Flight Simulator (Microsoft © Flight

Simulator X, 2006). Over the past few years, other flight simulators have also gained popularity, such as X-Plane (Laminar Research © X Plane, 2012), Lockheed Martin

Prepar3D (Lockheed Martin Corporation © Prepar3D, 2010), and Digital Combat Simulator

(Eagle Dynamics © DCS, 2008). Regardless of the manufacturer, the software provides a similar product and offers the user the ability to fly an aircraft virtually.

155

Figure 48: Example of basic hardware and software required to operate a flight simulator.

Figure 48 shows a flight simulator set up using a personal home computer. This simulator has minimal hardware and commonly available software. Such a basic set-up can be used for several purposes, is cost-effective, and can be effective for training and research.

The flight simulator software includes a replica of the whole world, including all major cities and towns, and all major landmarks such as roads, powerlines, and famous buildings. Natural landmarks are also replicated accurately, including rivers, lakes, and mountains. Variables such as weather, time of day, temperature and season can be modified as required.

156

There is an extensive database of airports around the world, and most of the major airports are included in the flight simulator. These airports are positioned in the correct location and their layout is accurately replicated. Terminals, control towers and taxiways are positioned and labelled correctly.

In the growing aviation industry, airports are constantly expanding and/or being modified. If an airport is missing from the simulator or changes have been made to an airport in the real world, flight simulator offers software tools to modify the virtual airport.

Similarly, such changes can be made to the landmarks in the virtual world.

Flight simulator offers a variety of aircraft for a user to operate. These include the general aviation single-engine propeller aircraft, commercial passenger jet aircraft, historical aircraft, and military fighter aircraft. Apart from these fixed-wing options, there are also options for rotary wing counterparts. Once again, software tools allow for additional aircraft to be created and installed.

157

Figure 49: A screenshot of Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

Figure 49 shows a screenshot of a Cessna 172 in a flight simulator, ready for take-off on the runway. As seen in the figure, the simulator offers accurate representation of the real- world aircraft, and the display of instruments and layout of information is an exact representation of the real world.

There are many different types of flight simulators that are available and used in the aviation industry. These vary in complexity and cost. Some simulators offer more realism and replicate the aircraft more accurately than others. Today, it is also possible to install a flight simulator on handheld tablets and smart phones; however, a flight simulator on portable

158 devices is mainly used for entertainment and might not be of educational benefit. Below are a few examples of different types of flight simulators.

On the lower end of the scale is a home-built flight simulator on a personal computer.

This can be basic and may be installed on any computer, using standard computer equipment like a keyboard and mouse to help operate the aircraft on the simulator. A home-built simulator can be expanded by adding additional hardware and software. For example, a high performance personal computer with three screens, a joystick, a throttle and rudder pedals make a home-built simulator more immersive.

Figure 50 shows a flight simulator built using a personal computer and additional hardware. Extra hardware such as a large television screen, joystick and speakers make this flight simulator more engaging.

Such lower-end simulators are affordable and easily accessible. Individuals who have an interest in flying invest in these simulators, and the educational benefits offered by such simulators make them a preferred choice amongst student pilots. Despite being at the lower end of simulators, appropriate use of such simulators does have positive impacts on real- world flying skills. Skills and knowledge can be transferred from the simulator to the real aircraft, which means that cost-effective home simulators can be a valuable learning device for novice and expert pilots.

159

Figure 50: Example of a personal computer flight simulator, with extra hardware.

On the higher end, a high-fidelity flight simulator offers wrap-around visuals, authentic flight controls and switches, high performing computers, motion platform and even a mock-up cockpit shell. These simulators are custom-built for particular aircraft types and use proprietary software. They are mainly used by airlines for training and testing their aircrew.

The complexity of such high-end simulators makes them very expensive. They require professional and dedicated employees to operate and maintain them, therefore only airlines and larger flight training schools can afford them.

160

Figure 51: A full motion high-end Boeing 737 simulator.

Figure 51 shows the exterior view of a high-end flight simulator. This simulator has a large footprint, therefore it requires a dedicated building to house it. It is installed on a full motion platform, also known as a Gough Stewart Hexapod Platform. This platform has six hydraulic jacks that offer six degrees of freedom (Gough, 1956; Stewart, 1965). It allows the simulator to move forward or rearward, up or down, and left or right. At the same time, it also offers the motion of pitch, yaw and roll. These movements provide the user with a sense of motion while in the simulator.

161

Figure 52: Instructor station inside a high-end simulator.

162

As with most simulators, an instructor station is included, as shown in Figure 52. The instructor station allows the instructor to perform several actions, such as positioning the aircraft at the desired location, initiating emergencies, controlling the weather, or changing the traffic.

An instructor managing a high-end simulator like this must also be a qualified pilot.

This helps in operating the simulator and applying the correct configurations and settings.

She or he can also monitor the performance of the pilots flying the aircraft and provide guidance and training as required.

Figure 53 shows the cockpit view inside the simulator. All the instruments, flight controls and systems are realistic in such a high-end flight simulator. Most of these parts have been salvaged from decommissioned aircraft, therefore it offers greater realism.

Regardless of the simulator type, all can be used for several purposes. For example, as already mentioned, the high-end Boeing 737 flight simulator can also be used to offer the general public an experience of flying a 737.

The above description explains the main components of flight simulators. It also provides examples of flight simulators at the extreme ends of budget and complexity, one at

163 the lower end and another at the higher end. Between these two options, there are several types of flight simulators available.

Figure 53: Cockpit inside the Boeing 737 simulator with realistic controls, visual display, flight instruments and other hardware.

A simulator can be custom-built for any budget. Most flight training schools invest in a simulator between the two extremes mentioned above. Because the demand for flight simulators has increased considerably over recent decades, several manufacturers are now building flight simulators. In particular, there are several companies that manufacture affordable simulators. At the same time, these simulators serve as a valuable training aid.

They are made affordable by using readily available software and hardware. Companies like

164

RedBird and FlyIt offer such simulators. These simulators have gained immense popularity and are used all over the world. The simulators offered by these companies are discussed in detail later in this chapter.

Because of the benefits offered by simulators, such as transfer of skills, the hours spent in a simulator can be officially entered in a pilot’s logbook. In order to ensure accuracy of simulator training and to maintain consistency, aviation regulatory authorities have classified simulators.

Officially, there are two main categories of flight simulators. The first category is called a flight training device. There are seven levels of complexity for flight training devices, designated by numbers. The second category is called a full flight simulator. There are four levels of fidelity for full flight simulators, designated by letter. Full flight simulators are more advanced than flight training devices, and are more expensive and time consuming to build and operate (FAA, 1992).

The main difference between the two categories is the existence of movement. The complexity of the simulator increases as the number or the letter increases. For example, a

Level C full flight simulator is more sophisticated than a Level A full flight simulator. Each level higher includes the features of the previous level along with additional features.

165

The first three levels of flight training devices are no longer being approved. These levels consist of simulators that include personal computer simulators and advanced aviation training devices. Although new simulators in these levels are no longer being approved, simulators in these levels that were approved historically are still in existence. Level 4 flight training devices include part-task training simulators. These are simulators which have a few controls and few screens to simulate an aircraft. They are mainly used to replicate a particular task or procedure, such as practising the procedures in the landing phase. Using a Level 4 simulator also offers a pilot the opportunity to practise checklists whilst rehearsing practical skills. A Level 5 flight training device is dedicated to a particular type of aircraft. The controls are more specific, therefore this level of simulator is used for more advanced training for particular types of aircraft, and they are beneficial for a pilot who is making a transition to that type of aircraft. Level 6 is the highest level of flight training device offered for fixed- wing aircraft. A simulator at this level offers very accurate replication of the real aircraft, and is also specific to an aircraft with exact flight controls and systems. The aerodynamic modelling of the aircraft in the Level 6 simulator is also precise. Level 7 flight training devices are available for rotary wing aircraft only, and have similar characteristics to Level 6 with the fixed-wing aircraft (FAA, 1992).

A full flight simulator offers four levels of movement, and the categories of these levels are mainly defined by this motion. A Level A full flight simulator includes three degrees of freedom, which means that the motion platform simulates pitch, yaw and roll. This offers the pilot flying in a Level A simulator a greater sense of realism. A Level B full flight simulator offers the same motion platform as the previous level, however the simulator can either be a fixed-wing or rotary wing simulator. The aerodynamic modelling of the virtual aircraft is also more realistic in Level B. A Level C full flight simulator offers six degrees of

166 freedom: yaw, pitch, roll, horizontal, lateral and vertical motion. It includes a Gough Stewart

Hexapod Platform, as previously discussed. Level D full flight simulator also includes six degrees of freedom and also offers realistic aerodynamic modelling, sound, visual system, etc. At the time of writing, a Level D full flight simulator is the highest level of simulator available (FAA, 1992).

Usage of Simulators in the Aviation Industry

This section will discuss the usage of flight simulators in the aviation industry. As mentioned in the previous section, simulators can be used for many purposes and, in the aviation industry, they can be used for all the previously mentioned purposes. This section will focus on three of the main uses of flight simulators: training, testing and research.

Pilot training in the aviation industry has evolved drastically over the past century.

The first decade required brave pioneering pilots to fly an aircraft. They were offered little, if any, practical training before flying a real aircraft. As the demand for aviation increased, more pilots were required to be trained, which led to the introduction of dual-seat aircraft with synchronised dual flight controls. These aircraft allowed student pilots to be trained safely and efficiently. In order to further improve training, simulators have become extensively used.

167

Simulators complemented the theoretical classes and provided practical training to the students. This benefited the students as they were able to practise skills before entering a real aircraft. Simulator training gained further popularity as aircraft systems became automated and complex, and operating these automated systems required a high level of knowledge and skill. Pilots without any experience with these systems also find simulator training beneficial.

Instead of learning to use these systems while flying, simulators offer a perfect alternative for training. This also increases safety while flying real aircraft.

Flight simulators are used for training by flight training schools, airlines and individuals. They are popular for training as they offer a cheaper and safer alternative to the real-world aircraft. Several skills can be practised and perfected in a simulator, and a student pilot can practise circuit procedures in a flight simulator. This can even be practised in a flight simulator installed on a basic home computer. Practising circuits in a flight simulator allows a student to learn all the procedures that are used while performing circuits. For example, they can practise when to turn crosswind, downwind, base and finals. They can also practise when to deploy the flaps while coming to land. A challenge they might face on a basic simulator is that the view can be limited, especially if only one monitor is being used.

This can be overcome by adding additional monitors, which will provide a much wider field of view.

An example of regular training provided to airline pilots is called line-oriented flight training (LOFT). This type of training requires airline pilots to complete a full flight in a

Level D full flight simulator. This training is not intended to assess individual pilots, rather to help them improve their flying skills. Another common training provided to airline pilots is

168 called aircraft type rating, which equips a pilot with the skills and knowledge to fly a certain type of aircraft. Large commercial aircraft, such as the Boeing 737, require a significant amount of training before a pilot can fly them. It is not feasible to offer this training in a real aircraft for several reasons, including the high levels of risk and cost, therefore a pilot is fully trained in a simulator before flying a real aircraft.

Simulators can be used for testing pilots. Airlines test their pilots regularly to ensure their proficiency has not deteriorated. This is performed not just to help a pilot, but also to fulfil legal and insurance requirements. During such testing, a pilot is required to complete normal flying tasks and exhibit the expertise to handle unexpected situations. The testing is not necessarily conducted as an exam to be passed or failed; instead, it is to help the airline identify weaknesses that a pilot might have and assist him or her to improve those deficiencies. However, if significant weaknesses are found, it could lead to stronger actions.

Testing is also performed to determine whether a newly trained pilot is ready to fly the real aircraft. As mentioned, a pilot who is transitioning to a Boeing 737 will be trained in a flight simulator to learn how to fly the larger, heavier and more advanced aircraft. After completing the training, a pilot will have to exhibit his or her skills in the flight simulator before stepping into the real aircraft. This testing ensures that a pilot is able to fly the aircraft whilst managing the systems.

Apart from training and testing, aircraft manufacturing companies and human factors scientists use flight simulators for research purposes. For example, flight simulators offer a

169 safe way of conducting research on pilot interaction with the flight instruments and automation. This helps to understand the problems a pilot faces with the design of the cockpit and enables improvements to be made accordingly. Cockpits of new aircraft are first created in flight simulators and flown by pilots. While they are flying in the simulator, data is collected to understand whether performance is being affected due to changes in instrument display or information layout. The results of such studies facilitate the design and development of a pilot-friendly cockpit for the new aircraft.

A good example of using flight simulators for research, training and testing is the

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. This is a single-seat military aircraft, with a modern cockpit that includes a touch-screen instrument display. Developing this cockpit required an immense amount of research in flight simulators. Future F-35 pilots are trained and tested in flight simulators (Starosta, 2013; Lockheed Martin, 2016).

Apart from development of the aircraft cockpit, research is also conducted to understand the human factors challenges that a pilot faces in the cockpit. Areas of research include novice versus expert performance, a pilot’s ability to acquire information during an emergency, and a pilot’s ability to detect instrument failures. The next section will briefly discuss the research conducted using simulators. Following that , the simulators that were used in this thesis will be described.

170

Research Applications of Flight Simulators

Simulators are used in many industries to conduct research. They are used in the medical industry to improve productivity and reduce costs (Jun, Jacobson, & Swisher, 1999) while also offering students a secure environment to learn new skills (Jeffries, 2009;

McGaghie, Siddall, Mazmanian, & Myers, 2009; Cook et al., 2011). Simulators are used to train students in other fields, for example astronomy (Shin, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003).

Literature suggests that simulator usage can also be beneficial for businesses, as they can easily replicate challenging scenarios which cannot be easily replicated in the real world.

At the same time, there is potential to utilise simulators even more by businesses and analysts

(Mahboubian, 2010; Faria, 2014; Berends & Romme, 1999; Bonini, 1963). In the transportation industry, simulators can be used to predict driver behaviour and traffic flow

(Gipps, 1981; Krajzewicz, Bonert, & Wagner, 2006). In a similar way, simulators can be used to predict weather changes over a period of time (Richardson, 1981).

Simulators offer the advantage of finding out what might happen in certain situations

(Dooley, 2002). Hence, they are used in several other industries, including information technology (Dooley & Mahmoodi, 1992; Law & Kelton, 1982), utilities management

(Williams, Nicks, & Arnold, 1985), social sciences (Axelrod, 1997; Axtell, Axelrod, Epstein,

& Cohen, 1996), and aviation (Caldwell, Caldwell, Brown, & Smith, 2004).

171

The introduction of flight simulators into the aviation industry has been beneficial.

One of the biggest advantages is in training pilots (Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenizer, 1998).

Personal computer flight simulators are popular among pilots for practising skills while learning to fly and for maintaining skills after obtaining a licence (Beckman, 2009).

A pilot can learn several flying skills in a simulator. These skills include practising circuit procedures, performing a post take-off checklist such as retracting flaps, cross-country navigation, and understanding the instrument display and information layout. These skills can be transferred to a real aircraft and help a pilot while flying in a real-world aircraft.

A pilot is not required to have a certain amount of real-world flying experience before she or he can experience the transfer benefits. An individual does not even have to be a pilot to start learning flying skills in a flight simulator. Obtaining a pilot licence requires the completion of the minimum number of hours and displaying the competency and ability to safely fly an aircraft. Ortiz (1994) conducted research on the skills-transfer effect of flight naïve subjects, using flight simulator software on a personal computer. Half of the subjects were trained in a simulator before flying in a real aircraft, and the other half flew in the real aircraft without any simulator training. The results showed that prior simulator experience improved performance in a real aircraft.

Another study conducted using a personal computer revealed similar results (Dennis

& Harris, 1998). This research involved three groups of student pilots who had no practical flying experience. During the experiment two groups were trained in simulators and the last

172 group was not offered any simulator training before flying a real aircraft. Simulator training was offered with either proper flight controls or with basic computer devices like mouse and keyboard. The group that was trained in the simulator using proper flight controls outperformed the other two groups while flying in the real aircraft. The group with simulator training using basic computer devices also performed better than the group without any simulator training. The transfer of skills from a simulator to a real aircraft has significant implications as it offers several benefits, including reducing the time required to obtain a pilot licence (Taylor et al., 1999).

Apart from offering benefits to a student pilot, simulators also offer benefits to a licensed pilot. Pilot licensing is strictly regulated by government agencies. A licensed pilot is required to pass regular checks or tests, conducted by senior instructors, to maintain their licence. Certain checks, like instrument proficiency, can be tested in an approved high- fidelity simulator rather than a real aircraft (FAA, 1991b). Simulators installed on home computers can also be beneficial for several tasks (Talleur, Taylor, Emanuel, Rantanen, &

Bradshaw, 2003).

A pilot who is preparing to take his or her check flight can find training in a personal computer simulator to be beneficial (Talleur et al., 2003; Emanuel, Taylor, Talleur, &

Rantanen, 2003; Koonce & Bramble, 1998). Performing an instrument flight is demanding.

Due to the immense realism offered by simulators, a pilot feels similar pressures and stresses to those that are associated with the instrument conditions in the real world. This requires a pilot to use real-world skills in the simulator, which helps her or him perform more accurately

(Morris, Hancock, & Shirkey, 2004). Apart from training student pilots and testing licensed

173 pilots, simulators are also used in the aviation industry to teach employed pilots new skills

(Bürki-Cohen, Soja, & Longridge, 1998). An example of such skills is learning how to handle an abnormal situation in a new type of aircraft.

Managing an in-flight emergency, such as engine failures or unusual attitudes, is a major challenge for novice pilots. This is because it takes time to learn how to properly diagnose and recover from such a situation. Proper techniques are acquired by practising such scenarios regularly, but some scenarios are challenging to practise in a real aircraft due to safety concerns. Hence, flight simulators offer a highly suitable alternative. A novice pilot can learn how to manage and deal with such situations properly, by spending time in simulators. These skills are transferred to the real-world aircraft and also help reduce workload and emotional stress in a pilot when he or she experiences such events (Koglbauer,

Kallus, Braunstingl, & Boucsein, 2011; NTSB, 2010).

Apart from flying skills, simulators can also be used to learn higher-level thinking skills (Dahlström, 2008). Achieving and maintaining situational awareness is an important skill for a pilot to learn and master. This then leads to good decision making and reduces a pilot’s workload. The importance of these skills was discussed in Chapter 2.

Other than flight simulators, computer programs designed to assess a pilot’s situational awareness can also be valuable. These software programs can be used to help a pilot learn good situational awareness skills. Student pilots were tested on basic skills, such as completing all items on a checklist, as well as more advanced skills, such as multi-tasking.

174

This was done by using a computer program that simulated various scenarios. The results confirmed an improvement in a pilot’s situational awareness level after using such programs

(Bolstad, Endsley, Costello, & Howell, 2010).

Modern aircraft are complex, especially a large commercial jet which has several crew members. Not only are simulators beneficial to teach individual pilots valuable skills, they can be used to teach flight crew to work together as a team. Well-developed scenarios that simulate multi-crew operations help in enhancing team environment skills (Baker,

Prince, Shrestha, Oser, & Salas, 1993). Research also shows that training on a personal computer can improve multi-crew skills of pilots (Brannick, Prince, & Salas, 2005).

Other domains in the aviation industry are also investing in simulators, such as military aviation. Military operations tend to be more complex than the commercial aviation industry. Subjective data reveals that military aviators also feel that simulators can offer positive training advantages (Bell & Waag, 1998). A study conducted by Sullivan (1998) is an example of the benefits offered by using flight simulators for military use. Similar to the above-mentioned research on the transfer of skills, Sullivan (1998) concluded that pilots who received simulator training performed better than those who did not receive any simulator training. As a result, this study also recommends the incorporation of flight simulators into training schedules.

The above literature shows that a pilot can learn and transfer skills from a simulator to a real aircraft. These skills include technical skills and non-technical skills, such as

175 maintaining straight and level flight, situational awareness, and instrument proficiency.

Simulators have become commonly used equipment in the aviation industry. When properly designed and used, they can offer a pilot financial and educational benefits (Dahlstrom,

Dekker, Van Winsen, & Nyce, 2009), regardless of the complexity of the simulator (Salas et al., 1998). As mentioned earlier, a home computer simulator can be beneficial in preparing for flight exams (Talleur et al., 2003).

It is important that simulators are designed with collaboration from engineers, pilots, scientists, and other key groups. This ensures well-developed flight simulator software and hardware that incorporate knowledge from various fields. It will also ensure success of the equipment, which will make it cost-effective and affordable for individual pilots. As a result, pilot performance will improve, which increases the safety of the aviation industry.

Advances in modern computing technology have made it possible to own a high-end personal computer at a relatively low cost. This allows a pilot to run sophisticated flight simulator software on their personal computer, providing the pilot with a highly capable simulator that has comparable performance to higher-end simulators owned by training schools (Reweti, 2014). By investing in a flight simulator, a pilot can save money while flying a real aircraft and reduce the time taken to get his or her licence (Roscoe, 1991).

Apart from home simulators, training schools and universities are investing in simulators to help their students (Macchiarella, Arban, & Doherty, 2006). This is because of

176 the benefits they offer, such as learning and improving flying skills in the safety of a simulator (Preudhomme & Martinez, 2012).

Simulators are considered as gaming technology by many people. The results of these and several other studies show that if flight simulators are properly used, they can offer suitable and cost-effective training solutions (Jentsch & Bowers, 1998; Gawron, Bailey, &

Lehman, 1995). Hence, they are extensively used by scientists to conduct human factors research, the results from which improve safety in the aviation industry.

The above literature highlights the importance of flight simulators and shows that they assist in collecting data while conducting research. As a result, they were used in this research to conduct experiments. The simulators used for this research are discussed in the next section.

177

Flight Simulators Used in this Research

Two flight simulators were used in this research. The fixed-wing flight simulator used was the Redbird FMX Flight Simulator, and the rotary wing flight simulator used was the

FlyIt Professional Helicopter Flight Simulator. Both these simulators, shown in Figure 54, are described in detail in this section, along with a brief overview of the company that manufactures them.

Figure 54: The fixed-wing and rotary wing simulators used to conduct experiments.

178

Redbird FMX Flight Simulator

The Redbird FMX flight simulator was made by the Redbird Flight Simulation

Incorporation, which is based in Austin, Texas, USA. This company was formed in 2006, and its mission is to provide affordable flight simulators for flight training purposes.

Redbird makes several simulator products for the general aviation industry. At the time of writing this thesis, the simulators offered by Redbird include the MCX, FMX, AMZ,

MX2 and SD. Until recently they mainly offered fixed-wing simulators only, although they have recently included the option of rotary wing simulators. All of their simulators offer fully enclosed mock-up cockpits. Some offer the option of being installed on a motion platform, whereas others have a fixed base to reduce cost. A simulator like the MCX offers dual controls in the cockpit, which facilitates student and instructor training. It also offers the option to train pilots for multi-crew operations.

Most of the Redbird simulators are certified for flight training. This certification is valid in several countries including United States of America, Canada, Europe, Australia,

New Zealand, Mexico and Brazil. This means that a pilot who spends time in the simulator can enter it in his or her logbook. This offers an additional incentive on top of the existing benefits.

179

The Redbird FMX, as used in this research, is a Level B full flight simulator. It is equipped with a full motion platform, which offers a realistic flight environment as it replicates the pitch, roll and yaw of an aircraft. For example, when a pilot pulls back on the yoke the motion platform pitches up, giving a realistic sense of climbing; when turning, the motion platform banks to the left or right, providing a sense of rolling.

The simulator offers a wide-angle visual display, with a pilot having 200° vision while flying. This offers great benefits while flying in the simulator. When in circuits, a pilot can see the view on the left and right-hand side. This helps him or her make decisions about when to turn on the base or crosswind leg while in the circuit. This improves the training capabilities offered by the simulator and makes the time spent in it more valuable. A good visual display also helps a pilot learn good scanning patterns. In the wide angle visual display of this simulator, a pilot also can practise looking for traffic while flying.

The Redbird FMX offers many different aircraft to choose from. Not only does it simulate the aircraft realistically, but the flight controls and hard switches are also accurate.

When changing the aircraft type in this simulator, the instrument panels and the flight controls are also changed. For example, it is possible to change from a Beech Baron twin- engine aircraft to a single engine Cessna. The yoke, rudder pedals and switches are standard for all the simulated aircraft. The throttle and the instrument panel are the only two items that require changing. This is performed by replacing the dual-engine throttle controls with single-engine throttle controls, and swapping the instrument panel with another panel that includes the instruments that is in a single-engine Cessna.

180

During the simulator start-up, the hardware automatically communicates the correct aircraft type to the software. Apart from changing the type of aircraft, it is also possible to only change the type of cockpit instrument display. The display can either be the traditional round dial flight instruments (analogue cockpit) or the modern digital flight instruments

(glass cockpit).

There are several types of aircraft that can be simulated in the Redbird, including

Cessna 172, Cessna 206, Piper PA28, Diamond DA20 and Cirrus SR22. The time required to change the cockpit display and the flight controls is a few minutes. This can be performed by an individual and does not require any tools.

The Redbird FMX also offers additional hardware and software that assist in learning.

For example, the flight data can be recorded and played back to analyse the flight, which helps a pilot assess her or his performance and assists with identifying challenges faced by the pilot and areas for improvement.

The Redbird FMX has a small footprint. Despite this, it has a large number of features. Its power supply is from a standard cable connected to a power outlet in the wall.

The main computer of the Redbird FMX is located next to the simulator. This is a custom- built computer that operates the hardware and the software required for the simulator. The hardware controlled by the computer includes the motion platform, flight controls, cockpit instruments, and visual display. The software operated by the computer is the standard

181

Microsoft Windows Operating System (Microsoft © Windows 7, 2009) and the flight simulator software, Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

Once the computer is started, it automatically enters the flight simulation software.

The motion platform is started separately, and moves horizontally to initialise itself. Once the motion platform setup is complete, the simulator is ready to be used. It is also possible to use the simulator without the motion platform.

The user has the option to select the location, weather conditions and time of day to begin the flight. This selection is made from a pre-defined list of options. Further customisation is also possible, if required. The aircraft appears in a virtual world, parked in the location selected by the user.

The simulator offers a pilot the opportunity to start the engines as she or he would in the real world. This can be performed realistically by following the checklist. He or she also has the option to perform normal procedures used in the general aviation industry, such as completing run-up checks. These steps allow a pilot to practise the correct skills, as used in the real world, before and after starting the aircraft’s engine.

The Redbird FMX does not offer the option to talk to a virtual air traffic control.

Instead a pilot can talk to another person, who acts as an air traffic controller, outside the simulator. This allows a pilot to also practise their communication skills.

182

The simulator also requires a dedicated universal serial bus (USB) device to operate.

This key is unique and can record individuals’ preferences and flight data. A pilot can be assigned a personal USB device to keep track of his or her training progress.

A laptop can be connected to the simulator to change various settings. Through the laptop, any location in the world can be selected. Various weather conditions can be replicated, along with the option to have real-time weather. This provides more options than the default pre-defined options. It also enables users to initiate failing instruments or any other failures. There is also an option to view the aircraft’s parameters and flight route.

Entry and exit from the moving flight simulator can be dangerous during operation.

Hence, a pilot can pause the flight in order to enter or exit the simulator. The simulator also has an emergency stop button that can be used if a pilot wants to stop for any reason and at any time. Doing so will allow a pilot to exit the simulator promptly and safely.

Figure 55 shows a view of the aircraft’s cockpit and outside world taken from the pilot’s seat in the Redbird FMX simulator.

183

Figure 55: Image taken inside the Redbird FMX flight simulator.

184

FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator

The FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator was made by the FlyIt Simulators

Incorporation, which is based in Carlsbad, California, USA. This company was formed in

1993. They design and build helicopter and fixed-wing flight simulators, catering for several purposes, including personal use, military use and commercial use.

Although FlyIt simulators offer fixed-wing and rotary wing simulators, their focus is on helicopter simulators. Each FlyIt simulator can simulate several different aircraft. The simulators offer a realistic cockpit shell in which a pilot sits. This cockpit shell is a replication of the real aircraft’s fuselage. A motion platform is not an option for these simulators, although the helicopter simulator has the option to include an airframe vibrator.

This allows a pilot to feel the skids of the helicopter touching down on the ground. Apart from these simulators, they also offer custom-built simulators. These simulators include the

Eurocopter AS350, Sikorsky S333, and de Havilland Canada Twin Otter. The custom simulators offer a specific aircraft type, and the controls and cockpit shell accurately represent the chosen type.

The simulators offered by FlyIt are certified for flight training under the Federal

Aviation Administration in the United States of America. It is a Level 7 flight training device.

This assists a pilot to learn skills, such as instrument flying, in a cost-effective way. Pilots can

185 also enter the time in their logbooks as time spent in a training simulator towards their instrument rating.

The simulator used in this study is the FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator, which is a dedicated helicopter simulator. The simulator is built inside a trailer and offers the flexibility of being mobile. It can be towed to any location using a car, just like a holiday campervan trailer. This simulator also offers the option of buying the cockpit shell only, which reduces the footprint of the simulator and reduces the cost.

The simulator does not have the option to be installed on a full motion platform.

However, it does offer a large 280° visual display. The main front display uses a projector to show the image on a 78 " x 93" screen. This large display also offers a pilot a view of the ground beyond her or his feet, which is vital in rotary wing operations. The side views are shown using two 80" monitors, placed on the left and right side of the cockpit. The excellent visual display of this simulator helps a pilot maintain good situational awareness, and helps him or her improve other skills, such as scanning for traffic in the area.

The FlyIt simulator offers a choice of several rotary wing aircraft. The flight controls and instrument display accurately replicate each helicopter. The standard cyclic, which is between the feet of the pilot, is included, and this can also be replaced with a Robinson style cyclic. The collective and rudder pedals are the same for all the helicopter models. The instrument panels are replicated on the monitor in front of the pilot. The aircraft that can be simulated are the R22, R44, Bell 206, AS350 and MD500. Since the cyclic is the only

186 physical component to change when flying a Robinson helicopter, the time required to change aircraft type is minimal, requiring only a selection in the software at the instructor station.

The FlyIt simulator has a large footprint since it is installed in a trailer. The trailer includes two doors for entry. The forward door allows a pilot to access and maintain the projector, when required. The rear door allows a pilot to enter the main simulator area where the cockpit shell and the instructor station are included.

Figure 56: Image taken inside the FlyIt Simulator.

187

The cockpit shell is a standard helicopter shell. It is shaped as a helicopter fuselage, which offers a realistic airframe impression. Two seats are included in the cockpit along with dual controls. The controls are linked with each other; that is, if the cyclic is moved from one side, the other cyclic will also move. This offers great training benefits. A monitor displaying the flight instruments is located at the front of the cockpit in the middle. This display is shown in Figure 56. A radio stack along with other switches is located below the instrument display. This allows a pilot to change the frequencies and toggle the system or lighting switches. An overhead panel is also included, which provides additional controls like the circuit breakers and generator switch.

Figure 57: Close up of the monitors in the instructor station in the FlyIt Simulator.

188

The instructor station is located behind the cockpit shell, as shown in Figures 57 and

58. This provides an instructor with several facilities, including three monitors and even a printer. The right monitor shows the main outside view of the aircraft, the centre monitor duplicates the instrument display from the cockpit, and the left monitor allows an instructor to change several settings. The weather can be changed while the aircraft is flying—clear skies can be turned into an overcast sky instantly. An instructor can also initiate failures with or without a pilot’s knowledge. For example, while a pilot is flying, an instructor can initiate an engine failure, which will require a pilot to respond instantly and land the helicopter immediately.

The simulator offers the option for a pilot and an instructor to communicate using headsets. The instructor station also shows a radar map with all the traffic in the area. An instructor can use this information to help a pilot navigate safely to the destination.

The hardware required for this simulator is placed in the cockpit shell. The computer used is a custom-built computer with high-end hardware specifications. This allows the hardware to cope with the complexity of several displays while also running the software.

The software used in this simulator is the standard operating system, Microsoft Windows, and flight simulator, Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

The start-up procedure requires the computer to be started, which displays the standard Windows home screen. The flight simulator software has to be executed to start the

189 flight simulator program; it does not start automatically. The software places the helicopter on the runway at McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California, USA. This is the default airport, as it is near to the headquarters of FlyIt Simulators. The flight controls are activated separately using different software, before starting the flight simulator software. Once the flight simulator software is running, a pilot is required to test the flight controls.

Once the above process is complete, a pilot can select any airport, season and meteorological condition using the instructor station. The simulator starts the helicopter’s engines automatically. If a pilot wants to perform an engine start-up, then it requires him or her to turn the engine off first.

This chapter highlights the different uses and benefits of flight simulators. They are a valuable research tool and are extensively used to conduct human factors research. They offer a controllable, reliable and reproducible environment in which to conduct research. Hence, flight simulators were used in this research to conduct experiments in a low risk environment.

190

Figure 58: Instructor station inside the FlyIt simulator.

191

Chapter 4

Eye Tracker Overview and Usage

Introduction to Eye Trackers

Human Senses

Humans gather information from the world using their senses. Humans possess five senses: hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste.

The sense of hearing uses the ears to help a human perceive audio signals. The ears interpret vibration, which the brain converts to information. The sense of sight uses the eyes to enable a human to see and detect images. The eyes interpret the image created by light, which the brain converts into meaningful information. The sense of touch uses the skin to help a human perceive information. The brain interprets pressure changes to understand the surrounding environment. The sense of smell helps a human perceive information using the nose. Chemical changes are detected by the nose, and this information is then converted by the brain to understand what is occurring in the surroundings. The sense of taste uses the tongue to help a human perceive information. The tongue detects changes in taste using the taste buds, which is understood by the brain and converted into useful information.

The five senses play an important role in the aviation industry. Hearing helps a pilot to listen to many different cues from the outside world, which helps him or her understand what is happening around an aircraft. Historically, a pilot primarily flew using the sense of sound. She or he heard the sound of an aircraft’s engine and judged the power setting based

193 on that. The engine power was adjusted based on the phase of the flight by listening to the engine’s sound. Take-off required full power, which was denoted by a high-pitched sound from the engine. Cruise required approximately two-thirds power, depending on the aircraft, and a pilot made the necessary adjustments. Finally, landing required a pilot to adjust the power to maintain the glide, slope and speed required to land on the runway.

The sense of touch helps a pilot feel the controls in an aircraft. Older aircraft have mechanical controls and the control surfaces are linked to the flight controls in the cockpit using cables and wires. A modern aircraft, on the other hand, has the control surfaces electronically linked to the flight controls. A pilot has to use slightly more physical effort to manoeuvre an older aircraft than a modern aircraft. This comparison is similar to driving cars with and without power steering.

The sense of smell assists a pilot during normal and emergency situations. An aircraft has a neutral smell during normal flight operations. However, in the event of an emergency, there can be different smells, including the smell of smoke or fuel (especially in a small aircraft). These smells can direct the attention of a pilot and let him or her know that there is a potential problem with an aircraft, and the pilot can act accordingly to avoid a disaster.

The sense of taste does not have a direct impact on a pilot while flying. In larger commercial jet aircraft, the cabin pressurisation can change the sense of taste. For example, in-flight meals can taste different to the same food on the ground.

194

The sense of sight is a very important sense for a pilot. While flying an aircraft, a pilot is presented with a lot of visual information. This information is in the aircraft and also in the outside world. The information inside an aircraft includes the display of the flight parameters on the flight instruments, which help a pilot to understand the performance of an aircraft and make necessary adjustments to achieve the desired result.

A pilot also has to get information from the outside world, especially when flying in daytime visual flight rules condition. This includes terrain awareness. A pilot has to use maps and follow landmarks in the outside world to navigate from the departure airport to the destination airport. She or he also has to monitor the weather and avoid flying into deteriorating conditions. Once again, for daytime visual flight rules condition the best way for a pilot to monitor the weather is to look outside.

Finally, in all flying conditions a pilot needs to look outside and keep an eye on the traffic in the area. Such monitoring helps a pilot to fly safely to the destination and is the prime task of a pilot. He or she acquires all the above-mentioned information through the sense of sight.

Perceiving this information forms the first stage of maintaining good situational awareness. It helps a pilot know what is going on around the aircraft. Of all the senses, sight plays the most vital role in aviation safety. Historically, a pilot who had poor vision and wore glasses was limited in his or her ability to fly an aircraft. Today, with advances in technology,

195 poor vision is no longer an issue as a pilot can use appropriate methods to overcome this problem. However, this may not be true for military aviation.

Perception not only helps in gathering information from various sources, it also lays the foundation for processes such as decision making, performing actions, and managing workload. Since vision plays such a significant role in the aviation industry, understanding where a pilot looks while flying is an important task for human factors researchers.

Collecting data on where a pilot is looking can be performed objectively or subjectively. A questionnaire can provide subjective data on where a pilot is looking while performing a task. This data can be collected by asking a pilot questions about how he or she obtained the information while performing a task.

Objective data can be collected by using devices such as an eye tracker. Data collected from this device provides indisputable evidence of where a pilot is looking. It can collect data continuously and provides an accurate picture of where the pilot is looking during all phases of flight.

Additional data is also collected, such as duration of fixation, number of times an area was scanned, and whether or not an area was scanned. For these reasons, an eye tracker is a valuable tool that helps human factors researchers understand how pilots gather data from the available sources.

196

Types of Eye Trackers

There are several types of eye trackers, including head-mounted, virtual reality head- mounted, eye and head movement tracker, fixed-head, and fixed-base eye tracker.

Each device tracks the movement of the eye of the person wearing it. The hardware and software vary between the different types of device. They can have binocular eye tracking, in which the movement of both eyes is tracked, or monocular eye tracking, in which the movement of only one eye is tracked. As a result, the data collected by various devices can also be slightly different.

Each type of eye tracker has its own advantages and disadvantages. A head-mounted eye tracker is mounted on the head of a person and is worn in a similar manner as a pair of glasses. The device includes hardware to record the scene in front of a person as well as the movement of the eye. The data analysis software overlays eye movement data on top of the recorded scene. This device provides flexibility for the person wearing it, as she or he is free to move around. Hence, it can record data in real time without any restrictions, while a person is scanning for the information he or she requires.

197

A disadvantage is that the analysis of data from such a device can require expensive software. If the software is not obtained, then the analysis has to be manually completed. This device might not be suitable when time is a constraint.

An eye and head movement tracker is similar to a head-mounted eye tracker. This device includes an additional hardware component that also collects head movement data.

The benefits of this are mainly in the analysis phase, as the device makes it easy to automatically analyse the data. The software is more complex and automatically shows the areas that were scanned most and how a person’s eyes moved around during the experiment.

It also shows the scan paths that a person used while searching for information. The disadvantage of this device is that the person cannot look at anything that is outside the range of the head tracker.

A fixed-head eye tracker is similar to the above devices, the main difference being that a person is not able to move his or her head once it is positioned in the device. This means that a person can only look forward and, as a result, this device has limited uses. It offers great benefits for researchers into human-computer interactions. This is because a person has to look at the computer screen only, which is always in forward view. However, in a more dynamic environment such as an aircraft’s cockpit, this device has limited uses.

A fixed-base eye tracker offers similar functionality to the fixed-head eye tracker.

Such trackers are normally used for research performed in human-computer interaction. This eye tracker is placed under the main computer screen, and tracks a person’s eye movement

198 without being intrusive. One of the biggest advantages of a fixed-base eye tracker is that the device is not placed on a person’s head. This can make the data collected more reliable as a person might forget the presence of the eye tracker once the experiment has started.

A virtual reality head-mounted eye tracker includes an additional virtual reality component. This component virtually simulates or shows a scenario for a person to look at and records the person’s scanning patterns in the virtual world. This device helps study a person’s eye movements in an environment that cannot be easily replicated, such as simulating a war scene and studying where a soldier looks during combat.

An eye tracker can either be purchased as a ready-to-use device or constructed by scientists. A self-built eye tracker requires basic engineering and technical knowledge. The main benefit offered by this device is a significant saving in expenses. Knowledge of software development helps an individual to design analysis software. A do-it-yourself project can offer further flexibility because scientists can design and develop a device based on their needs, and will be able to modify it further for specific research projects.

Custom design and construction is not an option for everyone. For most people, buying an eye tracker from a manufacturer is the easiest solution. There are several companies around the world that specialise in making eye trackers, offering several different products with similar features at competitive prices. These products offer all the required items to start data collection straight out of the box, including all required hardware, software

199 and manuals. There are several other uses of an eye tracker, which are discussed in the next section.

Eye Tracker Usage

An eye tracker is mainly used for scientific purposes, and can be used for training, research, testing and development. It is used in many industries as it offers objective data of where a person is looking, allowing scientists to collect data and understand human behaviour. Such data is utilised for safety improvements and several other things.

An eye tracker can be used to train novices. Gathering information from available sources efficiently and quickly is a skill that is acquired through time and experience. As a result, a novice might spend a considerable amount of time searching for information and might focus attention on a particular source of information. It is not easy to detect this behaviour, therefore using eye trackers during training is advantageous. It allows the novice to analyse his or her information-gathering strategies. Any weaknesses can be highlighted in an attempt to improve information acquisition skills. At the same time, novices can be shown strategies used by experts, which will further assist them in learning effective ways to gather information from available sources.

Manufacturing companies can use eye trackers while testing and developing new products. For example, an aircraft manufacturer can use eye trackers to understand how pilots

200 interact with a new cockpit design. This will highlight any strengths and weaknesses in the design and allow manufacturers to further modify the design based on the results. The data collected can also be matched against scanning patterns from existing aircraft cockpits. Such a comparison will help manufacturers understand if the new design will present any issues when a pilot is making a transition to the new aircraft.

Finally, eye trackers are used for research purposes. This is one of the most common uses of an eye tracker. Eye tracking research helps scientists understand how information is acquired, which is useful in many industries that rely on information acquisition.

Marketing research is conducted using eye trackers, to understand consumer behaviour. For example, business analysts can use eye trackers to study how customers browse products and select based on available options. This helps the department stores or supermarkets promote and stock products accordingly, and helps in increasing profit through appropriate placement of products.

Eye trackers are used in the computing industry to understand human interaction with computers. There have been several studies conducted in many different areas of human- computer interaction. A webpage developer can use eye trackers to understand how users scan and gather information from the pages on the internet, which allows for better design of webpages. A software designer can use this equipment to understand how users interact with the software interface, leading to user-friendly design.

201

In the transportation industry, an air traffic controller has to be vigilant and constantly scan the radar to maintain separation between aircraft in the sky. Human factors scientists can use eye trackers to understand the way a controller acquires information from the radar and to analyse his or her ability to detect potential hazards. The results of such research help in training and improving safety.

Finally, in the transportation industry, eye trackers are valuable as they help scientists understand how a pilot or a driver scans the instruments and the outside world to safely operate a vehicle.

While flying, a pilot is provided with an immense amount of information. She or he has to choose and gather the most appropriate information. This can depend on several factors, such as phase of flight and status of aircraft. These factors are also affected by a pilot’s training and experience. Once this information has been obtained, it is then processed, which assists in decision making, performing actions and managing workload.

Information acquisition is a vital skill, particularly in the aviation industry. It is a high-risk industry where it is important to achieve and maintain safety. This is done by scanning and gathering information accurately, quickly and regularly. An eye tracker helps scientists understand pilot’s scanning strategies. As a result, it is used extensively by scientists to conduct human factors research and improve aviation safety. The research applications and the eye tacker used in this research are discussed in the following sections.

202

Research Applications of Eye Trackers

Eye trackers have been used extensively in many different industries that involve human monitoring. The information provided by the eye tracking device shows scientists how a human acquires information. Information acquisition is an important step before decisions can be made, and requires a human to search for the most relevant information from all the available sources. If the information is not correctly obtained, then it leads to wrong or incomplete decisions. This can result in wrong actions, which can lead to errors being made by a human and, consequently, to a disaster.

Conducting eye tracker research is valuable, as the objective data shows exactly where a person is looking. It also provides additional information such as the duration and number of times that each item was scanned. Such data helps scientists understand if individuals are well trained (Wetzel, Krueger-Anderson, Poprik, & Bascom, 1996).

Furthermore, when errors are made it helps in determining the source of the error. As a result, eye tracking research is beneficial and conducted in many high-risk industries to improve safety (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011; Boussemart, Las Fargeas, Cummings, & Roy, 2009;

Morrison, Marshall, Kelly, & Moore, 1997; Brown, Bautsch, Wetzel, & Anderson, 2002;

Hayashi, 2004; Moore & Gugerty, 2010). They are used to conduct research in many fields, including psychology, physiology, neuroscience and human factors (Duchowski, 2002;

Salojärvi, Puolamäki, & Kaski, 2004; Pfeiffer, Clark, & Danaher, 1963).

203

The health industry benefits from eye tracking research, because it analyses how a doctor or a nurse gathers information and makes decisions (McCormack, Wiggins, Loveday,

& Festa, 2014). Eye tracking also shows how a task is shared amongst different people in order to successfully complete it (Seagull, Xiao, MacKenzie, Jaberi, & Dutton, 1999). Being a safety-critical industry, eye trackers are beneficial for training novices and also examining experts (Hermens, Flin, & Ahmed, 2013; Tien et al., 2014; Matsumoto, Terao, Yugeta,

Fukuda, & Emoto, 2011).

Eye tracking research also helps create good interfaces for humans. This is widely used in making computers more user-friendly (Strandvall, 2009; Jacob & Karn, 2003). Apart from user-friendliness, eye trackers can also be used to improve efficiency. For example, there are many ways to select an item on a computer screen, including using a mouse or a keyboard. An eye tracking feature can also be utilised in order to make the selection quicker

(Ware & Mikaelian, 1987).

Eye tracking studies also reveal that users adapt well to the display and design on a computer screen, such as websites. This means that it opens up a wide variety of layout options for website developers (McCarthy, Sasse, & Riegelsberger, 2004). Apart from proper design, Djamasbi, Siegel and Tullis (2010) also showed that age-specific design might be effective for some websites. For example, websites aimed at younger people might require media-rich content with less text. In a similar way, product placement in supermarket shelves is important to help the consumer choose the item they want to purchase (Reutskaja, Nagel,

Camerer, & Rangel, 2011).

204

Search engine design and layout has also been examined using eye trackers. A study by Guan and Cutrell (2007) show ed that users put a lot of trust in a search engine and expect to see the most relevant results at the top of the page. Such strategies can be utilised by businesses in order to promote their products more effectively. However, the disadvantage is that users might not take time to examine results that are not displayed first or at the top.

Business analysts use eye trackers to understand a consumer’s behaviour. In similar findings to those of Guan and Cutrell (2007), Lohse (1997) found that consumers’ scanning is highly selective; hence, proper design and placement of advertisements is vital to gathering consumer’s attention.

One of the benefits of eye tracking research is being able to teach a novice to acquire information accurately. This is performed by researching and understanding how a novice’s information acquisition skill differs from an expert. The results help a novice learn good information-gathering skills during training (Law, Atkins, Kirkpatrick, & Lomax, 2004;

Underwood, 2007; Mourant, & Rockwell, 1972; Roca, Ford, McRobert, & Williams, 2011).

In the transportation industry, eye tracking research helps understand how operators interact with a vehicle (Groeger, Bradshaw, Everatt, Merat, & Field, 2003; Naweed, 2013). It is used in the rail industry to understand how drivers look at important cues while operating a train. For example, gathering information from signals is a vital part of a train driver’s role. A study by Luke, Brook-Carter, Parkes, Grimes and Mills (2006) showed that expectations of what to expect from the signals also determine their scanning strategies. For example, if a

205 green signal was expected for an extended period of time, then the driver might also scan other items. This is because they spent less time focusing on the signal due to their expectation, which resulted in spare time available for other scanning.

In the road transport industry, eye trackers can be used to train novice drivers in an attempt to keep them safe on the road and reduce accidents (Fisher, Pollatsek, & Pradhan,

2006; Mourant & Rockwell, 1972). As with other industries, objective data from eye trackers shows where the driver is looking, and also shows the importance of the information that he or she obtained based on the driving conditions (Shinar, 2008).

Even the space flight industry uses eye trackers to improve safety. Operating a space vehicle is a complex task, and an eye tracking study shows that where an astronaut looks depends on the phase of flight (Moore et al., 2008). In addition, if an abnormality was present, then the normal scan was changed in order to deal with the abnormality and resolve it. This behaviour was exhibited by both novices and experts, although experts displayed higher skill in their performance (Valerie et al., 2005; Hayashi, Beutter, & McCann, 2005).

Understanding the scanning patterns of operators is important even if the human is not physically present in the vehicle. Tvaryanas (2004) found that the scan can differ in vehicles in which the operator is not physically present, and that this can change the way he or she interacts with the vehicle and can have safety implications.

206

In the aviation industry, scanning instruments and the outside world is important to maintain flight safety. A pilot is trained to develop and maintain a good scan pattern from his or her first hour of pilot training. The importance of proper scanning has been researched using eye tracking equipment since the 1950s. These studies show where the pilot looks and for how long, and the scanning pattern they use to gather information. They also show the important instruments based on the number of times and the duration that they were looked at. For example, the heading indicator is more important than the vertical speed indicator, because the heading indicator was scanned five times more than the vertical speed indicator

(Milton, Jones, & Fitts, 1949). However, it is also important to note that such research has been conducted on specific phases of flight, such as instrument landing (Fitts, Jones, &

Milton, 1950; Jones, Milton, & Fitts, 1949), and that scanning strategies change according to the phase of flight and other conditions, such as abnormalities.

The studies mentioned in the previous paragraph also show the importance of the four primary instruments that are scanned regularly. The results of the above-mentioned research help in determining the best layout of the most frequently scanned instruments. Today, these instruments are also known as the ‘T’ instruments, as they are displayed in a ‘T’ layout. As discussed in Chapter 2, they are the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator and the heading indicator.

Since the above mentioned pioneering studies, scientists have continued to conduct such research to study and understand a pilot’s scanning patterns and scan paths. Results of such research helps scientists gather information about how a pilot acquires information from the instruments and which instruments they scan most (Harris, Glover, & Spady, 1986). It

207 also helps to understand the training strategies that are in place and to improve them as required (Wetzel et al., 1996). Such research not only improves aviation safety, it also helps aircraft manufacturers in designing the best instrument layout in cockpits.

The attitude indicator is one of the primary flight instruments (Huettig et al., 1999), and is scanned regularly in all phases of flight (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris &

Christhilf, 1980). Obtaining information from this instrument reduces the amount of time a pilot has to spend on other instruments (Harris & Christhilf, 1980). One of the reasons for the importance of this instrument is the information it provides. The attitude indicator provides direct information about an aircraft’s pitch and roll. This also provides secondary information to a pilot: if an aircraft is pitching up, the airspeed is also affected, and if an aircraft is rolling, the altitude is also affected.

A pilot has to maintain the scanning pattern skill for as long as he or she holds a pilot licence and flies an aircraft. In a single pilot operation, a pilot is responsible for gathering all the information required to safely fly an aircraft. He or she does this by obtaining all the necessary information from the available sources. A commercial pilot who is flying in a multi-crew environment, such as in a Boeing 737, can share the scanning with other crew members. During the take-off phase, the captain can choose to only monitor the runway and the primary flight instruments, and can assign monitoring of the engine and other systems to the first officer. This will also reduce the workload of a crew member during critical phases of flight in a complex aircraft, and encourages collaborative decision making.

208

While flying an aircraft, a pilot has to obtain information from several different sources. These include the instruments inside the aircraft, as well as the cues available from the outside world. Scanning the outside world is important, because it helps with processes such as traffic detection, obtaining navigation information, and maintaining awareness of weather changes. A study by Wickens, Xu, Helleberg, Carbonari and Marsh (2000) found that a pilot spends approximately 37% of her or his time scanning the outside world. The scanning strategies for the outside world can vary. One strategy is to divide the outside world into several areas vertically and individually scan each area. This provides a pilot with the opportunity to spend enough time in each area to acquire information, and helps with detecting traffic in the outside world (Talleur & Wickens, 2003). The amount of time spent scanning the outside world is affected by traffic density, with higher traffic levels resulting in more time spent scanning the outside world (Colvin, Dodhia, & Dismukes, 2005).

While scanning inside the aircraft, the pilot can scan the primary flight instruments, the system status instruments or miscellaneous instruments. Anders (2001) conducted a study using an Airbus A330 flight simulator, and collected pilots’ scanning data during the approach and landing phases of the flight. The results showed that the pilots scanned the primary flight display in a glass cockpit more than any other instrument. The automation configuration or mode was mainly scanned when altitude or heading changes were required as a result of instructions from the air traffic controller. A similar study conducted in a

Boeing 747 simulator found that the pilots scanned the primary flight display more than the other instruments (Mumaw et al., 2000).

209

Research conducted on pilots performing an instrument landing in a Boeing 737 simulator showed that pilots scan several instruments together. They obtain a cluster of information by scanning these instruments. These instruments are often related, such as airspeed and engine instruments (Dick, 1980). For example, some of the instruments a pilot monitors during landing are the airspeed indicator and altitude indicator. The airspeed information is vital to obtain during landing, because flying above or below the prescribed airspeed can lead to disaster. At the same time, changes in the aircraft’s speed will result in variation in the altitude. Hence, altitude has to be monitored at the same time to prevent any unwanted deviations.

The group of instruments scanned and the information obtained also depend on the phase of the flight (Diez et al., 2001). For example, the instruments scanned during the landing phase will differ from the cruise phase. This is because the priority during landing is to obtain the airspeed and altitude information regularly and to make necessary adjustments to maintain them. However, during the cruise phase, it is important to regularly acquire altitude information and heading information, to maintain the assigned altitude and navigational track.

As in commercial jet aircraft, regular scanning of the primary flight instruments and the outside world is also important in general aviation. Different studies reveal different amounts of time spent on the primary flight instruments. It is recommended that a pilot should spend 25–30% of her or his time scanning the instruments (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA,

1998; AOPA, 1993, 2001; FAR/AIM, 2003).

210

Objective empirical measurements of the percentage of time spent scanning the primary flight instruments vary widely and differ from the recommended time. One study found that the primary flight instruments were scanned around 35% of the time during a flight (Mumaw et al., 2001); Huettig et al. (1999) stated that they are scanned around 40%;

Wickens et al. (2000) suggested that they are scanned around 60%; and Dubois, Blättler,

Camachon and Hurter (2015) also showed that they are scanned 60% of the total time. The latter study showed that this dropped to less than 50% when they were prompted to scan the outside world.

Technology also plays an important role in a pilot’s scanning pattern, as it has changed the way humans perform tasks. In today’s automated world, a pilot is required to monitor the systems or equipment rather than manually operate them. Failure to monitor can lead to missing important information. Hence, it is important to understand how a pilot monitors an automated device or a system (Stern, Boyer, Schroeder, Touchstone, &

Stoliarov, 1994).

There is a difference in scanning patterns when a pilot is flying manually compared to when automation is used (Diez et al., 2001). A pilot’s scanning patterns correlate with his or her workload. While using autopilot, a pilot mainly monitors the instruments and verifies the flight parameters. This reliance on automation reduces instrument scanning during phases such as the cruise phase. However, landing is still performed manually by most pilots and this phase sees an increase in the scanning of instruments (Haslbeck, Schubert, Gontar, &

211

Bengler, 2012). In this phase, not only is a pilot monitoring the instruments, she or he is also actively maintaining the flight parameters.

Automation reliance reduces the scanning pattern of a pilot. Human factors scientists are yet to understand how a pilot scans the instruments in a modern automated glass cockpit aircraft. Some studies suggest that a pilot has trouble maintaining a good scanning pattern in the automated cockpit. Results from another study reveal that there is inconsistency among pilots’ scanning patterns in an automated cockpit (Sarter et al., 2003). Björklund, Alfredson and Dekker (2006) also found that pilots failed to check the autopilot mode regularly, contrary to recommendations made by manufacturers and airlines. Sarter, Mumaw, and

Wickens (2007) found similar results, with pilots failing to regularly monitor the automation settings. However, the results also showed that pilots still regularly scan the primary flight instruments. This is because these instruments provide a pilot with information about the basic flight parameters, which helps her or him to prioritise the task of flying the aircraft over everything else.

The aviation industry is benefiting from the rapid development of technology. Today many of the primary flight parameters are displayed on the head up display (HUD). This addition changes the scanning patterns of a pilot (Wickens & Ververs, 1998) and provides important information at eye-level in front of a pilot. This helps a pilot maintain a high level of situational awareness, without having to scan many different instruments. However, this also raises other issues, such as switching attention between the display and the outside world

(McCann, Foyle, & Johnston, 1993).

212

Understanding scanning patterns can also help aircraft manufacturers design flight instruments appropriately, whether it is automated systems or head up displays. On a larger scale, new cockpits can also be designed. A common example is the glass cockpit, which replaced the analogue cockpit. Rabl, Neujahr, Zimmer and Möller (2014) suggested that finding consistency in scanning patterns can help identify new ways of displaying instruments.

While manufacturers are taking advantage of computer technology and designing new systems, it is also important to consider some of the human factors challenges associated with automation. Humans have a limited attention span, and Yerkes and Dodson (1908) showed that humans require a certain amount of workload in order to achieve and maintain their optimal performance. Too little work might result in boredom, while too much can result in stress or burnout. This is an important consideration when designing highly automated aircraft.

Northwest Airlines flight NW188 (NTSB, 2010) provides an example of a problem that pilots can face in a highly automated cockpit. In this incident, the pilots’ trust in automation was so high that they failed to regularly monitor it and, as a result, they overflew their destination airport by more than 250 kilometres. Over-reliance on automation results in complacency, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Singh et al., 1993). Hence, a certain amount of workload is necessary to maintain involvement in the task being performed. This can be achieved by implementing adaptive automation (Di Nocera et al., 2007), which allows a pilot

213 to distribute her or his workload evenly through different phases of flight. This ensures that he or she is actively involved in flying an aircraft throughout the flight, and helps in monitoring the instruments.

Scan patterns can also be interrupted due to distractions, such as a radio message.

Regaining a good scan pattern after a distraction can take some time and it is imperative that a pilot achieves it as soon as possible. A result of poor scanning pattern is deviations from the assigned heading or altitude, which can lead to hazardous situations if not detected and corrected quickly.

Understanding disruptions and deviations and learning how to maintain good scan patterns can be improved through experience and training. A pilot can improve his or her scanning patterns by practising them in a simulator. In addition, while conducting simulator training, eye trackers can be used to enhance training (Dixon, Rojas, Krueger, & Simcik,

1990 ; Flight Safety Foundation, 2014). As mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, data from eye trackers helps in training and improving safety. Expected scanning strategies that have been objectively obtained from experts can be documented and utilised to train novices

(Flight Safety Foundation, 2014; Wetzel et al., 1996).

The information that has been presented thus far highlights the importance of scanning patterns while flying. It is important to understand the challenges and how technology can be utilised to improve safety. Scanning patterns lay the foundation of situational awareness. As discussed in Chapter 2, it is important for a pilot to achieve good

214 situational awareness, which lays the foundation for decision making. Good awareness is maintained by acquiring information from sources through regular scanning. Eye tracking studies reveal that understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns is important, as it allows scientists to also understand his or her level of situational awareness (Yu, Wang, Li, &

Braithwaite, 2014; Alexander, & Wickens, 2005; Schriver, Morrow, Wickens, & Talleur,

2008; Wanga, Li, Dongb, & Shu, 2015). This has a direct effect on the workload that a pilot experiences.

Understanding a pilot’s workload through eye movements also helps human factors scientists learn how a pilot uses automation. Research shows that a pilot’s scanning patterns vary based on the workload and that a pilot has a more organised scan when his or her workload is not high (Camilli, Nacchia, Terenzi, & Di Nocera, 2008 ; McCarley & Kramer,

2007).

Eye tracking studies also reveal differences between experts and novice s in factors such as situational awareness and decision making. Studies conducted by Roca et al. (2011) and Schriver et al. (2008) examined scanning strategies and detection of failures by experts and novices. Experts were able to acquire more information regarding a failure and make correct decisions. A study by Yu, Wang, Li, Braithwaite and Greaves (2016) reached a similar conclusion, finding that experts were able to maintain a higher level of situational awareness by scanning the head up display more regularly. An individual’s performance improves through practice and experience, because the same task is performed repeatedly.

This repetition improves a pilot’s monitoring and information acquisition skills (Stern et al.,

1996).

215

A pilot who maintains a good scan pattern is also able to detect any abnormalities that arise during flight, which reduces the chance of an accident. This is particularly true when there is a change in the instrument display and information is presented in a different way on the flight instruments (Thomas & Wickens, 2004). A pilot must be familiar with such changes. An instrument such as the attitude indicator is prominent and scanned regularly, regardless of cockpit type (glass or analogue) or flying condition (normal flight or abnormal flight), because it is a primary instrument that provides vital flight information to a pilot

(Gainer & Obermayer, 1964). However, other instruments such as the engine temperature indicator might not be easy to detect and scan in an unfamiliar layout. British Midlands flight

BD 92 (AAIB, 1990), as discussed in Chapter 2, provides a good example of the consequences of such changes.

Objective data obtained from studies using eye trackers shows that there is a close connection between a pilot’s monitoring ability and performance. Furthermore, a pilot’s situational awareness, decision making and workload are directly linked to his or her scanning strategies. Eye tracker studies also show the ability of a pilot to interact with the cockpit (Glaholt, 2014; Anders, 2001; Wanga et al., 2015).

There is limited objective data on pilot scanning patterns. Most of the studies discussed above explore the scanning patterns of a pilot in a particular phase of flight, and further study is required to understand pilot scanning patterns in all phases of flight.

216

Furthermore, there are no studies comparing the pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. This further highlights the gap in the literature. As a result, this thesis compares the scanning patterns of pilots between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. Data was collected for the full flight, in all phases. In addition to collecting data during a normal flight, scanning pattern data was also collected during instrument flying conditions and abnormal situations, in both types of cockpit. Empirical studies were conducted in flight simulators that were discussed in the previous chapter.

Understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns is extremely important, particularly when making a transition to an aircraft with an unfamiliar cockpit layout. The instruments in an unfamiliar cockpit might be differently displayed and information presentation can vary. An unfamiliar cockpit might also include additional instruments to provide more information. As such, it is important for human factors scientists to understand how pilots scan and acquire information after making the transition. This research also uses an eye tracking device to collect objective data which is discussed in the next section.

217

Eye Tracker Used in this Research

Arrington Research Eye Frame Scene Camera Systems

Arrington Research Incorporation offers several eye tracker products. Arrington is based in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, and has been making eye trackers since 1995. They make affordable eye trackers to help scientists conduct research. This equipment is popular and has been used by many industries to conduct research in areas such as consumer behaviour, human-computer interaction, and aviation human factors.

Arrington offers several products including head mounted eye trackers, fixed-head eye trackers, scene camera eye trackers, and head and eye trackers. All these systems offer similar functionality and can be used for many research purposes. For example, the fixed- head eye tracker is used for research that does not require the person to move their head, such as human-computer interaction research. This is because the computer screen is always in the same position and the person’s head can be stationary while viewing it.

The eye tracker used in this study was the Arrington Research Head Mounted Eye

Tracker. This is a head-mounted lightweight eye tracker, worn in a similar way to a pair of glasses. The eye tracker can be worn on top of a person’s prescription glasses if required. The eye tracker includes several different components. The main component is the frame, which holds all the parts together. A high definition scene camera is installed on top of the frame.

218

This camera records the view that is in front of the person wearing the glasses. There are two eye cameras that point towards a person’s eyes, one for each eye, and record the movement of the eyes. There are also two infrared lights which point towards a person’s eye, one for each eye. These illuminate the pupils, allowing the eye camera to capture the movement of the eye in dark conditions. Figure 59 shows the head mounted eye tracker used in this research.

Figure 59: Arrington Research head-mounted eye tracker.

The eye tracker is equipped with a ten-meter cable, which allows a person wearing the eye tracker to freely move around. The cable connects the eye tracker to a laptop or computer, with the help of a four-channel frame grabber. The laptop or computer has the

219 software required for calibration, data capture and data analysis. The laptop setup is shown in

Figure 60.

Figure 60: Computer with eye tracker calibration and data collection software.

Calibration of the eye tracker requires the person wearing the eye tracker to keep his or her head temporarily still. This calibration ensures precise data collection. A person is required to look at sixteen points or numbers on a white board without moving her or his head. The sixteen numbers are in the form of a rectangle, in four rows and four columns (see

Figure 61 for image of layout). The software selects the numbers to look at, and the researcher informs the person of the numbers. While a person is looking at the number, the researcher calibrates every point.

220

Figure 61: Sixteen points used for calibration of the eye tracker.

The data is recorded on the laptop as a video file and a text file. The video file records a movie clip of the scene that is in front of the person who is wearing the eye tracker, and the text file includes coordinates of where a person looked during a particular time and data on how long a person looked at each point for. The text file contains raw data that is difficult to comprehend without analysis.

221

Figure 62 : Example of the data captured by the eye tracker.

The data analysis software, which is different to the data capture software, reads the video and text file and combines them. It plays back the video file while overlaying the eye movements on top of the video. The playback shows every fixation of a subject along with her or his eye movement. Two circles show the eye movement, one for each eye. There is also a trailing line which temporarily shows the movement of the eye. Figure 62 shows an example of the captured data played back using the data analysis software. The larger green and blue circles show where a person was looking, and the smaller red and pink circles show the movement of the eye.

222

Figure 63: Example of the raw data saved in text format.

Figure 63 shows an example of the raw data in the text file. This data can be converted to another comprehensible text file, using the data analysis software, which allows the researcher to understand the data.

Figure 64 shows the raw data file converted into an understandable text file. This file shows the data in several columns, with data for every point for the duration of the recording.

The first column shows the time (in seconds) at which the data was captured. The second column shows whether the data point was a fixation (for example, a person looking at an instrument in an aircraft) or saccade (a person moving his or her eye to search for the information). The third column shows the coordinates of where a person was looking.

223

Figure 64: Example of raw data converted into a comprehensible text file.

Being a head-mounted eye tracker, it allowed a person to move his or her head to look around. Hence, the data collected as X and Y coordinates could not be mapped onto a static image. In the experiments, pilots constantly moved their heads while flying in the simulator.

This is because she or he had to look at the instruments and also at the outside world to acquire the required information to safely fly the aircraft. This meant that two data points with the same coordinates did not mean that a pilot was looking at the same instrument or even the same area.

224

The data was entered into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft © Excel for Windows, 2010) spreadsheet for analysis. This allowed the data to be converted into an easy-to-understand table. Since the X and Y coordinates were not consistent throughout the recording, data could not be automatically analysed and each point had to be individually examined.

Figure 65 shows the data file after it was entered into an Excel spreadsheet. It shows approximately 50 data points and where a pilot looked for each of those points. This dataset is from the last few seconds before landing the aircraft. The data shows that a pilot looked mostly at the outside world, because landing an aircraft a few feet above the ground is mainly a visual task. When a pilot looked at the instruments, the airspeed indicator was the only instrument scanned. In this case, knowing the speed of the aircraft is important a few seconds before landing.

This dataset of 50 points shows where one pilot looked during a few seconds of flight.

The experiments collected data from more than thirty pilots, each undertaking two repetitions of a 30-minute flight. This generated more than four hundred thousand data points from all the subjects. Each of these points had to be analysed to obtain an overall table of a pilot’s scanning patterns. Analysis of all the points was time-consuming, but automation of this process was not possible due to the nature of the eye tracker.

225

Figure 65 : Example of data points being analysed in Excel.

The above process allows objective data to be collected and analysed using the eye tracker. The eye tracking device, along with flight simulators, offers a safe and reliable method of collecting data. As a result, they were used in this research to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

226

Chapter 5

Visual Flight Rules Study

Introduction

Flight instruments in an aircraft’s cockpit can be displayed in two different types: a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. These are described in detail in Chapters 1 and 2. The glass cockpit was introduced in the commercial passenger aircraft and has gained immense popularity over recent decades. Pilots prefer it, due to the benefits it offers. As a result, it has become a standard option in the aviation industry, and any new aircraft purchased today, including recreational aircraft, comes equipped with a glass cockpit. An analogue cockpit is still available as an option when purchasing a new aircraft.

A transition between the two types of cockpit can raise several human factors issues, as mentioned in the previous chapters. A pilot’s situational awareness is affected and the way she or he acquires information from the flight instruments can be different. As such the decision-making skills and workload are also impacted after making a transition.

Traditionally, a pilot made a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. In other words, a pilot learnt to fly in an analogue cockpit and then made a transition to a glass cockpit during his or her career. This is because glass cockpit aircraft were previously only available in the commercial airlines. Due to their increased availability, in recent years even general aviation aircraft are equipped with glass cockpits.

228

Chapters 1 and 2 highlighted the current problem the aviation industry is facing, in that an increasing number of pilots are making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. There are several reasons for making such a transition. One reason is that, due to their popularity, glass cockpit aircraft are being used for flight training and a student pilot might not encounter an analogue cockpit at all. At the same time, regulatory requirements do not impose a restriction on the type of cockpit a person can fly in after obtaining a pilot licence. Hence, not only does a pilot make a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit, this transition can be made with no prior experience in an analogue cockpit.

Transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit is a recent issue. As discussed in Chapter 2, considerable research was conducted to understand the effects of a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. However, there are few empirical studies that have studied the transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. Hence, there is a gap in the literature, and this study is part of a number of studies that addresses that gap.

This visual flight rules study compared pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. Th ree research questions were asked. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns different for the full flight? Second, d id a pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft differently for the full flight? Third, were there differences in the scanning patterns for the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight?

229

Method

Subjects

The experiment for this study was conducted at Swinburne University of Technology.

Subjects recruited were primarily university students who were enrolled in the Bachelor of

Aviation program. The subjects were recruited through an advertisement sent out via university’s internal student email service. The email was sent to all students enrolled in the aviation program.

A description of the study and the requirements to participate in the experiment were provided in the email. It was essential that individuals participating in the experiment had a current pilot licence. Such a qualification was necessary to obtain reliable data.

In addition to recruiting students, a small number of experienced industry pilots were also recruited, using a similar recruitment approach to the university students. The email advertisement was sent to industry professionals who were on the university’s mailing list.

The advertisement consisted of text-only content, shown in Appendix A. It was included in the body of the email, as it had no images or extra files. This made it easy for the receiver to open and read it instantly, because it did not require any additional download.

230

Twelve fixed-wing pilots participated in this study, comprising nine male and three female subjects. There was an imbalance in the number of male and female subjects; however, this imbalance was not considered to be an issue and was not expected to affect the results of the study.

Due to the mix of university students and pilots from the industry, the demographics of the subject group also varied. The age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of

33 years and standard deviation of ± 13 years.

All subjects had a current pilot licence when they participated in this study. Students from the university who were obtaining their CPL were at the lower end of the experience scale. Subjects from the industry who were employed as pilots were at the higher end of the experience scale.

The experience of these subjects ranged from 115 hours to 3,250 hours; the average flight time was 460 hours and standard deviation was ± 1,111 hours. Participation in this study was voluntary and no compensation was provided.

It is important to note that at the time of the study all subjects had recent experience flying in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. Subjects from the university were learning

231 to fly in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit, and subjects from the industry were also flying an aircraft with a glass cockpit.

This research study was approved by the Swinburne University’s Human Research

Ethics Committee, Protocol Number 2012/256; refer to Appendix B. The study was conducted within the guidelines of the ethics protocol.

Equipment

Redbird FMX Flight Simulator

The Redbird FMX flight simulator, as described in Chapter 3, was used to conduct the experiment. The twin engine Beechcraft Baron 58 aircraft was used. This aircraft has the option of a glass cockpit or an analogue cockpit flight instrument display.

Arrington Research Scene Camera Eye Tracker

The eye tracker, as described in Chapter 4, was used to conduct the experiment. Each subject wore this device for the duration of the experiment. It collected objective data on a pilot’s scanning pattern in the two types of cockpit.

232

NASA Task Load Index

A workload questionnaire was used in this study. The questionnaire that was used was the NASA TLX, as described in Chapter 2. The questionnaire is attached in Appendix J. This provided subjective data of a pilot’s workload perception in both types of cockpit.

Demographic Questionnaire

Finally, a demographic questionnaire was used in this study. This included five questions, as shown in Appendix I.

Procedure

Each subject was given a detailed explanation of the study before he or she participated in the experiment. The subject was provided with the flight plan, maps, airport diagrams, frequencies, checklists, and other information required to complete the flight (refer to Appendix F).

She or he was also provided with a written Information Statement and a Consent

Form (refer to Appendix C). The Information Statement provided details of the purpose, scope and expected outcomes of the study. The subject read the Information Statement and

233 then signed the Consent Form, which confirmed his or her agreement to participate in the study. The subject was also allowed to withdraw from the study at any time, without providing an explanation. If a subject did decide to do that, his or her data would have been immediately discarded. However, all subjects completed the entire study.

For the purpose of this experiment, the subject wore the eye tracker instead of the headset. As a result, she or he was not required to make any radio calls and was asked to ignore the airspace requirements.

The eye tracker device was worn by the subject and calibrated before beginning the simulator experiment. A good calibration was necessary to ensure accuracy of data collection.

Once the eye tracker was calibrated, it stayed on the subject’s head for the duration of the experiment. If the subject chose to remove it for any reason, then it had to be recalibrated. All subjects left the eye tracker on their heads for the duration of the experiment.

The calibration process was completed outside the simulator, and the subject stepped into the flight simulator after calibration was complete. Extra care was taken while stepping into the flight simulator, to ensure that the eye tracker did not move, as that would have required recalibration. Once in the simulator, the subject performed a simple calibration check with the researcher. This involved the subject looking at random instruments and the researcher pointed out which instruments the subject was looking at. This ensured that the calibration was still maintained after entering the simulator.

234

The flight was conducted in day visual flight rules (VFR) condition. This means that the visibility outside the aircraft was greater than ten nautical miles. The weather included a few clouds at high altitude and there was no wind, which allowed the subject to fly directly to the destination. They did not have to change course to avoid clouds or to account for the wind strength and direction.

The flight route was in the city of Melbourne, Australia. This area was selected since most of the subjects were from Melbourne and were familiar with the airspace. This avoided any unwanted navigational challenges, which might have risen had the airport been in an unfamiliar area. The flight was conducted from Moorabbin airport to Essendon airport.

Moorabbin airport is the local general aviation airport, where most of the subjects, including all the university students, were trained. Essendon airport is also a local airport used for general and commercial aviation. Most of the subjects were familiar with both the airports, as they flew in and out of these airports during their flight training. The total distance between the two airports was approximately twenty nautical miles, and the average time taken to complete the flight was approximately thirty minutes. This time included the engine start-up sequence and also the engine shut down.

The above factors made it easier for the subjects to fly the aircraft. At the same time, it did not affect the way the subject scanned the instruments and the outside world during a normal day VFR flight.

235

Figure 66: Flight route for the VFR experiment. 236

Figure 66 shows the route that was flown during the experiment. The simulator started with the aircraft positioned on the ramp at Moorabbin airport. The subject was required to start the engines using the checklist provided. Engine run-ups were ignored, and the subject was asked to taxi to Runway 35L using taxiways Alpha and Alpha 7 (refer to Appendix F for airport diagram). Data collection commenced while the aircraft was taxiing to the runway.

Once at the runway threshold, the aircraft entered the runway and started the take-off roll.

After take-off the aircraft maintained runway heading until it reached five hundred feet above ground level. At this point, the aircraft turned towards the city of Melbourne while climbing to the assigned cruising altitude. Being a VFR flight, the aircraft visually tracked towards the city of Melbourne, as the skyline was visible immediately after take-off. The subject was also allowed to use the GPS or the maps provided, if required.

The aircraft maintained a low cruising altitude of two thousand feet. This low cruising altitude was chosen as the distance between the two airports was approximately twenty nautical miles. A low cruising altitude also made it easy for the subject to follow the landmarks in the outside world to navigate between the two airports.

When the aircraft reached the city centre of Melbourne, the destination airport was visible. The subject was asked to land the aircraft on Runway 26, which is the east-west runway at Essendon (refer to Appendix F). Hence, the subject turned the aircraft to the north to enter the circuit pattern on the base leg for Runway 26, and started the descent just prior to

237 entering the circuit pattern at Essendon airport. A normal landing was conducted into

Essendon. Once on Runway 26, the subject performed a full stop landing.

After the landing, the researcher stopped the data recording and gave the subject the workload questionnaire and the demographic questionnaire. The subject completed the two questionnaires while remaining in the simulator.

While the subject was answering the questionnaires, the researcher changed the aircraft’s cockpit. The change of the cockpit display took a few minutes and did not disrupt the subject. The flight was also reset to Moorabbin airport, so that the subject could fly the same flight again.

The flight was flown again by the subject in the different type of cockpit. Apart from the cockpit change, everything else was exactly the same as the first flight. All subjects flew twice, once in a glass cockpit and once in an analogue cockpit. The order in which the cockpits were chosen and flown was randomised; that is, some subjects flew in a glass cockpit first, whereas others flew in an analogue cockpit first.

The subjects were also allowed to take a break between the flights. However, everyone chose to continue with the second flight immediately after completing the first flight. This is mainly because the duration of the flights was not long. Finally, the subjects were asked to fly the aircraft manually, without using autopilot.

238

Statistical Analysis

The data captured by the eye tracker was downloaded and tabulated into a PC-based spreadsheet program, Microsoft Excel. Once the final table was prepared, it showed the fixation time for the duration of the flight, expressed as a percentage of the total flight time.

Scanning pattern was represented by fixation time. This table displayed the average time for all the subjects combined. Data was separated for glass cockpit and analogue cockpit fixation.

Fixation time for the entire flight was divided into three main categories: the saccade, outside aircraft and inside aircraft. Saccade is referred to as the eye movement, and occurs when a person is transferring his or her gaze from one fixation point to another fixation point.

Outside aircraft consists of any time spent looking at the outside world, including landmarks, terrain, traffic, and weather. Inside aircraft refers to the time spent looking at the flight instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit.

After analysing the data for the full flight, inside aircraft data was divided into two sub-categories and analysed further. These subcategories are the primary flight instruments and aircraft system status instruments. The primary flight instruments are the six main instruments in the cockpit: the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator, heading indicator, vertical speed indicator, and turn and bank indicator. The aircraft system status instruments include the GPS and the engine instruments. These instruments have been

239 discussed in Chapter 2. The six individual primary instruments were also analysed further for the full flight.

For the purpose of this study, only flight instruments scanned inside the aircraft were examined; switches and controls that were looked at were ignored. As mentioned in Chapter

2, the flight instruments are different between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit, but the switches and controls are similar and in the same location.

Finally, the six individual primary instruments were further analysed for the different phases of the flight. The full flight was divided into five different phases: take-off, climb, cruise, descent and landing.

The take-off phase started when the subject applied full power to begin the take-off roll. This phase included the aircraft accelerating down the runway and rotating for take-off.

It ended once the aircraft was airborne and the main landing gear was off the runway. The climb phase started immediately after the take-off phase, and included the aircraft climbing to the assigned cruising altitude. The cruise phase started once the aircraft was at the assigned cruising altitude and navigating towards the destination airport. The descent phase started as soon as the aircraft reduced power and began its approach into the destination airport. The landing phase started when the aircraft was five hundred feet above the airport’s elevation and ended once the aircraft touched down on the runway.

240

For the purpose of this study, pre-take-off and post-landing phases were not analysed.

Only the above phases were analysed to find out if there were any significant differences between fixation times in a glass and analogue cockpit.

Apart from collecting data on the scanning patterns, workload data was also collected for the entire flight using the subjective questionnaire. The workload data was compared between an analogue and a glass cockpit on the six individual scales described in Chapter 2: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration. The scores on the six individual scales were used to calculate an overall weighted workload score, and this was also compared between the two types of cockpit.

The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 20, IBM Corp, New York,

NY) software tool. ANOVA was used, and an alpha level of p < .05 was used to represent a significant difference in scanning patterns between a glass and an analogue cockpit.

241

Results

This section displays the data in the form of a bar graph for each of the analyses conducted. These graphs also include error bars, which show the standard error. The graphs show the average time for all the subjects combined, and the amount of time spent scanning in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. An asterisk indicates a significant difference (p <

.05) between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

Figure 67: Scanning pattern for the full flight in visual flight conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 67 shows the scanning pattern for the entire flight in the two types of cockpit.

While flying in visual conditions, the subjects spent most of their time looking outside the

242 aircraft. This was true in both types of cockpit. The subjects scanned the outside world

11.23% more in an analogue cockpit than glass, which was significantly different; F (1, 118)

= 17.97, p < .05. The subjects’ saccade rate was 21.93% higher in an analogue cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 7.99, p < .05. The inside instruments were scanned

70.53% more in a glass cockpit, which was also significantly different; F (1, 118) = 26.89, p

< .05.

Figure 68: Instrument scan breakdown for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 68 shows the scanning pattern inside the aircraft. While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments. These instruments were scanned 73.20% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 32.46, p < .05. There was no difference in scanning of the

243 aircraft system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 118) = 2.01, p >

.05.

Figure 69: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight (Figure

69) show that the instruments were scanned more in a glass cockpit than an analogue cockpit.

The airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument for the full flight. The turn and bank indicator was not scanned in either cockpit during the full flight.

The airspeed indicator was scanned 80.78% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 14.83, p < .05. The attitude indicator was

244 scanned 87.51% more in a glass cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) =

15.32, p < .05. The altitude indicator was scanned 45.44% more in a glass cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 4.93, p < .05. The heading indicator was scanned

115.30% more in a glass cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 11.18, p <

.05. There was no difference in scanning of the vertical speed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 118) = 0.21, p > .05.

Figure 70: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the take-off phase, * indicates p < .05.

While discussing the six primary instruments’ scans in the different phases of flight, only the most scanned and the least scanned instruments will be discussed, and any significant differences for those instruments will be presented. In addition, any other instrument with significant differences will be highlighted.

245

During the take-off phase, only the airspeed indicator was scanned, as shown in

Figure 70. It was scanned 125.88% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 22) = 13.37, p < .05.

During the climb phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument (Figure 71). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F

(1, 22) = 1.63, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument, and was not scanned at all during the climb phase.

There were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in the amount of time spent scanning the airspeed indicator and the attitude indicator (Figure 71). The airspeed indicator was scanned 64.89% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.94, p < .05. The attitude indicator was scanned 67.13% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.34, p < .05.

246

Figure 71: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the climb phase, * indicates p < .05.

During the cruise phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument (Figure 72). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F

(1, 22) = 1.53, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator and the vertical speed indicator were the least scanned instruments during the cruise phase (Figure 72), and were not scanned at all.

247

Figure 72: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the cruise phase, * indicates p < .05.

As with the climb phase, in the cruise phase there were significant differences between the glass and analogue cockpits in the amount of time spent scanning the airspeed indicator and the attitude indicator. The airspeed indicator was scanned 73.34% more in a glass cockpit than analogue; F (1, 22) = 5.69, p < .05. The attitude indicator was scanned

85.61% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.31, p < .05.

During the descent phase (Figure 73), the altitude indicator was still the most scanned primary flight instrument in the glass cockpit. It was scanned 96.27% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 22) = 8.39, p < .05.

248

Figure 73: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the descent phase, * indicates p < .05.

In an analogue cockpit, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument. However, it was still scanned 48.13% more in the glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 22) = 4.33, p < .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument, and was not scanned at all during the descent phase.

Finally, during the landing phase (Figure 74) the airspeed indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 2.56, p > .05.

249

Figure 74: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the landing phase, * indicates p < .05.

The turn and bank indicator and the vertical speed indicator were the least scanned instruments during the landing phase; neither was scanned at all.

The amount of time spent on the attitude indicator and the heading indicator was significantly different between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The attitude indicator was scanned 198.64% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.79, p < .05. The heading indicator was scanned 1417.22% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 13.88, p < .05.

250

Figure 75: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 75 shows the workload scores on the six scales for the full flight.

There was no difference in the scores of mental demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.39, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of physical demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.16, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of temporal demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.24, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of performance between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) =

0.82, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of effort between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 1.57 p > .05. Finally, there was no difference in the scores of frustration between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.14, p > .05.

251

The average overall weighted workload in a glass cockpit was 53.27, with a range from 13.33 to 87.33 and a standard deviation of ± 21.55. The average workload in an analogue cockpit was 59.83, with a range from 27.33 to 88.67 and a standard deviation of ±

18.99. There was no difference in the overall weighted scores between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 142) = 0.63, p > .05.

252

Discussion

This study was conducted to compare pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in visual flight rules condition. Literature suggests that examining a pilot’s scanning patterns after he or she makes a transition is important (Hayashi et al., 2003;

Hayashi, 2003), because there are differences between the two types of cockpit. Hence, it is necessary to understand if a pilot is able to acquire the information from the flight instruments in the same way in both cockpit types. Not only will a scanning pattern allow a pilot to acquire the information, it will also help in performing timely actions.

The difference between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit is in the instrument display and information layout. Apart from this difference, the controls and switches are similar and in the same location. During the experiment, the flight route, weather and traffic density were the same for the two flights conducted in the two cockpit types. Hence, any differences in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit were attributed to the change in the scanning pattern due to different instrument display and information layout.

This study asked three research questions. The first was whether pilots’ scanning patterns were different for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that there were significant differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit for the full flight.

This supports the conclusions of previous studies, which found that the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015;

Anders, 2001; Van de Merwe et al., 2012).

253

In daytime VFR conditions, the subjects spent most of their time scanning the outside world. This was consistent in both types of cockpit for the full flight. The time spent looking at the outside world was greater in an analogue cockpit than a glass cockpit. The results of the current experiment also revealed a much higher percentage of time spent scanning the outside world than in empirical research conducted by Wickens et al. (2000). Their study revealed that less than 40% of the time was spent scanning the outside world, whereas the present experiment found that subjects spent more than 65% of their time looking at the outside world. This could be due to visual conditions.

The flight was conducted in good outside visibility conditions. As a result, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the outside world, which provided them with the required information to safely fly the aircraft. This information includes the navigation information, terrain information and weather information. Literature also suggests that scanning the outside world is necessary to obtain important information, such as detecting other aircraft in the area (Talleur & Wickens, 2003).

During the full flight, the subjects had a higher saccade rate in an analogue cockpit.

Saccade relates to eye movement, and measures the amount of time subjects spent moving their eyes from one area of fixation to another. This could also indicate the time subjects spent searching for information. As mentioned above, the only difference between the flights in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit is the change in instrument display. As a result, the

254 higher saccade in an analogue cockpit could be due to more time being spent searching for the required information (Goldberg & Kotval, 1999).

While comparing the instruments, the subjects spent more time scanning them in a glass cockpit. This may be due to their familiarity with a glass cockpit because, at the time of the experiment, all subjects had recent flying experience in a glass cockpit. Another reason may be the visually appealing displays in a glass cockpit. Andraši et al., (2016) stated that the information layout in a glass cockpit has to be attention-capturing. A glass cockpit offers larger displays and the layout makes it easier for the subjects to acquire information.

In VFR conditions, it is also possible to fly an aircraft just by listening to the ‘sound and feel’ of the engine. In particular, in a propeller-engine aircraft a pilot can judge the throttle setting and engine performance by listening to the engine. Additionally, a pilot is able to fly between two locations by obtaining navigation information from the outside world and following landmarks. Relying on the outside world to gather the information can reduce the scan inside the aircraft in visual condition. The results of this experiment could also be a result of such a phenomenon. In an analogue cockpit, the unfamiliarity with the display resulted in a higher saccade rate. Unfamiliarity with the instruments could also explain why they were scanned less in an analogue cockpit and why more time was spent looking at the outside world.

The second research question was whether there were any differences in the scan patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft for the full flight. This question was divided into

255 two sub-parts. First, the inside instruments were divided into two categories, as discussed on page 239, and a comparison was made for any differences in primary flight instruments (PFI) and aircraft system status instruments (ASSI). Second, the six individual primary flight instruments were analysed for any differences. The results of the experiment show that there were significant differences in the fixation times for some of the instruments between the two types of cockpit for the full flight.

The PFI were scanned more than the ASSI. The PFI were also scanned more in a glass cockpit than an analogue cockpit. This could be due to the reasons discussed previously.

Additionally, the PFI may have been scanned more because of the essential information they provide. The results also support the conclusions of the existing literature, that the PFI are the most scanned instruments in an aircraft (Anders, 2001; Mumaw et al., 2000). However, the result of this experiment contradicts the existing literature regarding the amount of time a pilot should spend on the PFI. They were scanned more than 10% of the time in an analogue cockpit and more than 20% in a glass cockpit, whereas literature recommends that these be scanned at least 25% of the time (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 1993, 2001;

FAR/AIM, 2003). Other empirical studies found between 35% and 60% of the time was spent on these instruments, which is greater than in this study (Mumaw et al., 2001; Wickens et al,

2000 ; Dubois et al., 2015). The time spent scanning the PFI in a glass cockpit was closer to the recommended time than an analogue cockpit.

Of the six individual primary flight instruments, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument, followed by the altitude indicator. This was true in both types of cockpit for the full flight. These results contradict the results of existing literature, which suggests

256 that the attitude indicator is one of the most important instruments to scan during flight

(Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). This instrument is important due to the information it provides, i.e. the aircraft’s orientation to the outside world. Once again, being visual conditions, this information was obtained by looking at the outside world instead of the instrument. While this is possible in VFR conditions, pilots should be cautious of over-depending on the outside world for cues on an aircraft’s orientation. For example, if the terrain is uneven then the horizon might not be an accurate indication of straight and level flight. At the same time, over-reliance can be a problem if there are clouds present. VFR conditions normally consist of good weather, although it is possible to have one or two clouds in the area. In such instances, the attitude indicator will provide the most reliable source of information.

There were also significant differences between four of the six primary flight instruments. These four instruments are also the ‘T’ instruments, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 4. Once again, these were scanned significantly more in a glass cockpit. This highlights the differences in acquisition of the vital data from the primary flight instruments between the two types of cockpit. In particular, it shows that not enough time is spent looking at the primary instruments when flying in an aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit.

The third research question was whether there were any differences in the scan patterns of the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight. The results of the experiment show that there were significant differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit for some of the instruments based on the phase of flight.

257

The results are similar to the existing literature, which suggests that the instruments scanned vary based on the phase of flight (Diez et al., 2001).

All the instruments were scanned more in a glass cockpit than analogue. The relative level of scanning of instruments differed based on the phase of flight. Some instruments were not scanned at all in some phases of flight. For example, the turn and bank indicator was not scanned at all in any phase of flight. On the other hand, the airspeed indicator was the only instrument scanned during the take-off phase; this was true in both types of cockpit.

The instruments scanned during a phase show the importance of acquiring particular flight parameters for that phase. For example, during the take-off phase, the airspeed indicator is one of the most important instruments to scan, because the aircraft requires sufficient speed to take off. The aerodynamic design of an aircraft prevents it from successfully taking off before reaching the take-off speed. If a pilot forces the aircraft to take off before reaching the required speed, then it could stall the aircraft. At the same time, staying on the runway when the aircraft exceeds the take-off speed can result in structural difficulties, including excessive vibrations of the airframe. Similarly, in the landing phase, the airspeed indicator is again one of the most important instruments to scan. During this phase, managing the speed of the aircraft is vital: flying too fast or too slow could result in incidents or accidents. Flying too fast can result in a rough landing, where the aircraft’s landing gear could be damaged or other structural damage can occur. The aircraft could also take a longer distance to slow down on the runway, which can result in the aircraft touching down short of the runway. This can be potentially disastrous and lead to an accident. Clearly, it is vital that the speed of the aircraft is managed properly.

258

The results of this experiment show that the airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument during the take-off phase and landing phase. It was also scanned significantly more in a glass cockpit during the take-off phase. This further emphasises the challenge of obtaining this vital information in an analogue cockpit. As a result, some of the problems mentioned above, such as stalling the aircraft, could be faced by a pilot who makes a transition to an analogue cockpit. This has safety implications, as it can result in an incident or an accident.

While the airspeed indicator is one of the most important instruments to be scanned during the take-off and landing phases, it is not the most important. Previous studies have stated that the attitude indicator is the most important instrument to scan during flight (Gainer

& Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). This is true for the full flight and for all the different phases of flight. As such, the results of this experiment were not consistent with the existing literature. The observed trend in this study was consistent in both types of cockpit, and can be attributed to the condition of the flight. Being VFR flight, the attitude information was obtained by scanning the outside world, as discussed earlier. The significant differences in most phases of flight also indicate that, in an analogue cockpit, this information was obtained from the outside world even more than in a glass cockpit. However, the lack of a significant difference in the descent phase shows that the attitude indicator was scanned in the same manner in both types of cockpit.

259

Analysing the workload data showed that there were no significant differences in the subjective workload ratings. This result is also similar to previous empirical studies. For example, results from Wright and O’Hare’s (2015) study revealed that subjects had significantly different performance between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

However, when it came to subjective ratings, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit. This highlights the disassociation between preference and performance, which states that subjective opinions can differ from objective performance (Roberts et al., 2016;

Andre & Wickens, 1995).

In conclusion, the results of this VFR study showed that there were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in the scanning patterns for the full flight. While comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft for the full flight, there were significant differences between cockpits only for some of the instruments. Further analysis of the individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight also revealed that the scanning patterns of only some instruments were significantly different between cockpits.

To further compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit, the next chapter investigates the scanning patterns in instrument conditions.

260

Chapter 6

Instrument Flight Rules Study

Introduction

A flight can be conducted in two different types of conditions: visual flight rules

(VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR). A flight can only be conducted in visual conditions if the visibility in the outside world is good. This helps a pilot navigate and fly to the destination by obtaining information from the outside world.

Flight instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit help a pilot with navigation. However, it is possible for a pilot to safely fly the aircraft and navigate using the cues obtained from the outside world only. Early aviators used this method to fly an aircraft, mainly because the instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit were not well developed. The need to continue flying despite poor visibility conditions was high in the early days of aviation. This encouraged the introduction of instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit that would provide navigational information and allow a pilot to fly to the destination just by relying on the instruments. This is the source of the term instrument flight rules. Conducting a flight in instrument conditions requires additional training, which is normally commenced after obtaining the initial licence.

The differences in the instrument display and information layout can affect a pilot’s ability to fly in poor visibility conditions. It is important to understand how a pilot acquires information in the different types of cockpit while flying in IFR condition. Failure to properly acquire information can result in an incident or an accident.

262

The previous chapter compared pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit in visual conditions. This chapter follows on from this and compares pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit while flying in instrument conditions. One of the main differences between the two conditions is the visibility in the outside world.

The previous study was conducted in visual conditions, with good visibility in the outside world, whereas the present study is conducted in instrument conditions, with poor visibility in the outside world. In these conditions, a pilot is not able to obtain information from the outside world and only has the instruments to rely on to safely fly the aircraft. This is the second experiment conducted to address the literature gap that was mentioned in the previous chapters.

This instrument flight rules study compared pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The same three research questions as the previous experiment were asked. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns different for the full flight?

Second, did a pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft differently for the full flight?

Third, were there differences in the scanning patterns for the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight?

263

Method

Subjects

Subjects were recruited in a similar method as the previous study. The only difference was that all pilots who participated in this study were required to have an instrument flight rules rating.

Nine fixed-wing pilots participated in this study, comprising six male and three female subjects. There was an imbalance in the number of male and female subjects; however, this imbalance was not considered to be an issue and was not expected to affect the results of the study.

Due to a mix of university students and pilots from the industry, the demographics of the subject group was varied. The subjects’ age ranged from 21 to 48 years, with an average of 30.67 years and standard deviation of ± 10.70 years.

All subjects had a current pilot licence with instrument rating when they participated in this study. Students from the university who were obtaining their CPL were at the lower end of the experience scale, and subjects from the industry who were employed as pilots were at the higher end of the experience scale.

264

The experience of these subjects ranged from 200 hours to 5,200 hours; the average flight time was 1557.78 hours and the standard deviation was ± 1964.70 hours. As in the previous study, the subjects were not reimbursed for their time.

It is important to note that at the time of the study all subjects had recent experience flying in aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

This research study was approved by the Swinburne University’s Human Research

Ethics Committee, Protocol Number 2012/256; refer to Appendix B.

Equipment

The equipment used for this study was similar to the previous study. The same flight simulator, eye tracker, workload questionnaire and demographic questionnaire were used.

These helped in collecting subjective and objective data.

Procedure

The procedure was also similar to the previous study. The experiment started with the subject being provided with all the information (refer to Appendices F, G and H) and then

265 signing the consent form (refer to Appendix C). As in the previous study, he or she was provided with the necessary materials, the eye tracker was calibrated before the subject stepped into the simulator, and they were free to withdraw from the study at any time. Unlike the previous study, this flight was conducted in day instrument flight rules (IFR) condition, which means that the visibility outside the aircraft was very poor. Visibility was set to 1 mile

(1.6 kilometres) for this flight, therefore a pilot was unable to follow landmarks in the outside world and only had the instruments to rely on to navigate to the destination. There was no wind during this flight.

The flight route was in in the city of Melbourne, Australia. As in the previous study, this area was selected because the subjects were recruited from Melbourne and were familiar with the area. The flight was conducted from Moorabbin airport to Essendon airport. The total distance for this flight was approximately twenty-three nautical miles, and the average time taken to complete it was approximately thirty-five minutes.

The simulator started with the aircraft positioned on the ramp at Moorabbin airport.

As in the previous study, the subject was required to start the engine and taxi to Runway 35L for take-off, at which point data collection began. Being an IFR flight, this flight required additional steps to be completed after starting the engine. The pilot had to enter the instrument landing system (ILS) frequency for Runway 26 (R26) at Essendon Airport. He or she also created a flight plan using the GPS, which showed a path on the GPS to help in navigation. These steps were crucial to flying in poor visibility conditions.

266

Figure 76 : Flight route for IFR experiment.

267

Figure 76 shows the flight route during the experiment. The starting and destination airport are the same as the previous experiment. However, the route varied as navigation aids had to be followed.

Once at the runway threshold, the aircraft entered the runway and started the take-off roll. After take-off the aircraft maintained runway heading until it reached five hundred feet above ground level. It then turned towards the first waypoint, Plenty non-directional beacon

(Plenty NDB). The aircraft climbed to a cruising altitude of three thousand feet.

The aircraft flew towards Plenty NDB until the glideslope and the localiser for

Essendon airport R26 became active. Once they were active, the pilot utilised that information to navigate to Essendon airport and perform an ILS landing on R26. The localiser provided lateral navigation information to the pilot, which showed whether the aircraft was lined up with the runway. The glideslope provided vertical navigation information to the pilot, which showed whether the aircraft was on the correct rate of descent to land on the runway.

The ILS information was used until approximately five hundred feet above the ground. Below this altitude, the pilot was able to see the ground and the approach lights for

R26. They still used the ILS information until the aircraft reached an altitude of approximately 200 feet above ground. At this height the runway was visible, and the pilot could look outside at the runway and land the aircraft.

268

After the landing, the researcher changed the cockpit type and the subject flew the flight again in the different cockpit. As in the previous study, the subjects filled out the workload index and the demographic questionnaire while the cockpit was being changed. The order in which the cockpits were chosen and flown was randomised.

Statistical Analysis

The data was analysed using the same methodology as the previous study.

269

Results

All the figures present the information in the same way as the previous chapter.

Figure 77: Scanning patterns for full flight in instrument flight conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 77 shows the scanning patterns for the entire flight in the two types of cockpit.

While flying in instrument conditions, the subjects spent most of their time looking inside the aircraft. This was true in both types of cockpit. There was no difference in scanning of the inside instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.31, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the outside world between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) =

270

0.15, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 3.30, p > .05.

Figure 78: Instrument scan break down for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 78 shows the scanning pattern inside the aircraft. While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments. There was no difference in scanning of these instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1,

88) = 0.38, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.03, p > .05.

271

Figure 79: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight is shown in Figure 79. The attitude indicator was the most scanned instrument for the full flight, and the turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument for the full flight. This was true in both types of cockpit.

The airspeed indicator was scanned 38.78% more in a glass cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 88) = 6.38, p < .05. There was no difference in scanning of the attitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.74, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the altitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) =

3.93, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the heading indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.12, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the vertical

272 speed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 2.01, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the turn and bank indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1,

88) = 0.63, p > .05.

During the take-off phase, only the airspeed indicator was scanned, as shown in

Figure 80 . However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) =

0.37, p > .05.

Figure 80 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the take-off phase, * indicates p < .05.

273

During the climb phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument (Figure 81). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F

(1, 16) = 0.20, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 3.56, p > .05.

Figure 81 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the climb phase, * indicates p < .05.

274

Figure 82: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the cruise phase, * indicates p < .05.

During the cruise phase, the attitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument (Figure 82). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F

(1, 16) = 0.10, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.38, p > .05.

During the descent phase, the attitude indicator was still the most scanned primary flight instrument (Figure 83). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.72, p > .05.

275

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.61, p > .05.

Figure 83 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the descent phase, * indicates p < .05.

276

Figure 84: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the landing phase, * indicates p < .05.

Finally, during the landing phase, the attitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument (Figure 84) in the analogue cockpit. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.43, p > .05.

In a glass cockpit, the heading indicator was the most scanned primary flight instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) =

0.01, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument, and was not scanned at all during the descent phase.

277

The amount of time spent on the altitude indicator was significantly different between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The altitude indicator was scanned 104.42% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 16) = 10.11, p < .05.

Figure 85: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 85 shows the workload scores on the six scales for the full flight. There was no difference in the scores of mental demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.59, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of physical demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.36, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of temporal demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 1.75, p > .05. There was no difference in the

278 scores of performance between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.10 p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of effort between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.08, p >

.05. Finally, there was no difference in the scores of frustration between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.00, p > .05.

The average overall weighted workload in a glass cockpit was 55.83, with a range from 39.33 to 76.67 and a standard deviation of ± 14.34. The average workload in an analogue cockpit was 63.21, with a ranged of 35.34 to 86.00 and a standard deviation of ±

18.75. There was no difference in the overall weighted scores between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 106) = 2.05, p > .05.

279

Discussion

This study was conducted to compare pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in instrument flight rules condition. Literature suggests that due to the poor visibility in the outside world, flying in instrument conditions requires a pilot to maintain good scanning patterns (Tole & Harris, 1987). This helps in maintaining situational awareness, which allows a pilot to safely fly the aircraft.

Similar to the experiment in the previous chapter, the only difference between the two flights flown by each subject was in the instrument display and information layout. Unlike the experiment in the previous chapter, this flight was conducted in instrument conditions. As a result, the visibility outside the aircraft was very poor and the subjects had to rely only on the instruments and scan them regularly (Rinoie & Sunada, 2002; Saleem & Kleiner, 2005).

This changes the scanning patterns of a pilot, as they scan the instruments often to obtain the necessary information to safely fly the aircraft. This highlights the difference in operations between visual flight and instrument flight (Russi-Vigoya & Patterson, 2015).

Three research questions were asked in this study. The first was whether pilot scanning patterns were different for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that there were no significant differences in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit for the full flight. This contradicts the conclusions of previous studies, which found that the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright &

O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001; Van de Merwe et al., 2012).

280

In IFR conditions, the subjects spent most of their time scanning the flight instruments, followed by the outside world. This is because, being instrument conditions, the visibility in the outside world was limited. The only times that subjects could obtain cues from the outside world was during the take-off phase and the last few moments of the landing phase. As a result, the amount of time spent scanning the outside world was less than 20%, which is much lower than the 40% suggested by empirical literature (Wickens et al., 2000).

The outside world is also monitored regularly to undertake several tasks, such as traffic detection (Talleur & Wickens, 2003). In IFR conditions, such a task is supplemented by information from alternative sources, such as radio communications.

Most of the pilots’ time in both cockpits was spent scanning the instruments inside the aircraft. There were no significant differences in the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit. This is because, in IFR conditions, the only way to obtain vital information about the flight parameters was by scanning the instruments regularly. This was true regardless of the type of cockpit. This shows that in poor visibility conditions the scan pattern was adjusted to ensure the required information is obtained and the aircraft is safely flown.

The second research question was whether there were any differences in the scan patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft for the full flight. As in the previous chapter, this question was divided into two sub-parts. The only significant difference between the two types of cockpit in the fixation times for the full flight was for the airspeed indicator.

281

As in the VFR study, in this study the primary flight instruments were the most scanned instruments. These provide the main flight parameters that are required to fly the aircraft. With poor visibility in the outside world, the subjects had to maintain a good scanning pattern of the primary flight instruments to safely fly the aircraft. This result is consistent with previous studies that have found that the PFI are the most scanned instruments inside an aircraft (Anders, 2001; Mumaw et al., 2000). However, the scanning pattern of the PFI was not significantly different between the two types of cockpit.

The primary flight instruments were scanned over 65% of the time. This is very high, because of the instrument conditions. This is much greater than the recommended rate of at least 25% of the time (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 2001; AOPA, 1993;

FAR/AIM, 2003). However, this result is closer to empirical data, which showed the time to be 60% (Dubois et al., 2015).

Of the six individual primary flight instruments, the attitude indicator was scanned the most in both types of cockpit. This result is different to the VFR experiment. At the same time, this result is consistent with existing literature that states that the attitude indicator is the most important instrument to scan during flight (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris &

Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). This is due to the vital information it provides. In instrument conditions, the aircraft’s orientation to the outside world could only be judged by scanning the attitude indicator, because the horizon in the outside world was not visible. As a result, the subjects had to scan this instrument regularly. The fixation time on this instrument was not significantly different between the two types of cockpit. This has safety implications

282 for any pilot making a transition to an analogue cockpit, because she or he can still scan and acquire vital information about the aircraft’s pitch and roll regardless of the type of cockpit.

The only instrument that showed a significant difference in fixation time for the full flight was the airspeed indicator, which was scanned more in a glass cockpit. Failure to obtain information about this crucial parameter can have safety implications while making a transition to an analogue cockpit (as discussed in the previous chapter). There was no significant difference in any other instrument between the two types of cockpit. This shows that subjects were able to scan the remaining primary flight instruments and acquire the vital information in a similar way in both types of cockpit.

The third research question was whether there were any differences in the scan patterns of the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight. The results of the experiment show that only one instrument was significantly different between the two types of cockpit in the landing phase.

In most of the phases, and in both cockpit types, the attitude indicator was scanned the most. The reason for this was mentioned above. As in the VFR experiment, during the take- off phase only the airspeed indicator was scanned. The only significant difference between the two types of cockpit was in the altitude indicator during the landing phase, when it was scanned more in a glass cockpit. Not obtaining this vital information in an analogue cockpit during an important phase can have safety implications. Monitoring the altitude information during the landing phase is crucial, because it provides a pilot with the altitude of the aircraft

283 above sea level. Due to poor visibility, a pilot cannot judge the aircraft’s height by looking at the outside world and she or he has to rely on the altitude indicator. Since this instrument was scanned less in an analogue cockpit, it can affect a pilot who makes a transition to an analogue cockpit. For example, he or she might enter an unstable approach due to the failure of obtaining the altitude information. The aircraft might be too high and unable to descend in time to land on the runway, or the aircraft might be too low. Both could lead to an accident.

By obtaining the altitude information, a pilot who makes a transition to an analogue cockpit will be able to avoid an unstable approach and safely land.

There are a few reasons for most of the results in this experiment being non- significant. An important contributor is the scanning technique that a pilot uses in instrument conditions (Jones, 1985; Pennington, 1979). A pilot is taught how to scan the instruments when flying in poor visibility conditions. The primary flight instruments are displayed in a

‘T’ layout, therefore one of the most recognised scanning techniques in poor visibility conditions is the ‘T’ scan path. The ‘T’ scan path requires a pilot to scan four of the six primary instruments: the airspeed indicator, the attitude indicator, the altitude indicator and the heading indicator. Scanning these instruments regularly helps a pilot maintain awareness of the vital flight parameters, and helps a pilot stay on the navigational track while maintaining airspeed and the assigned altitude. The attitude indicator is the most scanned instrument during this scanning technique, as it is at the centre of the ‘T’ and is also of prime importance. Another reason for the lack of significant differences could be the recent experience of the subjects. At the time of the study, the subjects were flying both glass cockpit and analogue cockpit equipped aircraft.

284

Analysing the workload data showed that there were no significant differences in the subjective workload rating of subjects. This result is also similar to the previous study.

In conclusion, the results of this IFR study showed that overall there were no significant differences in the scanning patterns for the full flight between the two types of cockpit. While comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft for the full flight, there was a significant difference only for one flight instrument. Further analysis of the individual primary flight instruments, based on the phase of flight, also revealed that the scanning patterns of only one instrument was significantly different between cockpit types.

To further compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit, the next chapter investigated the scanning patterns in abnormal conditions.

285

Chapter 7

Unusual Attitude Recovery and

Failed Instrument Detection Study

Introduction

An aircraft can experience two main flying situations. One is the normal flight that the aircraft is designed for, during which the aircraft is operating within the recommended flight envelope. The other situation is abnormal flight, during which the aircraft is outside its recommended flying envelope. An abnormal situation, if not managed properly and promptly, can lead to further complications.

While learning to fly, a pilot learns to operate an aircraft within the aircraft’s limitations. These limitations are generally prescribed by the aircraft manufacturer. To fully understand and appreciate these limitations, a student is also taught to experience some abnormal flying situations. While training for these situations, the aircraft is put in a non- normal flying condition. By encountering such a scenario, a pilot learns how to recover from an abnormal situation and how to recognise the cues that indicate the aircraft is entering an abnormal situation. Even after obtaining a pilot licence, these skills are regularly checked to ensure proficiency is maintained and vital skills are not forgotten.

The differences in the instrument display and information layout can also affect a pilot’s ability to recover from abnormal conditions. Hence, it is important to understand how a pilot acquires information in the different types of cockpit while encountering an abnormal situation. This is because failure to properly acquire information can result in an incident or an accident.

287

The previous two chapters made a comparison of pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit in normal flying situation. This chapter follows on from the previous chapters and compares pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit while encountering an abnormal situation. Unlike the previous studies, in this study an unusual attitude (UA) was presented and the pilot was required to recover from the UA as soon as possible. This study was conducted in both visual conditions and instrument conditions. In visual conditions, a pilot had the outside world and the instruments inside the aircraft to obtain information from. In instrument conditions, a pilot only had the instrument inside the aircraft to obtain information from. Finally, this study also introduced an instrument failure.

This was done without warning to the pilot and was initiated after the UA recovery. In other words, it was introduced in normal flying situation. This is the third experiment conducted to address the literature gap mentioned in the previous chapters.

This UA recovery and failure detection study compared pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. Three research questions were asked. The first two questions are similar to the previous experiments, and the third is specific to this experiment. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns different during recovery? Second, did a pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft differently during recovery? Third, was the instrument failure recognised in normal flying situation?

288

Method

Subjects

The same subjects from the visual flight rules and instrument flight rules studies were used to conduct the unusual attitude recovery study. The UA study included two parts, recovery in VFR conditions and recovery in IFR conditions. Subjects who took part in the

VFR experiment in Chapter 5 also took part in the VFR UA recovery experiment, and subjects who took part in the IFR experiment in Chapter 6 also took part in the IFR UA recovery experiment.

Subjects from the previous studies only flew in the same condition for normal and abnormal scenarios. That is, subjects who flew in VFR normal scenario only took part in

VFR abnormal scenario and did not participate in the IFR part. In the same way, subjects only flew IFR normal and abnormal scenarios. Subjects were given the option to take part in the abnormal scenario on a different day, however all subjects completed the abnormal flight immediately after the respective normal flight.

All subjects had the option of only flying one of the experiments. All subjects from

Chapters 5 and 6 were asked to also participate in this study; although they had the option to not participate, all subjects agreed to participate. Subjects were not recruited just for this study—they were recruited for the previous studies and asked to participate in this study.

289

Because the subjects were the same, the demographic data which were provided in

Chapters 5 and 6 apply and will not be repeated here.

Equipment

The equipment used in this study was the same as the previous studies.

Procedure

The overall process was similar to the previous studies, although the flight path was different. The flight route for both the parts (VFR and IFR) was the same, and the experiment was conducted in daytime, as with the VFR and IFR studies.

The previous studies started at Moorabbin airport and ended at Essendon airport.

Since this study continued on from the previous study, Essendon airport was chosen as the starting point. All the subjects chose to complete this study immediately after their respective previous study. As a result, the eye tracker was already on the subject’s head and was calibrated.

290

Figure 86 : Flight route for the abnormal scenario experiment. 291

The visual flight was conducted in VFR conditions, similar to Chapter 5, and the instrument flight was conducted in IFR conditions, similar to Chapter 6. The total distance for the flight was approximately twenty nautical miles, and flight duration was approximately twenty minutes.

Figure 86 shows the route flown during the experiment. The simulator started with the aircraft positioned on the runway at Essendon airport. The subject started the aircraft and took off on Runway 26 (R26). After take-off, the aircraft turned north towards a heading of the subject’s choice. The heading of the aircraft was not important for this experiment, as the aircraft was going to be pointing at a random heading after the subject recovered from the

UA. The important instruction given to a pilot was that the aircraft should climb to an altitude of five thousand feet. This was important, as the aircraft needed sufficient height to perform

UA recovery safely.

Once the aircraft was at the altitude of five thousand feet, the aircraft maintained a straight and level flight. The subject was required to hand over the control of the aircraft to the researcher, once it was in a straight and level flight. The researcher was sitting next to the subject, in the same way a copilot sits next to a pilot. Hence, all the flight controls were also present in front of the researcher. While the researcher was in control of the aircraft, the subject had his or her eyes shut, to prevent her or him from seeing the unusual attitude that the aircraft was entering.

292

The UA was consistent for all subjects in both flight conditions. The aircraft was put in a nose-high attitude, with a shallow bank to the right. The aircraft was pitched up, as the sky provided very few cues about the aircraft’s orientation. This made the recovery challenging. If the aircraft was pitched down, the subject could have recovered easily by using the cues in the outside world. Such cues, such as the horizon, were only available in the visual conditions.

Once the aircraft was in an unusual attitude, the researcher handed back control of the aircraft to the subject by saying ‘handing over’. The subject responded by saying ‘taking over’ and opening his or her eyes. She or he was required to recover and return to straight and level flight as soon as possible. After recovering, the subject was also required to return to the assigned altitude of five thousand feet.

Once the aircraft was back at the assigned altitude, the subject was instructed to fly towards Bolinda NDB (BOL) and descend to three thousand feet. Once near Bolinda NDB the aircraft flew towards Rockdale NDB (ROC), at the same time descending to fifteen hundred feet. From Bolinda NDB, the subject visually tracked towards Runway 16 (R16) at

Tullamarine International Airport. In the IFR flight, the aircraft intercepted the localiser and glideslope for R16.

At fifteen hundred feet above the runway, the researcher failed the heading indicator.

This failure was introduced without the subject’s knowledge. If the subject recognised the failure, the researcher reset the failure and the instrument was active again. However, if the

293 subject did not recognise the failure, then the researcher did not intervene or make any comments. This failure was initiated in both types of flight and in both cockpit type.

As in Chapters 5 and 6, all subjects flew in both types of cockpit. There was no questionnaire completed between flights.

Statistical Analysis

The previous experiments analysed the scanning patterns for the full flight and during different phases of flight. Hence, for this experiment only the unusual attitude recovery phase was analysed. The data was analysed using the same methodology as the previous study.

This study also collected qualitative data during the instrument failure. This data was collected as a yes/no answer, converted into percentages and tabulated. Data was also separated for glass cockpit and analogue cockpit, along with VFR flight and IFR flight, and analysed using a chi-square test.

294

Results

All the figures present the information in the same way as the previous chapters.

Figure 87: Scanning pattern during recovery in visual conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 87 shows the scanning pattern for the UA recovery in visual flight rules conditions in the two types of cockpit. In this condition, and in both types of cockpit, subjects spent most of their time looking outside the aircraft. There was no difference in scanning of the outside world between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.22, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.15,

295 p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the inside instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.11, p > .05.

Figure 88: Instrument scan breakdown during recovery, * indicates p < .05.

While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments (Figure 88). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.01, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.68, p > .05.

296

Figure 89 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during recovery, * indicates p < .05.

The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight is shown in Figure 89. The attitude indicator was the most scanned instrument, while the vertical speed indicator and turn and bank indicator were not scanned at all in either cockpit during the full flight.

There was no difference in scanning of the airspeed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 1.21, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the attitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 1.18, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the altitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.01, p >

.05. There was no difference in scanning of the heading indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.46, p > .05.

297

Figure 90 : Scanning pattern during recovery in instrument conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 90 shows the scanning pattern for the UA recovery in instrument flight rules conditions in the two types of cockpit. While flying in instrument conditions, the subjects did not look outside the aircraft. This was due to poor visibility and was true in both types of cockpit. There was no difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.17, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the inside instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.17, p > .05.

298

Figure 91: Instrument scan breakdown during recovery, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 91 shows the scanning pattern inside the aircraft during the UA recovery.

While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1,

14) = 0.11, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.01, p > .05.

The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight is shown in Figure 92. The attitude indicator was the most scanned instrument for the full flight, and the turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument during the full flight; this was true in both types of cockpit.

299

Figure 92 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during recovery, * indicates p < .05.

There was no difference in scanning of the airspeed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 1.71, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the attitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 1.01, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the altitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.03, p >

.05. There was no difference in scanning of the heading indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.64, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the vertical speed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.01, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the turn and bank indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 1.98, p > .05.

300

Visual Flight Rules Condition Instrument Flight Rules Condition Cockpit Type Not Detected Detected Not Detected Detected Glass Cockpit 0% 100% 0% 100% Analogue Cockpit 92% 8% 25% 75%

Table 1: Failure detection in different types of cockpit, in visual and instrument conditions.

After the UA recovery had been completed, the instrument failure was introduced. It was initiated in the landing phase. In visual conditions, only 8% of the subjects detected the instrument failure in an analogue cockpit, whereas 100% of the subjects detected the instrument failure in a glass cockpit. While flying in visual conditions, the instrument failure detection was significantly dependent on the type of cockpit; X2 (1, N = 12) = 20.31, p < .05.

In instrument conditions, the failure detection rate increased to 75% in an analogue cockpit and remained at 100% in the glass cockpit. In instrument conditions, the instrument failure detection was not significantly dependent on the type of cockpit; X2 (1, N = 9) = 12.03, p >

.05. Regardless of the failure detection rate, the failed instrument was scanned by all the subjects in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in both flying conditions.

301

Discussion

This study was conducted to compare pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit during unusual attitude recovery. Literature suggests that the scanning patterns between a normal flight and an abnormal flight are different (Russi-Vigoya

& Patterson, 2015). The change is primarily due to the nature of the flight. Being an abnormal situation, the scanning patterns change to ensure vital information is acquired quickly. This will allow a return to normal flight as soon as possible.

Three research questions were asked in this study. The first was whether pilot scanning patterns were different during recovery. The results of the experiment show that there were no significant differences in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit during recovery. This was true in visual and instrument conditions. The results contradict the conclusions of previous studies, which state that the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001; Van de

Merwe et al., 2012). The results also contradict the conclusions in the existing literature on

UA recovery in the two types of cockpit; for example, Hiremath et al., (2009) concluded that recovery in an analogue cockpit differed to a glass cockpit and that pilots took longer to recover in a glass cockpit.

In both VFR and IFR conditions, recovery from UA is of prime importance. It becomes a pilot’s priority to bring the aircraft back to normal flight, because failure to do so could result in an accident. Hence, the critical nature of the situation is why the scanning

302 patterns were similar in both types of cockpit. This meant that the information was obtained in a similar method in both types of cockpit and the aircraft was returned to straight and level flight. The results of the experiment also showed that, while flying in VFR conditions, the outside world was scanned to obtain the necessary information. However, in IFR conditions, it was not scanned at all due to the lack of cues in the outside world. This was true in both types of cockpit. In VFR conditions, the outside world was scanned around 50% of the time, which is just above the 40% suggested by empirical research (Wickens et al., 2000). As a result, the amount of time spent scanning inside the aircraft varied between the two conditions. Despite this, there were no differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit, during recovery, for both the conditions.

The second research question asked was whether there were any differences in the scan patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft during recovery. Once again, the results of the experiment show that there were no significant differences in the fixation times for the inside instruments between the two types of cockpit during recovery. This was true in visual and instrument conditions.

As in the previous chapters, in this chapter the primary flight instruments were scanned the most, in both types of cockpit. In VFR conditions they were scanned around 35% and in IFR conditions they were scanned over 75%. These percentages were between the recommended time and conclusions made by empirical data (i.e. 25% and 60% respectively;

Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 2001; AOPA, 1993; FAR/AIM, 2003; Dubois et al.,

2015). The variation between the VFR and IFR flight is due to the lack of cues in the outside world. Regardless, there were no differences between a glass an analogue cockpit.

303

Of the six individual primary flight instruments, the attitude indicator was scanned the most. This was true in both types of cockpit and in both conditions. As in the IFR study, this result is consistent with findings in the existing literature, which state that the attitude indicator is the most scanned instrument (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf,

1980). Other studies mention the importance of the attitude indicator in abnormal situations and recommend that it be scanned most due to the valuable information it provides (Beringer

& Ball, 2009; Lee & Myung, 2013; Braithwaite et al., 1998). This information will assist in recovery and prevent an accident (Davenport, 2000).

The lack of a significant difference between the two types of cockpit for both flying conditions has safety implications. A pilot who is making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit can maintain safety when he or she encounters an abnormality in the different cockpit type. Due to the critical nature of the flight, pilots adjusted their scanning patterns to ensure the required information was obtained and the aircraft returns to normal flight as soon as possible.

The attitude indicator is an important instrument, therefore it was scanned the most in both types of cockpit, in both flying conditions, during recovery. This shows that, regardless of the type of cockpit or visibility in the outside world, a pilot scanned and acquired vital information about the aircraft from this instrument. The attitude indicator also provides reliable information about an aircraft’s orientation in relation to the outside world and can be relied on to bring the aircraft back to safety regardless of flying conditions. Apart from

304 visibility differences in the outside world during daytime, recovery at night can also be a challenge. It might be difficult to obtain horizon information and other cues from the outside world, therefore depending on the attitude indicator will ensure accurate information acquisition.

The third research question asked was whether the instrument failure was recognised in the normal flying situation. The results show that in VFR conditions there was a significant difference in the ability to recognise the failed instrument between the two types of cockpit.

However, in IFR conditions, there was no significant difference in the ability to recognise the failed instrument between the two types of cockpit. Regardless, this instrument was scanned by everyone in both flying conditions.

The results show that in visual conditions less than 10% of the subjects detected the instrument failure in an analogue cockpit, but that all the subjects detected the failure in a glass cockpit. One of the main reasons for this is the information layout in the two types of cockpit, as described in Chapter 2. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the information layout in an analogue cockpit and a glass cockpit respectively. A working heading indicator in an analogue cockpit is shown in Figures 4, 14 and 15, and a working heading indicator in a glass cockpit is shown in Figures 16 and 17.

Figure 21 shows how the failure of the heading indicator is displayed in an analogue cockpit. The only difference between a failed and a working instrument is a small red flag in the top-right corner of the instrument. In a glass cockpit a failure is displayed with a large red

305 cross with the letter ‘HDG’ on it, and the numbers on the compass are removed (Figure 22).

This failure display is attention grabbing and can be difficult for a pilot to overlook, which could be the reason for everyone recognising the instrument failure in a glass cockpit.

Additionally, it could also be a result of unfamiliarity with an analogue cockpit. At the time of the study, all the subjects were familiar with a glass cockpit, therefore they might not have been aware of how the heading indicator failure is displayed in an analogue cockpit.

The lack of a significant difference between cockpit types in IFR conditions can be credited to good scanning patterns. The heading indicator is part of the ‘T’ scan path, as discussed in previous chapters. Due to limited visibility in instrument conditions, the ‘T’ scan path was used to safely land the aircraft. This scanning technique acquires the necessary information and helps in detecting any problems (Thomas & Wickens, 2004). Another reason for the lack of a significant difference could be that, at the time of the experiment, all subjects had recent experience in both types of cockpit.

The difference in instrument failure recognition between the two types of cockpit has safety implications and highlights the importance of transition training. This is particularly true for VFR pilots, because relying on the outside world to obtain navigational information might not always be possible. For example, a pilot may be unfamiliar with the area and might assume that he or she is flying in the correct direction based on the information provided by the heading indicator. However, she or he might not realise that the heading indicator has failed and that the aircraft has deviated from the flight plan. This could potentially lead to an incident, such as failure to reach destination due to fuel starvation.

306

Familiarity with the layout of information in a cockpit is vital to detecting an instrument failure; hence, transition training is necessary. This is also supported by findings in the literature that state that differences between the two types of cockpit need to be understood by pilots (as discussed in Chapter 2). This will help in dealing successfully with any abnormality (Hiremath et al., 2009).

In conclusion, this study found no significant differences in the scanning patterns during recovery between the two types of cockpit. When comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft during recovery, there were still no significant differences. Finally, analysis of the instrument failure recognition in normal flying situation revealed that there was a significant difference in VFR conditions only.

To further compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit, the next chapter investigated the scanning patterns in rotary wing aircraft.

307

Chapter 8

Rotary Wing Aircraft vs

Fixed-Wing Aircraft Study

Introduction

Aircraft are divided into two main categories, fixed-wing and rotary wing. The experiments conducted in the previous chapters have focused on the fixed-wing category.

This chapter focuses on rotary wing aircraft and compares them with the fixed-wing counterpart. Rotary wing operations differ from fixed-wing operations, because they have a different aerodynamic design. This design allows a rotary wing aircraft to perform manoeuvres that a fixed-wing aircraft cannot, such as hovering. This means that the skills required to fly a rotary wing aircraft are different to those for a fixed-wing aircraft.

The cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft is slightly different to a fixed-wing aircraft, due to additional information required by a pilot that is specific to rotary wing operations. Figure

56 in Chapter 3 shows an analogue cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft. When compared to an analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft (Figure 14 in Chapter 2), differences can be seen.

The primary ‘T’ instruments are the same between the two types of cockpit, and the instrument display and information layout of these ‘T’ instruments are also similar. However, differences lie in most of the other instruments. While the instruments offer the same information between the two types of cockpit, their location is different. In particular, a pilot sits on the right side in a rotary wing aircraft, compared to left side in a fixed-wing aircraft.

This change means that the ‘T’ instruments are positioned on the right side of the cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft, and on the left side in a fixed-wing aircraft. The radio stack (Figure 11 in

Chapter 2) is positioned under the instruments in a rotary wing aircraft. The GPS is positioned above the cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft (Figure 56), whereas in a fixed-wing aircraft it is positioned on the left of the primary ‘T’ instruments. Finally, there are also a

309 number of additional instruments in rotary wing aircraft that are specific to helicopter operations, including the torque indicator, turbine power and gas producer.

Given the above-mentioned differences, this study assumes that an analogue cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft is different to an analogue cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft.

Consequently, the differences in the instrument display and information layout can affect a pilot’s ability to fly in a different type of aircraft or in two types of cockpit. As discussed in

Chapter 2, most of the empirical studies of scanning patterns in rotary wing aircraft have been conducted in the military, and limited research exists on the scanning patterns of civilian rotary wing pilots. At the same time, there are no studies that compare the scanning patterns between fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft. The unique operations of a rotary wing aircraft can impact scanning patterns, therefore this study compared scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit. This was the final study conducted to address the literature gap outlined in the previous chapters.

This study compared pilot scanning patterns between an analogue cockpit of a rotary wing aircraft and an analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft. The same three research questions from the VFR experiment were asked. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns different for the full flight? Second, did a pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft differently for the full flight? Third, were there differences in the scanning patterns for the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight?

310

Method

Subjects

Subjects for this experiment were recruited using a similar method to the first two studies. To participate in this study, it was essential for a subject to have a rotary wing (or helicopter) pilot licence. This study was advertised to undergraduate and postgraduate students enrolled in the aviation course at Swinburne University.

There are few aviation students learning to fly in a helicopter, therefore industry pilots who were on the university’s mailing list were also sent the advertisement. Most of the subjects who participated in this were from the industry.

Eight rotary wing pilots were recruited to participate in this study, seven male and one female. There was an imbalance in the number of male and female subjects; however, this imbalance was not considered to be an issue and was not expected to affect the results of the study.

The subjects’ age ranged from 28 to 60 years, with an average age of 40.43 years and a standard deviation of ± 10.92 years. At the time of the experiment, all subjects had a current helicopter pilot licence. Several subjects also had a fixed-wing pilot licence, and some subjects regularly flew both rotary wing and fixed-wing aircraft.

311

The subjects’ experience in rotary wing aircraft varied from recreational flying to commercial flying. The experience of these subjects ranged from 420 hours to 8,000 hours; the average flight time was 3,114.29 hours with a standard deviation of ± 2,858.36 hours.

This study only recruited rotary wing pilots. The results of this study were compared to the results of the analogue cockpit fixed-wing study from Chapter 5. To obtain equal sample sizes, the results for eight subjects were randomly chosen from the VFR study. Of the eight randomly chosen subjects, two were female and six were male. The subjects’ age ranged from 22 to 48 years, with an average age of 32.25 years and a standard deviation of ±

10.73 years. The experience of these subjects ranged from 120 hours to 1,000 hours; the average flight time was 426.88 hours and the standard deviation was ± 334.57 hours.

This research study was approved by the Swinburne University’s Human Research

Ethics Committee, Protocol Number 2013/121; refer to Appendix D.

Equipment

The equipment used in this study varied slightly from the previous experiments.

Being a rotary wing study, the FlyIt helicopter flight simulator (as described in Chapter 3) was used. The same eye tracker and demographic questionnaire were used.

312

Procedure

The procedure was similar to the visual flight rules study conducted in Chapter 5. The subject was provided with all the necessary information and completed the formalities

(Appendix E). She or he wore the eye tracker and the researcher performed the calibration.

Once calibration was complete, the subject stepped into the flight simulator.

The helicopter flight was conducted in day VFR conditions only and in normal situations only. Details such as the flight route, altitude and weather were identical to the

VFR study (shown in Figure 66). Being a helicopter flight, there were some minor differences, such as take-off and landing occurring on helipads rather than runways.

This flight was conducted in an analogue cockpit only, therefore subjects did not have to fly the scenario twice, as in the previous chapters. At the end of the flight, the subjects completed the demographic questionnaire.

Statistical Analysis

The data was analysed in the same way as in Chapters 5 and 6.

313

Results

All the figures present the information in the same way as the previous chapters.

Figure 93: Scan pattern comparison between aircraft types for full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 93 shows the scanning pattern for the entire flight in the two types of cockpit.

As with the VFR study, the subjects spent most of their time looking outside the aircraft. This was true in both types of cockpit. There was no difference in scanning of the outside world between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.80, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.02, p > .05.

314

There was no difference in scanning of the inside instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.61, p > .05.

Figure 94 : Instrument scan breakdown for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 94 shows the scanning pattern inside the aircraft. While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments.

However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.82, p > .05.

There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.23, p > .05.

315

Figure 95 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments is shown in Figure 95.

The only exception was the airspeed indicator, which was also the most scanned instrument in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit. However, in a rotary wing aircraft the altitude indicator was the most scanned instrument. In both types of cockpit, the turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument; it was not scanned at all.

There was no difference in scanning of the airspeed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 1.33, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the attitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 1.39, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the altitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.63, p >

.05. There was no difference in scanning of the heading indicator between the two types of

316 cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.68, p > .05. The vertical speed indicator was scanned 1324.82% more in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 78) = 38.20, p < .05.

Figure 96: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the take-off phase, * indicates p < .05.

During the take-off phase, the airspeed indicator was the only instrument scanned in both types of cockpit. No other instrument was scanned in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit,

(Figure 96). In contrast, five of the six instruments were scanned in a rotary wing aircraft.

The airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument in both types of cockpit. It was scanned 154.36% more in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F

(1, 14) = 4.14, p < .05.

317

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument in both types of cockpit; it was not scanned at all.

There were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in the amount of time spent on several other instruments. The attitude indicator was scanned 2097.19% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 5.10 p < .05.

The altitude indicator was scanned 2267.77% more in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 17.01 p < .05. The heading indicator was scanned

373.19% more in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) =

3.18 p < .05. The vertical speed indicator was scanned 650.83% more in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 3.54 p < .05.

In the climb phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned instrument (Figure

97). This was true in both types of cockpit. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.55, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument in both types of cockpit; it was not scanned at all.

318

Figure 97: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the climb phase, * indicates p < .05.

The vertical speed indicator was scanned 793.22% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 7.30, p < .05.

During the cruise phase, the altitude indicator was again the most scanned instrument in both types of cockpit (Figure 98). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.01, p > .05.

319

Figure 98 : Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the cruise phase, * indicates p < .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument in both types of cockpit; it was not scanned at all.

Again, the amount of time spent on the vertical speed indicator was significantly different between the two types of cockpit. It was scanned 1757.96% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit; F (1, 14) = 13.17, p < .05.

320

Figure 99: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the descent phase, * indicates p < .05.

During the descent phase, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument in both types of cockpit (Figure 99). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.16, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument in both types of cockpit; it was not scanned at all.

Again, the time spent on the vertical speed indicator was significantly different between the two types of cockpit. It was scanned 475.30% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit; F (1, 14) = 9.25, p < .05.

321

Figure 100: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the landing phase, * indicates p <

.05.

Finally, during the landing phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned instrument (Figure 100) in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 1.12, p > .05.

In a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) =

0.99, p > .05.

322

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument; it was not scanned at all during the descent phase.

Again, the amount of time spent on the vertical speed indicator was significantly different between aircraft types. It was scanned 1438.30% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 10.48, p < .05.

323

Discussion

This study was conducted to compare pilot scanning patterns between an analogue cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft and an analogue cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft. It was conducted as there is limited literature that makes a comparison between analogue cockpits in the different types of aircraft.

As in the VFR experiment, this experiment was conducted in normal visual flying conditions. Hence, a pilot had the instruments inside the aircraft, as well as cues from the outside world to rely on to safely fly an aircraft.

Three research questions were asked in this study. The first was whether pilot scanning patterns were different for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that there were no significant differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit for the full flight. The results of the experiments in the previous chapters were compared with existing literature related to scanning patterns in different types of cockpit. Previous scientists have suggested that the scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001;

Van de Merwe et al., 2012). However, this literature is specific to fixed-wing aircraft, therefore a reasonable comparison between the results of this experiment and other studies in the literature cannot be made. This is because the two types of cockpit are primarily different due to a change in aircraft, i.e. fixed vs rotary. In addition, more than one variable has been changed—both the cockpit type and the aircraft type. Nevertheless, the results of this

324 experiment provide an initial comparison between the two types of cockpit in different aircraft types, and reveal that fixation times for the full flight are similar.

Being VFR flight, the subjects spent most of their time scanning the outside world.

This was consistent in both types of cockpit. A high fixation time in the outside world can be attributed to the visual flying condition (as discussed in Chapter 5).

The second research question was whether there were any differences in the scan patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that there was a significant difference in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit for only one instrument for the full flight.

The primary flight instruments were the most scanned instruments in both types of cockpit. However, there were no significant differences in the fixation times. The primary flight instruments were scanned approximately 10% of the total time, which was much lower than the recommended percentage (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 1993, 2001;

FAR/AIM, 2003; Anders, 2001). Note, however, that the recommended percentage is for a fixed-wing aircraft. The results of this experiment show that, even in a fixed-wing aircraft, the time spent scanning the PFI was low; this can again be attributed to the flying condition.

Further breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight reveal that the VSI pattern was significantly different. It was scanned more in a rotary wing

325 cockpit compared to a fixed-wing cockpit, which can be attributed to the unique operations of a helicopter. This is discussed further below.

Regarding the most scanned instrument during the full flight, the findings varied from other studies. As discussed in the previous chapters, previous studies found that the attitude indicator is the most scanned instrument in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit (Gainer &

Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). In this study, the attitude indicator in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit was the third-most important instrument scanned for the full flight. Again, this can be attributed to the differences in helicopter operations.

The third research question was whether there was a difference in the scan patterns of the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight. The results of the experiment showed that there were significant differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit for some of the instruments based on the phase of flight.

Again, the VSI showed significant differences in all phases of flight. All instruments except the turn and bank indicator showed a significant difference in the take-off phase.

Finally, the attitude indicator was not the most scanned instrument in each phase; again, this can be attributed to the differences in helicopter operations.

The differences in scanning patterns can be credited to the differences in rotary wing aircraft operations. For example, a helicopter takes off from a helipad, climbs to an initial

326 altitude and hovers. During this critical phase, a pilot monitors more instruments than in a fixed-wing aircraft. This difference is highlighted in the results of this experiment. While taking off in a fixed-wing aircraft, the airspeed indicator is one of the main instruments to scan, as seen in the results. The airspeed was scanned significantly more in a fixed-wing aircraft during take-off, whereas in a helicopter almost all the instruments were scanned more during the take-off phase.

The vertical speed indicator scanning was also significantly different between the two types of cockpit. This indicator was scanned more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit than in a fixed-wing, in the full flight and in each individual phase of flight. Again, the reason can be due to the differences in operations. As shown in Figure 5 and discussed in Chapter 2, the

VSI provides information about an aircraft’s rate of climb or descent per minute and is prone to constant changes, unlike the altitude indicator. In other words, the VSI can be considered as ‘leading’ whereas the altitude indicator can be considered as ‘trailing’. This means that if there is any change in an aircraft’s pitch, it instantly shows up on the VSI. The information on the VSI indicates that the aircraft is about to either climb or descend, which will result in a change in the aircraft’s altitude.

In a fixed-wing aircraft, a pilot has the assistance of ‘trim’ to manage the aircraft’s

VSI. Once a fixed-wing aircraft has been ‘trimmed properly’, a pilot can expect the aircraft to maintain its altitude, and he or she need not check the VSI regularly to confirm that the altitude is not increasing or decreasing. In a rotary wing aircraft, a pilot does not have the assistance of ‘trim’, therefore he or she has to rely more on the VSI and constantly check it to ensure that the helicopter is not climbing or descending. This difference in aircraft design and

327 the unique aerodynamic characteristics of a rotary wing aircraft make it more important to scan the VSI. Hence, the results of this experiment show that the VSI was indeed scanned more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit compared to a fixed-wing.

The results of this experiment provide an initial comparison between the two types of cockpit in the different aircraft types. This is valuable as there is little literature comparing the scanning patterns in the cockpits of fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft. As discussed in the introduction of this chapter, there are slight differences between the analogue cockpits in the two types of aircraft. Hence, they can be considered to be two different types of cockpit.

The results also have safety implications for any pilot who is making a transition to a helicopter, because a pilot has to learn the differences in the cockpit layout and scanning patterns.

The results compare the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit. They also reveal the unique operations of a rotary wing aircraft—as discussed above, there are differences in the take-off phase and in the importance of the VSI. This could indicate that the scanning patterns in a rotary wing aircraft are different to a fixed-wing aircraft because they were adjusted to suit the helicopter-specific operations. However, this is a preliminary conclusion only, with some caveats. One caveat is that the experiment conducted in this study included rotary wing flights only and did not include a fixed-wing flight. The results obtained from this study were compared with the fixed-wing counterpart; that is, they were compared with the data obtained in the visual fixed-wing analogue cockpit. This means that the comparison between the two types of cockpit in the two types of aircraft has not been made for the same subjects.

328

A future study is required to further understand the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit in the two types of aircraft. Regardless, the results of the present experiment provide an initial comparison between the two types of cockpit. The preliminary conclusion is that the scanning pattern in a rotary wing aircraft could also be adjusted to suit the specific operations. If this is true, then the scanning patterns are not only adjusted based on the flying condition or situation encountered (as previous chapters showed), but also in response to a change in operations.

In conclusion, the results of the rotary wing study showed that there were no significant differences in the scanning patterns for the full flight between the two types of cockpit. While comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft for the full flight, there was a significant difference for only one of the flight instruments. Further analysis of the individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight also revealed that the scanning patterns of only some instruments were significantly different between cockpit types. At the same time, the results highlight the differences in operations.

329

Chapter 9

Overall Discussion

Discussion

The aim of this thesis was to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit. The literature review in Chapter 2 identified that it is important to understand the human factors issues that arise when a pilot makes a transition between different types of cockpit (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Lindo et al., 2012). The inclusion of a new instrument display or changing the layout of information on an existing display can affect a pilot’s performance (Andre et al., 1991; Self et al., 2003; Williams,

2002). As such, it is vital to study and understand the human factors issues that arise, when the entire cockpit is changed.

Historically, a pilot learnt to fly in an analogue cockpit and made a transition to a glass cockpit during her or his career. This transition resulted in an initial decrease in performance, which included changes to scanning patterns (Chidester et al., 2007). However, research in the field ensured that the transition was understood, and the required training programs were set up. Similarly, it is important to research the transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Lindo et al.,

2012). The need for such research is driven by a gap in the literature and by an increasing number of pilots making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit.

There is insufficient empirical research examining the human factors issues that arise when pilots make a transition between the two types of cockpit (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011;

Whitehurst & Rantz, 2012; Haslbeck & Hoermann, 2016; Whitehurst, 2014). Furthermore,

331 there are no studies that objectively compare pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit (Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Lindo et al., 2012). This is despite there being differences in the instrument display and information layout of the cockpit types that could result in a pilot having difficulty scanning and obtaining the required information.

Four experiments were conducted as a part of this thesis. An eye tracking device was used during the experiments to collect objective data that showed where a pilot looked while flying. The experiments were conducted in a flight simulator, which offers a safe, reliable and reproducible platform for data collection. Hence, all the subjects were exposed to the same conditions during the respective experiments.

The scanning patterns for the full flight were analysed. The results of the experiment showed that overall there were significant differences in the scanning patterns in VFR conditions. When flying in normal visual conditions, there were significant differences between the two types of cockpit. However, as the condition changed to poor visibility, there were no overall differences between the two types of cockpit. This means that when the visibility in the outside world was limited, the scanning patterns of pilots became similar.

Additionally, as the situation changed from normal to abnormal, again there were no differences in the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit.

These results show that the scanning patterns of pilots were significantly different during normal daytime visual flight. However, as the condition changed due to poor visibility, or an abnormal situation was encountered, the scanning patterns were modified.

332

This adjustment in scanning patterns allowed the flight to safely continue, regardless of the type of cockpit.

The scanning patterns for the instruments inside the aircraft were examined. In VFR conditions, there were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in scanning of several instruments inside the aircraft. While in IFR conditions, there was a significant difference between the two types of cockpit in only one of the instruments inside the aircraft.

Finally, when an abnormal situation was encountered, there were no significant differences between the two types of cockpit for any instruments inside the aircraft.

These results again show that there were some significant differences in the scanning patterns of pilots in different cockpit types during normal daytime visual flight. As the condition changed to reduced visibility or an abnormal situation was encountered, the scanning patterns were modified.

The primary flight instruments’ scanning patterns were investigated for each phase of flight. In the VFR conditions, there were several significant differences between the instruments in the two types of cockpit. These differences depended on the phase of flight. In

IFR conditions, there was a significant difference between the types of cockpit in only one instrument. Yet again, these results show that as the conditions changed from visual to reduced visibility, the scanning patterns were modified to cope with the condition.

333

The analysis assessed the most important primary flight instrument scanned during the different phases of flight. This varied according to visual conditions, instrument conditions and whether there was an abnormal situation. This was true in both types of cockpit. In visual conditions, the most important primary instrument changed based on the phase of flight. In contrast, in instrument conditions and abnormal situations, the most important primary instrument scanned was more consistent and changed less in different phases. This change in the most important primary flight instrument was necessary for the pilots to obtain the relevant information and to maintain safety. This highlights the modification of scanning patterns as the condition or situation changed.

A comparison was also made between the analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft and the analogue cockpit of a rotary wing aircraft. There were no overall significant differences in the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit for the full flight.

However, when considering the instruments inside the aircraft, there was a significant difference between the two types of cockpit for the full flight. In addition, there were several differences between the two types of cockpit based on the phase of flight. While these results compared two different types of cockpit, it is important to note that there were also operational differences between the two types of aircraft. The preliminary conclusion from this initial comparison is that the scanning patterns could be modified to suit the unique rotary wing operations.

Summarising all the above, the results show that in normal daytime visual conditions there were differences in the scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. However, as the condition deteriorated due to poor visibility or the situation became

334 critical due to an abnormality, the scanning patterns were modified and any differences between the two types of cockpit were reduced to almost zero.

The results have safety implications for a pilot who is making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. It shows that he or she is still able to continue flying an aircraft safely, regardless of the type of cockpit. This is mainly because a pilot can adjust his or her scanning patterns to cope with changes in condition or situation. In normal visual conditions, information can be obtained from several sources. Because of the available options, the scanning patterns were different between the two types of cockpit. In instrument conditions, the information required to safely fly is almost reduced to a single source, therefore all the pilots were forced to rely on the instruments and scan them in the same way in the two types of cockpit. Finally, in an abnormal situation, the information was available from several sources in a visual abnormal situation but from only one source in an instrument abnormal situation. Regardless of the visibility conditions in the outside world, the scanning patterns during an abnormal situation were not different between the two types of cockpit.

This is mainly due to the serious nature of the situation. In such a situation, the instruments offer the most reliable source of information, therefore even when cues were available in the outside world the instruments were scanned in a similar way in both types of cockpit.

The above results show the pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit.

Proper scanning patterns help a pilot maintain good situational awareness. Obtaining the information from the available sources lays the foundation for achieving and maintaining situational awareness (Endsley, 1995a). As a result, he or she can also make relevant decisions and execute appropriate actions. This helps in reducing the likelihood of making

335 errors and encountering an incident or accident (Wright et al., 2004; Uhlarik & Comerford,

2002). On the other hand, failure to have good scanning patterns can result in a pilot missing vital information. This, in turn, can result in an incident or an accident. Examples of such accidents were discussed in Chapter 2.

Information can be acquired from several sources, including instruments, the outside world, other crew members and flight manuals (Stanton et al., 2010). A pilot’s ability to interact with and obtain information from these sources is crucial. The results of the present study show that pilots were able to scan and obtain the information from the relevant sources in both types of cockpit.

Regular scanning helps in making appropriate decisions (FAA, 1991b). Decision making is an important task for every pilot to perform. Failure to do so can result in an incident or an accident (Simpson, 2001; Detwiler et al., 2008). Previous studies also suggest that poor understanding of a situation, such as deteriorating weather, can affect a pilot’s decision-making skills (Wiegmann & Goh, 2003). The results of the present study show that scanning patterns were adjusted to acquire the information needed for decision making. This can particularly be seen in the abnormal situations, where such a task was performed in both visual and instrument abnormal conditions. The abnormal situation offered greater difficulty to a pilot, therefore scanning patterns were changed compared to a normal flight. This adjusted scan allowed the required information to be obtained, which enabled appropriate decision making and recovery to normal flight. This was true in both types of cockpit.

336

Achieving situational awareness and making good decisions also allow a pilot to manage his or her workload. A higher or lower workload can negatively affect a pilot’s performance (Morris & Leung, 2006; Svensson et al., 1997). Hence, it is important to understand workload when a pilot is making a transition between two types of cockpit. The results of this study show that there were no differences between the workload of the two types of cockpit. This was true for the full flights in visual and instrument conditions. This shows that it did not affect a pilot when she or he made a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit.

Automation technology affects a pilot’s workload (Billings, 1991), decision-making skills, and situational awareness. As discussed in Chapter 2, the modern automated glass cockpit offers many benefits, but it can also negatively affect a pilot’s performance. For example, it can result in automation-induced complacency (Mosier et al., 1998; Bowers et al.,

1995), particularly when the autopilot is used. The experiments conducted in the present study required the pilot to manually fly the aircraft.

One of the main reasons the autopilot was not used in this study was because it affects a pilot’s scanning patterns (Diez et al., 2001; Endsley & Kiris, 1995). Due to the challenges of automation, such as the potential for over-reliance, a pilot uses different scanning patterns

(Endsley, 1996; Endsley & Kiris, 1995). In a glass cockpit aircraft, scanning patterns change during manual flying; for example, more time is spent scanning the instruments during manual flying (Haslbeck et al., 2012). Hence, the autopilot was not used in both types of cockpit during the experiments, to ensure that the data was not skewed due to the use of automation.

337

The significant challenges of making a transition between different types of cockpit are highlighted during an emergency. A pilot must handle an emergency with priority and exceptional skills, and must scan and obtain information from the instruments precisely to have accurate situational awareness. This will help her or him make appropriate decisions. It will also help a pilot manage the workload and bring the aircraft to safe normal flight as soon as possible. Furthermore, a pilot might use different scanning patterns during an emergency

(Thomas & Wickens, 2004; Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Pennington, 1979; Jones, 1985;

Russi-Vigoya & Patterson, 2015). Consequently, understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns during an emergency is crucial.

The results did not show differences in scanning patterns during abnormal situations.

Pilots adjusted their scanning pattern based on the situation. While flying in normal visual conditions, there were significant differences in the scanning patterns between cockpit types.

However, once an abnormal situation was encountered, the scanning patterns changed and, because of the serious nature of the situation, were similar in the two types of cockpit. This allowed a pilot to promptly recover to normal flight, regardless of the cockpit type. This has safety implications, as it ensures incidents and accidents are reduced.

Understanding the transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit is important (Sarter & Alexander, 2000). This will also highlight any errors that are made in the different types of cockpit. It is not possible to expect humans to perform without making any errors (Shappell & Wiegmann, 1997), whether it is in a familiar cockpit or an unfamiliar

338 cockpit. The results of this study provide valuable data about the effects on a pilot’s scanning patterns due to the transition.

Aviation accidents occur for several reasons. One of the main reasons is human error

(Sarter & Alexander, 2000; Endsley & Rodgers, 1994; Endsley, 1995a, 1995b), therefore steps are taken to investigate accidents and improve safety, and to prevent them from recurring (Helmreich, 2000). Such a process of improving safety is a reactive approach

(Reason, 1997; Strauch, 2002; Dekker, 2002), in that the causes of an accident or incident are researched after the event. British Midlands flight BD 92 (as discussed in Chapter 2) is an example of this (AAIB, 1990). Of the many causes of this accident, the change to a new cockpit type and lack of transition training were two of the main reasons.

Preventing accidents or incidents and creating a safe flying environment are major tasks of aviation human factors scientists. This can be achieved by taking a proactive approach (Kontogiannis & Malakis, 2009; Aurino, 2000; Liou, Tzeng, & Chang, 2007;

Helmreich, Merritt, & Wilhelm, 1999; Netjasov & Janic, 2008). Such an approach studies potential issues through research.

A good example is this present study, which has identified an issue that exists in the industry. Hence, it aimed to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

The results of this study provide valuable data, identify safety implications and suggest recommendations to maintain safety in the aviation industry. This will allow pilots to make an efficient transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

339

Such research is required, given the fast-evolving nature of the aviation industry. The evolution of the aviation industry was discussed in Chapter 2, and Figure 43 shows that the evolution has not ended and is ongoing. In the next decade, cockpits will become more interactive (Castillo & Couture, 2016; Avionics 2020, 2015), which means that even more proactive research will be required to ensure that the transition to the newer types of cockpit is made successfully.

340

Transition Training Recommendation

In the aviation industry, proper training is necessary to teach a pilot how to fly an aircraft (Robson, 2008). The review of literature in Chapter 2 identified the importance of transition training. A lack of training can result in accidents, as illustrated with the example of BD 92 (AAIB, 1990). The results of this study highlighted several implications in the discussion sections of Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. Because of those implications, transition training is recommended for any pilot who is flying in a different type of cockpit. The reasons for making this recommendation are based on the following points:

i. While flying in visual flight rules conditions, there were significant differences

between the scanning patterns in the two types of cockpit. Most of the pilots spend

time flying in visual conditions, therefore the differences in the two types of

cockpit can have safety implications. As shown in Chapter 5, a pilot who is flying

in an analogue cockpit relies more on the outside world to obtain cues and less on

the flight instruments. While the outside world might provide the required

information for most of the flights, it might not always be reliable. For example, if

flying over water or a desert, there may be very few cues to provide information.

ii. Despite showing few significant differences in the instrument conditions,

transition training is still required. The results show that in the crucial stages of

flight there was a difference between cockpit types in obtaining the information

from the primary flight instruments. As discussed in Chapter 6, the altitude

341

indicator was scanned more in a glass cockpit than in an analogue cockpit during

the landing phase. Being instrument conditions, there is limited visibility in the

outside world to obtain accurate altitude information, and reliance on the

instrument is important. However, the results show that a pilot who makes a

transition to an analogue cockpit might have difficulty obtaining this vital

information. This could be a problem, as the aircraft may be too low and could

have an impact with trees or terrain. Other scientists have also suggested that the

landing phase has one of the highest number of accidents (AOPA, 2006, 2007).

Hence, it is important that a pilot be trained to properly obtain the vital primary

flight parameters information from the instruments in an analogue cockpit.

iii. As discussed in Chapter 7, the inability to detect instrument failure in an analogue

cockpit in visual conditions could also lead to an incident. In the example

discussed, an aircraft can deviate from its intended flight path and become lost.

Training will help a pilot learn how failures are displayed on the instruments and

how to detect them before it is too late.

iv. Training is also recommended for any pilot making a transition between a fixed-

wing and a rotary wing aircraft. While the cockpits are different, there are also

operational differences. Hence, a pilot has to learn and appreciate these changes to

maintain safe flying skills. This shows that transition training is not only required

between a glass and an analogue cockpit, but also between aircraft types.

342

v. Finally, transition training will help in avoiding any unnecessary complications.

For example, in the real world there are several jurisdictions in place, with strict

rules and regulations that a pilot must follow. This is not only required by the

authorities, it is also necessary to maintain safety. A pilot who is making a

transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit might have to deal with

more factors than just a change in the instrument display and information layout.

Proper training will ensure that she or he is not overloaded with tasks while trying

to fly an aircraft. For example, maintaining altitude in a controlled airspace is a

challenging process. When a pilot makes a transition to an analogue cockpit and

then flies in a controlled airspace, he or she should not be distracted by the

unfamiliarity of the cockpit, as this could result in more time being spent trying to

understand how the information is being displayed rather than focusing on safely

flying the plane. Training will help in such a situation, as it will eliminate the

chances of not understanding the information presented in the cockpit. This will

allow a pilot to focus on the flying task.

Such training will teach a pilot the differences in instrument display and information layout, to ensure that safety is not risked.

343

Additional Recommendations

A glass cockpit has become a standard option in the aviation industry. The evolution of a glass cockpit is ongoing and will bring further changes in the future. Hence, transition issues need to be resolved today and in the future. The following recommendations have been made to assist a pilot who is making a transition between different types of cockpit.

The first recommendation is from a design perspective. A combination of tape display and dial display should be used for information layout on the instrument displays. Other studies in the literature also support this and suggest that a combination of dials and numbers

(or text) can be an effective way of designing instruments (Curtis et al., 2010; Hiremath et al.,

2009; O’Hare & Waite, 2012). This can be achieved in either type of cockpit. The results of this study support this recommendation. In particular, such a method of instrument display and information layout will be beneficial in an emergency. A dial display will help a pilot build an overall representation of the flight parameter in relation to the full range of that parameter. A number or text display will allow a pilot to quickly scan and acquire the information, and will therefore allow a pilot to scan, acquire and understand the information from the instruments quickly.

The second recommendation is from a regulatory perspective. Flight training should be conducted in both types of cockpit. This recommendation is made because there are no limitations on the cockpit type that can be flown in after training. There are also no restrictions on the cockpit type used for training, and most operators are using a glass cockpit

344 aircraft for training (Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Whitehurst & Rantz, 2012; FAA, 2011).

Training in both cockpit types will not only expose a student pilot to an analogue cockpit and a glass cockpit, it will also help him or her learn the differences in instrument display and information layout.

The third recommendation is from an individual pilot perspective. Home flight simulators should be used more extensively, especially by low-hour pilots, to practise flying in a different type of cockpit. Performing such a task can offer a cost-effective solution, and also help in learning the instrument display and information layout before making a transition. Chapter 3 discussed the benefits of simulator training. Simulators can be used, regardless of experience level, to learn and maintain proficiency. Research has proven that there is a successful transfer of skills from a simulator to a real aircraft (Beckman, 2009;

Ortiz, 1994; Koonce & Bramble, 1998). Simulators offer a safe and cost-effective alternative to real-world training (Jentsch & Bowers, 1998; Gawron et al., 1995).

The fourth recommendation is from an academic and industry perspective. Eye trackers should be incorporated into flight simulators. This will allow a novice pilot to compare his or her scanning patterns against the correct technique. Performing such a task will help in objectively assessing their scanning patterns and in learning the accurate patterns

(Law et al., 2004; Underwood, 2007; Mourant & Rockwell, 1972; Roca et al., 2011). Such a task can be performed in simulators, and universities and industries could also collaborate to develop and implement affordable eye tracking devices in training aircraft. This will further enhance training and aviation safety.

345

Limitations

There are some limitations in this study, and these are discussed below. Regardless of these limitations, the experiments conducted still provide valuable results and have safety implications for anyone who is making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit.

Sample Size

The first limitation is the small sample size. The number of subjects recruited for the

VFR study was 12 and the number in IFR study was 9. The same subjects were used in the

UA study, so the sample sizes were again 12 for the VFR and 9 for the IFR. In the rotary wing study, 8 subjects were recruited.

The sample size could have been improved by also recruiting from several other sources. In addition to recruiting using the university’s internal mailing list, the study could also have been advertised in flying clubs and other training schools. Nevertheless, the current sample size is consistent with existing studies in the literature.

Previous studies that were conducted to collect objective data on pilot scanning patterns varied in the number of subjects that were recruited. A comparison is made below of sample sizes in several existing studies.

346

Ziv (2016) conducted an extensive literature review of fifty existing studies. All these studies were related to the visual scan of a pilot in the aviation industry. According to this article, approximately half of the studies included a sample size of less than twelve subjects.

This is consistent with the experiments conducted in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.

For example, in a study conducted by Huettig et al. (1999), the sample size was less than 5 subjects. This study, as discussed in the literature review, analysed the amount of time spent scanning the instruments during flight. Another study conducted by Diez et al. (2001) also used a similar sample size of 5 subjects. This study analysed the scanning patterns of subjects in a large commercial jet aircraft.

Kim, Palmisano, Ash and Allison (2010) conducted a study with only ten subjects, examining the pilots’ scan patterns during landing. The study conducted daytime and nighttime simulated flights. They had two groups of five subjects each. One group consisted of students while the other consisted of licensed pilots. Despite the low sample size, they found that both groups made more errors during night ILS approaches.

Finally, a study conducted by Di Nocera et al. (2007) also included only ten pilots.

Their study made a comparison between workload and phase of flight. One of their conclusions was that mental workload is lowest during the cruise phase. They also concluded that a further study should be conducted with a larger sample size. In a similar way, a future

347 study could be conducted to increase the sample size of the experiments in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Recent Experience

Pilots recruited for the IFR experiment had experience flying an aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit and also an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. Unlike the first

VFR experiment, all subjects did not have a consistent amount of glass cockpit experience.

Hence, they were all familiar with the instrument display and information layout in both types of cockpit. It would be beneficial to conduct a future study and recruit subjects who only have glass cockpit experience for the IFR experiment.

Rotary Wing Study

The experiment conducted with helicopter pilots did not include a comparison between glass cockpits and analogue cockpits. This is because the glass cockpit is not yet as common in helicopters as in the fixed-wing counterpart. As a result, the researcher did not have access to a rotary wing simulator that was equipped with a glass cockpit. The helicopter study was also conducted in day VFR conditions only, as IFR operations in helicopters are uncommon. Alternatively, night VFR operations are common with helicopters. A future study could study the scanning patterns of night VFR operations.

348

Workload Questionnaire

The subjective workload questionnaire assessed the workload for the entire flight. A future study could compare the workload in a glass and an analogue cockpit in different phases of flight. Similarly, workload data could be obtained for the abnormal situation study and the rotary wing study.

Transition Training Hours

The subjects were not provided any transition training before flying in an analogue cockpit. This is because the researcher wanted to study the effects of making such a transition without any training. It might be beneficial for a future study to provide the subjects with transitional training before flying in an analogue cockpit. A cross comparison could also be made with the results of both these studies to learn if training before transition makes it easier to fly an analogue cockpit.

349

Further study

Future research can improve on this study by addressing its limitations, as outlined in the previous section. In addition, further studies could be conducted to provide more empirical evidence comparing the pilot scanning patterns based on the types of cockpit.

Real World vs Simulator Study

The experiments in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 were conducted using a simulator. An ideal follow-up study is to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit in a real aircraft and a simulator.

Simulators are an asset in the aviation industry. Pilots can use them for training purposes and to improve their flying skills. Scientists can use simulators for research purposes to understand and improve pilot safety. Despite these benefits, some pilots do not fly a simulator the same way as a real aircraft. As a result, a study could be conducted to compare the pilot scanning patterns in a simulator and real aircraft.

An experiment could be conducted in a Cessna 172 and a simulator with the same aircraft. Subjects would fly the real-world aircraft first and then repeat the same flight in the simulator. This would provide consistency in the flight path between the two flights. In other words, it is easier to replicate a real-world flight in a simulator than to accurately replicate a

350 simulated flight in the real world. Both real-world and simulator flights would involve flying the aircraft with a glass and an analogue cockpit.

Being a real-world flight, the flight route would be chosen based on the aviation rules and regulations, and subjects would be required to follow all normal operating procedures.

For example, the flight route could be between Moorabbin airport and Point Cook airport, which are both general aviation training airports. It would also be possible to conduct the flight between Moorabbin airport and Essendon airport.

The subjects would wear an eye tracker while flying and a headset to make necessary radio calls. Being real-world operations, a qualified safety pilot would also accompany the pilot and sit in the right seat.

The safety pilot would not provide any assistance to the subject if the flight is in normal operations; however, the safety pilot would take full or partial control of the aircraft in the event of any unexpected problems.

Such an experiment would require a higher budget and several other resources. The subjects who might be recruited will have to be industry professionals, with high level of experience, and would still participate in this study without compensation. However, the flight time in a real aircraft could be entered into pilots’ logbooks, which will be an advantage for volunteer subjects.

351

Backup Instruments in the Glass Cockpit Study

The modern glass cockpit offers some backup instruments, which are mainly used if there is a blackout of the main instrument displays due to an electrical failure. During such an event, the pilot can use the backup instruments to safely fly and land the aircraft.

The backup instruments also raise several human factors concerns. The first is that they are displayed using analogue instruments. Several questions can be asked in a research study. For example, if a pilot is not familiar with the analogue instruments, would she or he scan the instruments in the event of an electrical failure? Also, if he or she do es scan them, how much time is spent scanning these instruments?

The second concern is that there are only three backup instruments in the Cessna 172.

Although they provide the primary flight information, the pilot is instantly deprived of the immense information provided in a glass cockpit. This might affect the pilot’s performance and raises several questions: Is the pilot able to acquire enough information from these three instruments to safely land the aircraft? Would this differ between IFR and VFR conditions?

How will workload and situational awareness be affected during an electrical failure?

352

The third concern is their position, which also raises several questions: Are the instruments located in the optimal position in the aircraft’s cockpit? Does changing the position increase the pilot’s performance?

Finally, it might also be valuable to understand if a pilot refers to these backup instruments during a normal flight, even when the other displays are working.

Transition Training Hours

There are no regulatory requirements to have training before making a transition. If training before transition does make a difference, a further study could be conducted to learn how many hours of training is required before pilots can make a safe transition to an analogue cockpit. The results of such a study could be incorporated into the flight training syllabus to help future pilots.

Eye and Head Movement Tracking Study

It would also be beneficial to obtain an eye and head movement tracker. This device has additional hardware and software that provides more data, and is capable of producing the scan paths of a pilot in different types of cockpit. Since there are no documented scan paths of pilots in a glass cockpit, collecting data using this device would provide valuable input to the human factors literature. All the experiments, including the suggestions for

353 further study made in this section, could be repeated with this device to study the scan paths of the pilots. This would be particularly beneficial during IFR conditions, because maintaining a good scan path is crucial when relying on the instruments to fly.

Larger Aircraft Study

The experiments in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 were conducted in a propeller aircraft. As in general aviation aircraft, commercial aircraft could also benefit from eye tracking studies.

Airline pilots face particular challenges while flying. For example, they transition between several types of aircraft during their career, and fly in different types of cockpit. Not only would objective eye tracking data reveal their scanning patterns, it would also help understand how these patterns change over time. Such valuable data could be utilised while training a novice.

Other human factors studies could also be conducted. Apart from understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns between different types of cockpit, it might also be necessary to understand other human factors issues. For example, how does fatigue or stress affect a transition between the two cockpit types? How do communication skills affect the crew during transition in multi-crew environments?

354

Chapter 10

Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit. To explore and understand the scanning patterns between a modern glass cockpit and a traditional analogue cockpit, four experiments were conducted. These were conducted using a flight simulator and an eye tracking device.

As described in the literature review in Chapters 2 and 4, understanding scanning patterns is important. This is because it shows how information has been acquired from the various available sources. Information acquisition lays the foundation for achieving and maintaining situational awareness, which in turn helps in making appropriate decisions and performing the correct actions in a timely manner. This process helps in maintaining safety in the aviation industry.

The results of Chapter 5 show that in normal daytime visual flying conditions, there were several differences in the scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The results of Chapter 6 show that in normal daytime instrument flying conditions, these differences between the two types of cockpit are reduced to a small number. The results of Chapter 7 show that when an abnormal situation was encountered, then there are no differences between the two types of cockpit.

356

These results show that there were differences in scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in normal daytime visual flying conditions. As the circumstances changed, so did the scanning patterns. In particular, if poor visibility conditions were experienced or an abnormal situation was encountered, then the scanning patterns were modified to cope with the condition or situation. As a result, there were very few or almost no significant differences between cockpit types, depending on the circumstance encountered.

Additionally, an experiment was conducted to compare the scanning patterns between an analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft and an analogue cockpit of a rotary wing aircraft.

This study not only changed the cockpit type, but also the aircraft type. The results of Chapter

8 show a comparison between the scanning patterns in the two types of cockpit in the two types of aircraft. Preliminary conclusions were that scanning patterns could also be modified to suit the unique rotary wing operations.

The results of these studies have safety implications, which have been discussed in detail in Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In addition, several recommendations were made in

Chapter 9 to assist any pilot who will be making a transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in the future. One of the most important recommendations was the importance of transition training. Offering such training to a pilot will help her or him learn the differences and similarities in instrument display and information layout, and will help in reducing error which will assist in maintaining aviation safety.

357

References

and

Appendices

Reference Li st

AAIB. (1990). Aircraft accident report: Report on the accident to Boeing 737-400 G-OBME near Kegworth, Leicestershire on 8 January, 1989. Hampshire, UK.

Abbott, K. H. (2001). Human factors engineering and flight deck design. In C. R.Spitzer (2001) (Eds.). The avionics handbook . (pp. 9.1-9.4). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Aeronautica Civil of the Republic of Columbia. (1996). Aircraft accident report: Controlled flight into terrain, American Airlines Flight 965, Boeing 757-223, N651AA, near Cali, Columbia, December 20, 1995. Bogota, Columbia.

Aladwani, A. M. (2001). Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 266-275.

Alexander, A. L., & Wickens, C. D. (2005). Synthetic vision systems: Flightpath tracking, situation awareness, and visual scanning in an integrated hazard display. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 May – 9 May, 2005.

Anders, G. (2001). Pilot’s attention allocation during approach and landing- Eye-and head- tracking research in an A 330 full flight simulator. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 5 March – 8 March, 2001.

Anderson, J. D. (2002). The airplane: A history of its technology. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Andraši, P., Novak, D., & Bucak, T. (2016). Ergonomic Aspect of LCD Display Panels in Flight Training Devices. In Proceedings of the 6th International Ergonomics Conference, Zadar, Croatia, 15 June – 18 June, 2016.

Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 3(4), 10-14.

Andre, A. D., Wickens, C. D., & Moorman, L. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in the aircraft cockpit. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(3), 205-218.

AOPA. (1993). How to Avoid a Midair Collision. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/safety-advisors-and-safety- briefs/collision-avoidance

AOPA. (2001). Collision Avoidance: Strategies and Tactics. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/pilot-resources/asi/safety- advisors/sa15.pdf

AOPA. (2005). Technically Advanced Aircraft: Safety and Training. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics

359

AOPA. (2007). Technically Advanced Aircraft: Safety and Training. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org.il/userfiles/files/safety/TAA2007.pdf

AOPA. (2006). Nall report: Accident trends and factors. Frederick, MD: AOPA Air Safety Institute.

AOPA. (2007). Nall report: Accident trends and factors. Frederick, MD: AOPA Air Safety Institute.

AOPA. (2010). Nall report: Accident trends and factors. Frederick, MD: AOPA Air Safety Institute.

ATSB. (2009). Aviation occurrence investigation: Tailstrike and runway overrun Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 20 March 2009, A6-ERG, Airbus A340-541. Canberra, Australia.

Aurino, D. E. M. (2000). Human factors and aviation safety: what the industry has, what the industry needs. Ergonomics, 43(7), 952-959.

Avionics 2020. (2015). The saga of cockpits – ODICIS. [photograph]. Retrieved May 16, 2016 from http://onboard.thalesgroup.com/2015/09/03/saga-cockpits/

Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity, 3(2), 16-22.

Axtell, R., Axelrod, R., Epstein, J. & Cohen, M. D. (1996). Aligning simulation models: A case study and results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(2), 123-141.

Baker, D., & Donnet, T. (2012). Regional and remote airports under stress in Australia. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 4, 37-43.

Baker, D., Prince, C., Shrestha, L., Oser, R., & Salas, E. (1993). Aviation computer games for crew resource management training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(2), 143-156.

Balzer, T. (2009) Airbus A330-203 – Air France. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Airbus-A330-203/1864497

Barach, P., & Small, S. D. (2000). Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 759.

Barker, B. M., NewMyer, D.A., Truitt, L.J., Kaps, R.W., & Fuller, M. L. (1995). Directory of scholarly journals publishing non-engineering aviation research. Auburn, AL: University Aviation Association.

Barnes, J. A. (1972). Analysis of pilot's eye movements during helicopter flight. (HEL- TM-11-72). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Human Engineering Lab.

360

Baxter, G., Besnard, D., & Riley, D. (2007). Cognitive mismatches in the cockpit: Will they ever be a thing of the past? Applied Ergonomics, 38(4), 417-423.

BEA. (2000). Aircraft accident report: Accident on 25 July 2000 at La Patte d’Oie in Gonesse (95) to the Concorde registered F-BTSC operated by Air France. Le Bourget, France.

BEA. (2012). Aircraft accident report: Air France Flight 447, Airbus A330-203, 1 June, 2009. Le Bourget, France.

Beckman, W. S. (2009). Pilot perspective on the Microsoft Flight Simulator for instrument training and proficiency. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 9(2), 171-180.

Bednarek, J. R. D., & Launius, R. D. (2003). Reconsidering a century of flight. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press.

Bell, H. H., & Waag, W. L. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of flight simulators for training combat skills: A review. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 223-242.

Berends, P., & Romme, G. (1999). Simulation as a research tool in management studies. European Management Journal, 17(6), 576-583.

Beringer, D. B., & Ball, J. D. (2009). Unknown-attitude recoveries using conventional and terrain-depicting attitude indicators: difference testing, equivalence testing, and equivalent level of safety. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(1), 76-97.

BFU. (2004). Investigation report: Überlingen Accident on 1 July 2002, DHL Boeing B757- 200 and Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev TU154M. Braunschweig, Germany.

Billings, C. E. (1991). Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines. (Technical Memorandum 103885). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Billings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bilstein, R. E. (2001). The enterprise of flight: The American aviation and aerospace industry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Björklund, C. M., Alfredson, J., & Dekker, S. W. (2006). Mode monitoring and call-outs: An eye-tracking study of two-crew automated flight deck operations. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16(3), 263-275.

Boehm-Davis, D., Holt, R. & Seamster, T. (2001) Airline resource management programs. In E. Salas, C. Bowers and E. Edens (2001) (Eds.). Improving teamwork in organizations. Applications of resource management training. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

361

Boeing. (2017). 2017 Order and deliveries. Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/?cm_re=March_2015-_-Roadblock-_- Orders+%26+Deliveries/#/orders-deliveries

Bolstad, C. A., Endsley, M. R., Costello, A. M., & Howell, C. D. (2010). Evaluation of computer-based situation awareness training for general aviation pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 20(3), 269-294.

Bonini, C. P. (1963). Simulation of information and decision systems in the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Borisov, F. (2014). Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner – Boeing. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-9-Dreamliner/2472247

Boussemart, Y., Las Fargeas, J., Cummings, M. L., & Roy, N. (2009). Comparing learning techniques for hidden Markov Models of human supervisory control behavior. In Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, 6 April – 9 April, 2009.

Bowers, C., Deaton, J., Oser, R., Prince, C., & Kolb, M. (1995). Impact of automation on aircrew communication and decision-making performance. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(2), 145-167.

Brackx, T. (2007). Cirrus SR22-GTS – Private . [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/6058161

Braithwaite, M. G., Durnford, S. J., Groh, S. L., Jones, H. D., Higdon, A. A., Estrada, A., & Alvarez, E. A. (1998). Flight simulator evaluation of a novel flight instrument display to minimize the risks of spatial disorientation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 69(8), 733-742.

Brannick, M. T., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (2005). Can PC-based systems enhance teamwork in the cockpit? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(2), 173-187.

Brown, D. L., Bautsch, H. S., Wetzel, P. A., & Anderson, G. M. (2002). Instrument scan strategies of F-117A pilots. (AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0027). Dayton, OH: Logicon technical services Inc.

Bürki-Cohen, J., Soja, N. N., & Longridge, T. (1998). Simulator platform motion-the need revisited. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 293-317.

Burian, B. K., Barshi, I., & Dismukes, K. (2005). The challenge of aviation emergency and abnormal situations. (NASA Technical Memorandum 2005-213462). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Burian, B. K., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2003). The emergency and abnormal situations project. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ISASI Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 26 August – 28 August, 2003.

362

Button, K. J. (1997). The future of international air transport policy: Responding to global change. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

CAE Oxford Aviation Academy. (2014). Global Aircraft Fleet. Retrieved from http://www.caeoaa.com/aircraft-fleet/#.WliOi6iWaUl

Caldwell Jr., J. A., Caldwell, J. L., Brown, D. L., & Smith, J. K. (2004). The effects of 37 hours of continuous wakefulness on the physiological arousal, cognitive performance, self-reported mood, and simulator flight performance of F-117A pilots. Military Psychology, 16(3), 163.

Camilli, M., Nacchia, R., Terenzi, M., & Di Nocera, F. (2008). ASTEF: A simple tool for examining fixations. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 373-382.

Canciani, G. (2009). Airbus A340-541 – Emirates Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Airbus-A340-541/1530133

CASA. (2017). Licensing regulations. Retrieved from https://www.casa.gov.au/rules-and- regulations/standard-page/licensing-regulations

Casner, S. (2003). Learning about cockpit automation: From piston trainer to jet transport. (NASA Technical Memorandum 2003-212260). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Casner, S. M. (2004). Flying IFR with GPS: How much practice is needed. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 4(2), 81-97.

Casner, S. M. (2005). The effect of GPS and moving maps displays on navigational awareness while flying under VFR. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 5(1), 153-165.

Casner, S. (2006). Mitigating the loss of navigational awareness while flying with GPS and moving map displays under VFR. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 6(1), 121.

Casner, S. (2008). General aviation pilots’ attitudes toward advanced cockpit systems. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 8(1), 88-112.

Castillo, J. A. L. D., & Couture, N. (2016). The aircraft of the future: Towards the tangible cockpit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace, Paris, France, 14 September – 16 September, 2016.

Chant, C. (1978). Aviation: An illustrated history . Sydney, Australia: Chartwell Books.

Chant, C. (2002). A century of triumph: The history of aviation . New York, NY: The Free Press.

363

Chidester, T., Hackworth, C., & Knecht, W. (2007). Participant assessments of aviation safety inspector training for technically advanced aircraft . Oklahoma City OK: FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.

Christensen, J.M., Topmiller, D.A., & Gill, R.T. (1988). Human factors definitions revisited. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 31, 7-8.

Clarke, B. (1998). Aviator’s guide to GPS. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Collinson, R. P. G. (1996). Introduction to avionics. London, NY: Chapman & Hall.

Colvin, K., Dodhia, R., & Dismukes, R. K. (2005). Is pilots' visual scanning adequate to avoid mid-air collisions. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 May – 9 May, 2005.

Cook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., Erwin, P. J., & Hamstra, S. J. (2011). Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama, 306(9), 978-988.

Coombs, L. F. E. (1990). The aircraft cockpit: From stick-and-string to fly-by-wire. Emeryville, CA: Thorsons Publishers.

Coombs, L.F.E. (2005). Control in the sky. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Control-Sky-Evolution-History-Aircraft/dp/1844151484

Craig, P. A., Bertrand, J. E., Dornan, W., Gossett, S., & Thorsby, K. K. (2005). Ab Initio training in the glass cockpit era: New technology meets new pilots. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 May – 9 May, 2005.

Crocoll, W. M., & Coury, B. G. (1990, October). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 34, No. 19, pp. 1524-1528). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Croix, S. J. (1995). The Asia-Pacific airline industry: Economic boom and politica l conflict. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.

Curry, R. E. (1985). The introduction of new cockpit technology: A human factors study. (Memorandum 86659). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Curtis, M. T., Jentsch, F., & Wise, J.A. (2010). Aviation displays. In E. Salas and D. Maurino, (2010) (Eds.). Human factors in aviation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Dahlström, N. (2008). Pilot training in our time‐use of flight training devices and simulators. Aviation, 12(1), 22-27.

Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., & Nahlinder, S. (2006). Introduction of technically advanced aircraft in ab-initio flight training. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 6(1), 131-144.

364

Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., Van Winsen, R., & Nyce, J. (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(4), 305-314.

Dalamagkidis, K., Valavanis, K. P., & Piegl, L. A. (2011). On integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system: Issues, challenges, operational restrictions, certification, and recommendations. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.

Dallot. (1993). Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 101 – Air France. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-101/4301991

Davenport, C. E. (2000). USAF spatial disorientation experience: Air force safety center statistical review. In Proceedings of the Recent Trends in Spatial Disorientation Research Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15 November – 17 November, 2000.

Debroise, X. (2010). Human errors in aeronautics: A study of the link between attention and errors (Doctoral thesis, University of Victor Segalen Bordeaux IV, Bordeaux, France). Retrieved from http://www.theses.fr/2010BOR21715/abes

Degani, A., Chappell, S. L., & Hayes, M. S. (1991). Who or what saved the day? A comparison of traditional and glass cockpits. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 29 April – 2 May, 1991.

Dekker, S.W.A. (2002). The field guide to human error investigations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Dekker, S. (2012). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Dennis, K. A., & Harris, D. (1998). Computer-based simulation as an adjunct to ab initio flight training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 261-276.

Desa, M. R. (2007). Boeing 737-46J – Malaysia Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia-Airlines/Boeing-737-46J/1246469

Detwiler, C., Holcomb, K., Hackworth, C., & Shappell, S., (2008). Understanding the human factors associated with visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions. (NTIS DOT/FAA/AM-08/12). Washington, DC: FAA.

Diez, M., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Holt, R. W., Pinney, M. E., Hansberger, J. T., & Schoppek, W. (2001). Tracking pilot interactions with flight management systems through eye movements. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 5 March – 8 March, 2001.

Di Nocera, F., Camilli, M., & Terenzi, M. (2007). A random glance at the flight deck: Pilots' scanning strategies and the real-time assessment of mental workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(3), 271-285.

365

Dick, A. O. (1980). Instrument scanning and controlling: Using eye movement data to understand pilot behavior and strategies. (NASA Technical Memorandum 14793). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Dismukes, R. K. (Ed.). (2017). Human error in aviation. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Dixon, K. W., Rojas, V. A., Krueger, G. M., & Simcik, L. (1990). Eye tracking device for the measurement of flight performance in simulators. Mesa, AZ: Williams Air Force Base.

DJ. (2008). Cirrus SR22 G-ETFL – Private . [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/17430/g-etfl-private-cirrus-sr22/

Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., & Tullis, T. (2010). Generation Y, web design, and eye tracking. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 307-323.

Dooley, K. (2002). Simulation research methods. In J. A. C. Baum (2002) (Eds.). Companion to Organizations. (pp. 829-848). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dooley, K., & Mahmoodi, F. (1992). Identification of robust scheduling heuristics: Application of Taguchi methods in simulation studies. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 22(4), 359-368.

Dornan, W. A., Craig, P., Gossett, S., & Beckman, W. (2004). Best evidence for the FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) program for piloting training in technically advanced aircraft. Collegiate Aviation Review, 24(1), 58-66.

Dubois, E., Blättler, C., Camachon, C., & Hurter, C. (2015). Eye movements data processing for ab -initio military pilot training. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies, Sorrento, Italy, 17 June – 19 June, 2015.

Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 455-470.

Durso, F. T., & Alexander, A. (2010). Managing workload, performance, and situation awareness in aviation systems. In E. Salas and D. Maurino, (2010) (Eds.). Human factors in aviation, (pp. 217-247). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Easthope, C., & Easthope, G. (2000). Intensification, extension and complexity of teachers’ workload. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 43-58.

ECA. (2013). Pilot training compass: “Back to the future”. Brussels, Belgium: European Cockpit Association AISBL.

366

Edwards, E. (1988). Introductory overview. In E.L. Wiener and D.C. Nagel (Eds.). Human factors in aviation , (pp. 3-25). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Emanuel Jr., T. W., Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., & Rantanen, E. M. (2003). Comparison of the effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device, a flight training device, and an airplane in conducting instrument proficiency checks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Endsley, M. R. (1995a). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64.

Endsley, M. R. (1995b). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65-84.

Endsley, M. R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. In R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua (Eds.). Automation and human performance: Theory and applications, (pp. 163-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Endsley, M. R. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492.

Endsley, M. R., & Bolstad, C. A. (1994). Individual differences in pilot situation awareness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 241-264.

Endsley, M. R., & Garland, D. J. (Eds.). (2000). Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381-394.

Endsley, M. R., & Rodgers, M. D. (1994). Situation awareness information requirements analysis for en route air traffic control. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 71-75). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Endsley, M. R., & Strauch, B. (1997). Automation and situation awareness: The accident at Cali, Columbia. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 27 April – 1 May, 1997.

English, D. (2012). Two-tail non-linear moving tape displays. (Master thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ). Retrieved from https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/93949/content//tmp/package- 2QGKqm/English_asu_0010N_11979.pdf

FAR/AIM (2003). Federal aviation regulations/Aeronautical information manual. Washington, DC: FAA.

FAA. (1991a). Aeronautical decision making. (Advisory Circular AC No: 60-22). Washington, DC: FAA.

367

FAA. (1991b). Airplane simulator qualification. (Advisory Circular AC No: 120-40B). Washington, DC: FAA.

FAA. (1992). Airplane flight training device qualification. (Advisory Circular AC No: 120- 45A). Washington, DC: FAA.

FAA. (1998). Scanning for other aircraft. Oklahoma City, OK: FAA.

FAA. (2003). General aviation technically advanced aircraft FAA – Industry safety study. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/research/media/TAA%20Final%20 Report.pdf

FAA. (2011). Federal aviation regulations. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

Faria, A. J. (2014). The changing nature of simulation research: A brief ABSEL history. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 27, 84-90.

Fennell, K., Sherry, L., Roberts, Jr., R. J., & Feary, M. (2006). Difficult access: The impact of recall steps on flight management system errors. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16(2), 175-196.

Fiduccia, P., Wright, B., Ayers, F., Edberg, J., Foster, L., Henry, M., Hubbard, C., Landsberg, B., Nleson, D., Radomsky, M., Siewert, D., & Wright, D. (2003). General aviation technically advanced aircraft FAA-industry safety study. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/research/media/TAA%20Final%20 Report.pdf

Fisher, D. L., Pollatsek, A. P., & Pradhan, A. (2006). Can novice drivers be trained to scan for information that will reduce their likelihood of a crash? Injury Prevention, 12(1), i25-i29.

Fitts, P. M., Jones, R. E., & Milton, J. L. (1950). Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument-landing approaches. Aeronautical Engineering Review, 9(2), 1-6.

Flightdeckimages. (2014). Boeing 737-3Q8 – Southwest Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3Q8/2444130

Flight Safety Foundation. (2014). A practical guide for improving flight path monitoring. Retrieved from http://flightsafety.org/files/flightpath/EPMG.pdf

Folkeringa, L. (2003). Cirrus SR22 – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/182405

Gainer, C. A., & Obermayer, R. W. (1964). Pilot eye fixations while flying selected maneuvers using two instrument panels. Human Factors, 6(5), 485-501.

368

Garland, D. J., Wise, J. A., Hopkin, V. D. (2010). Handbook of aviation human factors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Gawron, V., Bailey, R., & Lehman, E. (1995). Lessons learned in applying simulators to crewstation evaluation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(3), 277- 290.

Gipps, P. G. (1981). A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 15(2), 105-111.

Glaholt, M. G. (2014). Eye tracking in the cockpit: A review of the relationships between eye movements and the aviator’s cognitive state. (DRDC-RDDC-2014-R153). Ottawa, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.

Gladines, K. (2002). Boeing 757-23APF – DHL. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/DHL-SNAS-Aviation/Boeing-757-23APF/269514

Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. K. (2011). An eye‐tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 24(1), 71-98.

Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631-645.

Gordon, T. M., & Etherington, T. J. (2004). Altitude tape and integral vertical speed indicator. (Patent No. 6,686,851). Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.

Goteman, Ö., Smith, K., & Dekker, S. (2007). HUD with a velocity (flight-path) vector reduces lateral error during landing in restricted visibility. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 17(1), 91-108.

Gottschalk, M. A. (1996). Computers take over the cockpit. Design News, 11(4), 88-100.

Gough, V. E. (1956). Contribution to discussion of papers on research in automobile stability, control and tyre performance. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 180(15), 392-394.

Graeber, C. (1999). The role of human factors in improving aviation safety: Boeing commercial airplanes group. Aero magazine, 8, 23-31.

Green, R. G. (1996). Human factors for pilots. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Grigorak, M., & Shkvar, O. (2011). A logistic approach for description of decision-making process. Aviation, 15(1), 21-24.

Groeger, J.A., Bradshaw, M.F., Everatt, J., Merat, N., & Field, D. (2003). Pilot study of train drivers’ eye-movements. London, UK: Rail Safety and Standards Board.

369

Guan, Z., & Cutrell, E. (2007). An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 30 April – 3 May, 2007.

Hamblin, C. J., Gilmore, C., & Chaparro, A. (2006). Learning to fly glass cockpits requires a new cognitive model. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, No. 17, pp. 1977-1981). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hamblin, C. J., Miller, C., & Naidu, S. (2006). Comparison of three avionics systems based upon information availability, priorities and accessibility. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, No. 17, pp. 1825- 1828). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hancock, P. A., Williams, G., & Manning, C. M. (1995). Influence of task demand characteristics on workload and performance. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(1), 63-86.

Harris, D. (2004). Human factors for civil flight deck design. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Harris, D. (2011). Human performance on the flight deck. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Harris, R. L., & Christhilf, D. M. (1980). What do pilots see in displays? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 22-26). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Harris, W. C., Hancock, P. A., Arthur, E. J., & Caird, J. K. (1995). Performance, workload, and fatigue changes associated with automation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(2), 169-185.

Harris Sr., R. L., Glover, B. J., & Spady Jr., A. A. (1986). Analytical techniques of pilot scanning behavior and their application. (NASA-TP-2525 19860018448). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 904- 908). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183.

Haslbeck, A., & Hoermann, H. J. (2016). Flying the needles flight deck automation erodes fine-motor flying skills among airline pilots. Human Factors, 58(4), 533-545.

Haslbeck, A., Schubert, E., Gontar, P., & Bengler, K. (2012). The relationship between pilots' manual flying skills and their visual behavior: A flight simulator study using eye tracking. Advances in Human Aspects of Aviation, 561-568.

Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4-21.

370

Havenga, B. (2008). Boeing 737-800 (Simulator) – Delta Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-737-800- %28simulator%29/1367221

Hawkins, F. H., & Orlady, H. W. (1993). Human factors in flight. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

Hayashi, M. (2003). Hidden markov models to identify pilot instrument scanning and attention patterns. Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 3, 2889-2896.

Hayashi, M. (2004). Hidden Markov models for analysis of pilot instrument scanning and attention switching. (Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA). Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/28912/60495284-MIT.pdf;sequence=2

Hayashi, M., Beutter, B., & McCann, R. S. (2005). Hidden Markov model analysis for space shuttle crewmembers' scanning behavior. Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 2, 1615-1622.

Hayashi, M., Oman, C. M., & Zuschlag, M. (2003). Hidden Markov models as a tool to measure pilot attention switching during simulated ILS approaches. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Helmreich, R. L. (2000). On error management: Lessons from aviation. British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 781-785.

Helmreich, R. L., & Anca, J. M. (2010). Crew resource management. London, UK: Elsevier.

Helmreich, R. L., & Davies, J. M. (2004). Culture, threat, and error: Lessons from aviation. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 51, R1-R4.

Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(1), 19-32.

Hermens, F., Flin, R., & Ahmed, I. (2013). Eye movements in surgery: A literature review. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 6(4), 1-11.

Herren, P. R. (2003). Boeing 737-53A – Nordeste Linhas Aereas (VARIG). [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Nordeste-Linhas-Aereas- %28Varig%29/Boeing-737-53A/395713

Hiremath, V., Proctor, R. W., Fanjoy, R. O., Feyen, R. G., & Young, J. P. (2009). Comparison of pilot recovery and response times in two types of cockpits. In Symposium on Human Interface, San Diego, CA, USA, 19 July – 24 July, 2009.

371

Holzmueller, C. G., Pronovost, P. J., Dickman, F., Thompson, D. A., Wu, A. W., Lubomski, L. H., Fahey, M., Steinwachs, D. M., Engineer, L., Jaffrey, A., Morlock, L. L., & Dorman, T. (2005). Creating the web-based intensive care unit safety reporting system. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 12(2), 130-139.

Hom, M. (2005). Boeing 737-7H4 – Southwest Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/492042

Hooper, M. (1985). Kangaroo route: Development of commercial flight between England and Australia. Sydney, Australia: Angus & Robertson.

Hosman, R. J., & Mulder, M. (1997). Perception of flight information from EFIS displays. Control Engineering Practice, 5(3), 383-390.

Huber, S. W. (2006). Recovery from unusual attitudes: HUD vs. back-up display in a static F/A-18 simulator. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77(4), 444-448.

Huettig, G., Anders, G., & Tautz, A. (1999). Mode awareness in a modern glass cockpit attention allocation to mode information. In R. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ohio State University Aviation Conference, Dayton, OH: Ohio State University.

Hunter, D. R., Martinussen, M., & Wiggins, M. (2003). Understanding how pilots make weather-related decisions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(1), 73-87.

ICAO. (1959). Accident Digest Circular. (59-AN/54). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.

ICAO. (1962). Accident Digest Circular. (62-AN/57). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.

Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.

Jeffries, P. R. (2009). Dreams for the future for clinical simulation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(2), 71-72.

Jensen, R. S. (1997). The boundaries of aviation psychology, human factors, aeronautical decision making, situation awareness, and crew resource management. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 259-267.

Jentsch, F., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). Evidence for the validity of PC-based simulations in studying aircrew coordination. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 243-260.

Johannsen, G., & Rouse, W. B. (1983). Studies of planning behavior of aircraft pilots in normal, abnormal & emergency situations. Systems,Man&Cybernetics,13(3),267-278.

Johnson, L. (2013). Boeing 737-229/ADV – Polytechnic West. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Polytechnic-West/Boeing-737-229-Adv/2383300

372

Johnson, R., Hamilton, R., Gibson, B., & Hanna, J. (2006). Usefulness of collegiate aviation publications: What aviation educators say? Collegiate Aviation Review, 24(1), 82.

Johnston, N., McDonald, N., & Fuller, R. (Eds.). (1994). Aviation psychology in practice. Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Jones, D. H. (1985). An error-dependent model of instrument-scanning behavior in commercial airline pilots. (NASA Contractor Report 3908). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Jones, D. G., & Endsley, M. R. (1996). Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67(6), 507-512.

Jones, R. E., Milton, J. L., & Fitts, P. M. (1949). Eye fixations of aircraft pilots, I. A review of prior eye-movement studies and a description of a technique for recording the frequency, duration and sequences of eye-fixations during instrument flight. (USAF Tech. Rep, 5837). Dayton, OH: Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

Jun, J. B., Jacobson, S. H., & Swisher, J. R. (1999). Application of discrete-event simulation in health care clinics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(2), 109-123.

Kaps, R. W., & Phillips, E. (2004). Publishing aviation research: A literature review of scholarly journals. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 14(1),25- 41.

Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (1998). Influences upon students’ perceptions of workload. Educational Psychology, 18(3), 293-307.

Knight, J. (2007). The glass cockpit. Computer, 40(10), 92-95.

Kim, J., Palmisano, S. A., Ash, A., & Allison, R. S. (2010). Pilot gaze and glideslope control. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 7(3), 18.

Kingsley-Jones, M. (2008). A350 XWB cockpit will be ‘an evolution of the A380’s’. Retrieved March 07, 2015, from https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-xwb-cockpit- will-be-an-evolution-of-the-a380s-221890/

Kirby, C. E., Kennedy, Q., & Yang, J. (2012). An analysis of helicopter pilot scan techniques while flying at low altitudes and high speed. Monterey, CA: Naval PG School.

Klaus, H. (2008). Jet engines: Fundamentals of theory, design and operation. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife.

Koglbauer, I., Kallus, K. W., Braunstingl, R., & Boucsein, W. (2011). Recovery training in simulator improves performance and psychophysiological state of pilots during simulated and real visual flight rules flight. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(4), 307-324.

Kontogiannis, T., & Malakis, S. (2009). A proactive approach to human error detection and identification in aviation and air traffic control. Safety Science, 47(5), 693-706.

373

Koonce, J. M., & Bramble Jr., W. J. (1998). Personal computer-based flight training devices. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 277-292.

Krajzewicz, D., Bonert, M., & Wagner, P. (2006). The open source traffic simulation package SUMO. In Proceedings of RoboCup Conference, Osaka, Japan, 23 May, 2006.

Kramer, L. J., Bailey, R. E., & Prinzel III, L. J. (2009). Commercial flight crew decision making during low-visibility approach operations using fused synthetic and enhanced vision systems. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(2), 131-157.

Kramer, J., & Magee, J. (1990). The evolving philosophers problem: Dynamic change management. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), 1293-1306.

Laszlo, V. (2005). Boeing 737-6Q8 – Malev - Hungarian Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malev-Hungarian-Airlines/Boeing-737- 6Q8/796391

Law, A., & Kelton, D. (1982). Simulation modeling & analysis . New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.

Law, B., Atkins, M. S., Kirkpatrick, A. E., & Lomax, A. J. (2004). Eye gaze patterns differentiate novice and experts in a virtual laparoscopic surgery training environment. In Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, San Antonia, TX, USA, 22 March – 24 March, 2004.

Lee, B. G., & Myung, R. (2013). Attitude indicator design and reference frame effects on unusual attitude recoveries. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(1), 63-90.

Leibowitz, B. (2005). Cirrus SR-22 GTS – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cirrus-SR-22-GTS/906576

Lenné, M. G., Ashby, K., & Fitzharris, M. (2008). Analysis of general aviation crashes in Australia using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18(4), 340-352.

Liou, J. J., Tzeng, G. H., & Chang, H. C. (2007). Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 243-249.

Lindo, R. S., Deaton, J. E., Cain, J. H., & Lang, C. (2012). Methods of instrument training and effects on pilots’ performance with different types of flight instrument displays. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2, 62-71.

Lockheed Martin. (2016). F-35 lightning II training systems. Retrieved July 05, 2016, from https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35training.html

Lohse, G. L. (1997). Consumer eye movement patterns on yellow pages advertising. Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 61-73.

374

Luke, T., Brook-Carter, N., Parkes, A. M., Grimes, E., & Mills, A. (2006). An investigation of train driver visual strategies. Cognition, Technology & Work, 8(1), 15-29.

Macchiarella, N. D., Arban, P. K., & Doherty, S. M. (2006). Transfer of training from flight training devices to flight for ab-initio pilots. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 6(2), 299.

Mahboubian, M. (2010). Educational aspects of business simulation softwares. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5403-5407.

Martinussen, M., & Hunter, D. R. (2009). Aviation psychology and human factors. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Matsumoto, H., Terao, Y., Yugeta, A., Fukuda, H., & Emoto, M. (2011). Where do neurologists look when viewing brain CT images? An eye tracking study involving stroke cases. Plos One 6(12), 1-7.

MacSween-George, S. L. (2003). Will the public accept UAVs for cargo and passenger transportation? In Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, USA, 8 March – 15 March, 2003.

McCarley, J. S., & Kramer, A. F. (2007). Eye movements as a window on perception and cognition. In R. Parasuraman & M. Rizzo (Eds.). Neuroergonomics: The brain at work (pp. 95-112). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McCann, R. S., Foyle, D. C., & Johnston, J. C. (1993). Attentional limitations with head-up displays. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 22 April – 29 April, 1993.

McCarthy, J. D., Sasse, M. A., & Riegelsberger, J. (2004). Could I have the menu please? An eye tracking study of design conventions. People and Computers, 401-414.

McCracken, C.J., (2011). Flight training success in technologically advanced aircraft (TAA). West Lafayette, IN: Aviation Technology Graduate Student Publications.

McCormack, C., Wiggins, M. W., Loveday, T., & Festa, M. (2014). Expert and competent non-expert visual cues during simulated diagnosis in intensive care. Frontiers in Psychology, 17(5).

McDermott, J. T., & Smith, C. E. (2006). Teaching new technology to adults. In Proceedings of National Association of Industrial Technology Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 7 November – 10 November, 2006.

McGaghie, W. C., Siddall, V. J., Mazmanian, P. E., & Myers, J. (2009). Lessons for continuing medical education from simulation research in undergraduate and graduate medical education. Chest Journal, 135(3), 62S-68S.

Meintel, J. (2004). Automation in the cockpit. The Journal of the Air Mobility Command, 1-9.

375

Meyer, F., & Heers, R. (2007). Evolution of cockpit-electronics. ATZelektronik worldwide, 2(2), 18-20.

Michalzechen, L. G. (2015). Cessna T240 Corvalis TTX – Cessna Aircraft Company. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-Aircraft- Company/Cessna-T240-Corvalis-TTx/2646467

Milton, J. L., Jones, R. E., & Fitts, P. M. (1949). Eye fixations of aircraft pilots: Frequency, duration, and sequence of fixations when flying the USAF ILAS. (Air Materiel Command AF TR-5839). Dayton, OH: Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

Moore, K., & Gugerty, L. (2010). Development of a novel measure of situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 54, No. 19, pp. 1650-1654). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Moore, S. T., MacDougall, H. G., Lesceu, X., Speyer, J. J., Wuyts, F., & Clark, J. B. (2008). Head-eye coordination during simulated orbiter landing. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 79(9), 888-898.

Morris, C. S., Hancock, P. A., & Shirkey, E. C. (2004). Motivational effects of adding context relevant stress in PC-based game training. Military Psychology, 16(2),135- 147.

Morris, C. H., & Leung, Y. K. (2006). Pilot mental workload: How well do pilots really perform? Ergonomics, 49(15), 1581-1596.

Morrison, J. G., Marshall, S. P., Kelly, R. T., & Moore, R. A. (1997). Eye tracking in tactical decision making environments: Implications for decision support evaluation. Command and Control Research and Technology, 17 (20).

Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(1), 47-63.

Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human Factors, 14(4), 325-335.

Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905-1922.

Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429-460.

Mumaw, R.J., Sarter, N., Wickens, C., Kimball, S., Nikolic, M., Marsh, R., Xu, W., & Xu, X. (2000). Analysis of pilots’ monitoring and performance on highly automated flight decks. (NAS2-99074). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Murray, S. R. (1997). Deliberate decision making by aircraft pilots: A simple reminder to avoid decision making under panic. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(1), 83-100.

376

NASA. (1976). National aeronautics and space administration aviation safety reporting system. Retrieved from https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html

NASA. (1986). NASA task load index (TLX): Paper-and-pencil version. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000021488.pdf

NASA. (2000). Technology first used in military, commercial aircraft. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Glasscockpit.html

Naweed, A. (2013). Psychological factors for driver distraction and inattention in the Australian and New Zealand rail industry. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60, 193- 204.

Netjasov, F., & Janic, M. (2008). A review of research on risk and safety modelling in civil aviation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(4), 213-220.

Nicholson, D. (2012). De Havilland DH-106 Comet 4 – BOAC. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/BOAC/De-Havilland-DH-106-Comet-4/2203557

Norman, D. A. (1990). The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 327(1241), 585-593.

NTSB. (2010a). Introduction of glass cockpit avionics into light aircraft. (NTSB/SS- 01/10PB2010-917001). Washington, DC: NTSB.

NTSB. (2010). Safety recommendation. (A-10-042-043). Washington, DC: NTSB.

NTSB. (2014). Descent below visual glidepath and impact with seawall. (NTSB/AAR-14/01 PB2014-105984). Washington, DC: NTSB.

NTSB. (2015). Electronic code of federal regulations. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=10c00df9e9c914a347493047c7e22b99&mc=true&node=se49.7.830_12&rg n=div8

NTSB. (2017). US transportation fatalities in 2016 – by mode. Retrieved from https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/PublishingImages/US- TransportationFatalities2016.jpg

O’Connor, P., Flin, R. & Fletcher, G. (2002). Methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of flightcrew. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2, 235-255.

O’Hare, D. (1992). The ‘artful’ decision maker: A framework model for aeronautical decision making. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(3), 175-191.

O’Hare, D., Mullen, N., & Arnold, A. (2009). Enhancing aeronautical decision making through case-based reflection. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 20(1), 48-58.

377

O’Hare, D., & Waite, A. (2012). Effects of pilot experience on recall of information from graphical weather displays. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(1), 1-17.

Oakes, E. H. (2007). Encyclopedia of world scientists. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.

Olmos, O., Liang, C. C., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Electronic map evaluation in simulated visual meteorological conditions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(1), 37-66.

Orlady, H. W., & Orlady, L. M. (1999). Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Ortiz, G. A. (1994). Effectiveness of PC-based flight simulation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 285-291.

Patrick, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Approaches to understanding, analysing and developing situation awareness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1-2), 41-57.

Pennington, J. E. (1979). Single pilot scanning behavior in simulated instrument flight. (Technical Memorandum 80178). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Pfeiffer, M. G., Clark, W. C., & Danaher, J. W. (1963). The pilot’s visual task: A study of visual display requirements. Philadelphia, PA: Courtney and Co.

Pingali, S., McMahon, T., & Newman, D. G. (2014). Visual scanning in a helicopter during autorotation - A preliminary study. [Abstract]. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 85:343.

Pingali, S., McMahon, T., & Newman, D. G. (2015). Visual scan patterns in novice and expert helicopter pilots during unusual attitude recovery. [Abstract]. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 86:207.

Plant, K., Harvey, C., & Stanton, N. (2013). An overview of cockpit technologies. Retrieved from https://www.ergonomics.org.uk/Public/Resources/Articles/Flying_towards_the_future __An_overview_of_cockpit_technologies.aspx

Potesta, V. A. (1994). Boeing 737-112 – Faucett . [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Faucett/Boeing-737-112/113024

Preudhomme, J., Lu, C. T., & Martinez, R. (2012). Collegiate professional pilot programs: Acquisition and use of a level six training device in the academic environment. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 21(2), 21.

Rabl, A. N., Neujahr, H., Zimmer, A. C., & Möller, C. (2014). Exploring pilot’s gaze patterns. In Proceeding of the EAAP Conference on Aviation Psychology, Valetta, Malta, 22 September – 26 September, 2014.

378

Reason, J. T. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot,UK:t Ashga e.

Reutskaja, E., Nagel, R., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2011). Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 900-926.

Reweti, S. (2014). PC-based aviation training devices for pilot training in visual flight rules procedures: Development, validation and effectiveness. (Doctoral thesis, Massey University, Palmerston, New Zealand). Retrieved from https://mro.massey.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10179/5454/02_whole.pdf?sequence =2&isAllowed=y

Reynard, W. D. (1986). The development of the NASA aviation safety reporting system. (R- P 1114). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Richardson, C. W. (1981). Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation. Water Resources Research, 17(1), 182-190.

Rinoie, K., & Sunada, Y. (2002). Efficient eye-scanning for reducing pilot workload- single pilot IFR and VFR flight tests. In Proceedings of the 23rd ICAS Conference, Toronto, Canada, 8 September – 13 September, 2002.

Roberts, M. J., Gray, H., & Lesnik, J. (2016). Preference versus performance: Investigating the dissociation between objective measures and subjective ratings of usability for schematic metro maps and intuitive theories of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 109-128.

Robson, D. (2008). Human being pilot: Human factors for aviation professionals. Cheltenham, Australia: Aviation Theory Centre.

Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Identifying the processes underpinning anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic time-constrained task. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 301-310.

Rogers, R. O., Boquet, A., Howell, C., & DeJohn, C. (2010). A two-group experiment to measure simulator-based upset recovery training transfer. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 153.

Rolfe, J. M. (1965). An appraisal of digital displays with particular reference to altimeter design. Ergonomics, 8(4), 425-434.

Roscoe, S. N. (1968). Airborne displays for flight and navigation. Human Factors, 10(4), 321-332.

Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Aviation psychology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Roscoe, S. N. (1991). Simulator qualification: Just as phony as it can be. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 335-339.

379

Rossano, G., & Wildenberg, T. (2015). Striking the Hornets' nest: Naval aviation and the origins of strategic bombing in World War I. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Russi-Vigoya, M. N., & Patterson, P. (2015). Analysis of Pilot Eye Behavior during glass cockpit simulations. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 5028-5035.

Saleem, J. J., & Kleiner, B. M. (2005). The effects of nighttime and deteriorating visual conditions on pilot performance, workload, and situation awareness in general aviation for both VFR and IFR approaches. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 5(1), 107-120.

Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197-208.

Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Jenkins, D., Ladva, D., Rafferty, L., & Young, M. (2009). Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(3), 490-500.

Salojärvi, J., Puolamäki, K., & Kaski, S. (2004). Relevance feedback from eye movements for proactive information retrieval. In Proccedings of the Processing Sensory Information for Proactive Systems, Oulu, Finland, 14 June – 15 June, 2004.

Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sarter, N. B., & Alexander, H. M. (2000). Error types and related error detection mechanisms in the aviation domain: An analysis of aviation safety reporting system incident reports. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(2), 189-206.

Sarter, N. B., Mumaw, R. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2007). Pilots' monitoring strategies and performance on automated flight decks: An empirical study combining behavioral and eye-tracking data. Human Factors, 49(3), 347-357.

Sarter, N., Wickens, C., Mumaw, R. J., Kimball, S., Marsh, R., Nikolic, M., & Xu, W. (2003). Modern flight deck automation: Pilots’ mental model and monitoring patterns and performance. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1994). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation II: An experimental study of pilots’ model and awareness of the flight management system. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(1), 1-28.

Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1995). “How in the world did we ever get into that mode?” Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5-19.

Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1997). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: Operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A- 320. Human Factors, 39(4), 553-569.

380

Savit, G. (2004). Cirrus SR-22 G2 – Private . [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cirrus-SR-22-G2/732336

Schriver, A. T., Morrow, D. G., Wickens, C. D., & Talleur, D. A. (2008). Expertise differences in attentional strategies related to pilot decision making. Human Factors, 50(6), 864-878.

Schutte, P. C., & Trujillo, A. C. (1996). Flight crew task management in non-normal situations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 40(4), 244-248.

Seagull, F. J., Xiao, Y., MacKenzie, C. F., Jaberi, M., & Dutton, R. P. (1999). Monitoring behavior: A pilot study using an ambulatory eye-tracker in surgical operating rooms. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 43, No. 15, pp. 850-854). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Self, B. P., Breun, M., Feldt, B., Perry, C., & Ercoline, W. R. (2003). Assessment of pilot performance using a moving horizon, a moving aircraft, and an a rc-segmented attitude reference display. Colorado Springs, CO: Air Force Academy.

Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (1997). A human error approach to accident investigation: The taxonomy of unsafe operations. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 269-291.

Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well‐structured and ill‐ structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6-33.

Shinar, D. (2008). Looks are (almost) everything: Where drivers look to get information. Human Factors, 50(3), 380-384.

Simpson, P. A. (2001). Naturalistic decision making in aviation environments. (DSTO- GD-0279) Melbourne, Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

Simpson, P., & Wiggins, M. (1999). Attitudes toward unsafe acts in a sample of Australian general aviation pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 337- 350.

Singh, I. L., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Automation-induced “complacency”: Development of the complacency-potential rating scale. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(2), 111-122.

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 108.

Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., Burdick, M., & Rosenblatt, B. (2000). Automation bias and errors: Are crews better than individuals? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(1), 85-97.

381

Smith, C. E. (2008). Glass cockpit transition training in collegiate aviation: Analog to digital. (Master thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1225479328/inline

Schmitt, V. R., Morris, J. W., & Jenney, G. D. (1998). Fly-by-wire: A historical and design perspective. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Snow, M. P., & French, G. A. (2002). Effects of primary flight symbology on workload and situation awareness in a head-up synthetic vision display. In Proceedings of the 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Irvine, CA, USA, 27 October – 31 October, 2002.

Sorensen, L. J., Stanton, N. A., & Banks, A. P. (2011). Back to SA school: Contrasting three approaches to situation awareness in the cockpit. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(6), 451-471.

Spady Jr., A. A. (1978). Airline pilot scan patterns during simulated ILS approaches. (NASA Technical Paper 1250). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (2010). Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1-2), 29-40.

Starosta, G. (2013). The F-35 readies for takeoff. Air Force Magazine, 4(13), 38-42.

Stern, J. A., Boyer, D., Schroeder, D., Touchstone, M., & Stoliarov, N. (1994). Blinks, saccades, and fixation pauses during vigilance task performance: I. Time on task. (DOT/FAA/AM-94/26). Washington, DC: FAA.

Stern, J. A., Boyer, D. J., Schroeder, D. J., Touchstone, R. M., & Stoliarov, N. (1996). Saccades, and fixation pauses during vigilance task performance: II. Gender and time of day. (DTFA02-91-C-91056). Washington, DC: FAA.

Stewart, D. (1965). A platform with six degrees of freedom. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, 180(1), 371-386.

Strandvall, T. (2009). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 936-937.

Strybel, T. Z., Vu, K. P. L., Battiste, V., & Johnson, W. (2013). Measuring the impact of NextGen operating concepts for separation assurance on pilot situation awareness and workload. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(1), 1-26.

Strauch, B. (2002). Investigating human error: Incidents, accidents, and complex systems. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Stoff, J. (2001). The historic aircraft and spacecraft in the cradle of aviation museum. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Sullivan, J. A. (1998). Helicopter terrain navigation training using a wide field of view desktop virtual environment. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School Monterey.

382

Svensson, E., Angelborg-Thanderez, M., Sjöberg, L., & Olsson, S. (1997). Information complexity-mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40(3), 362-380.

Sweet, W. (1995). The glass cockpit. IEEE spectrum, 32(9), 30-38.

Talleur, D. A., & Wickens, C. D. (2003). The effect of pilot visual scanning strategies on traffic detection accuracy and aircraft control. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Talleur, D. A., Taylor, H. L., Emanuel Jr., T. W., Rantanen, E., & Bradshaw, G. L. (2003). Personal computer aviation training devices: Their effectiveness for maintaining instrument currency. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(4), 387- 399.

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel Jr., T. W., & Phillips, S. I. (1999). Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 319-335.

Taylor, J. W. R., & Munson, K. (1973). History of aviation. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Temme, L. A., & Still, D. L. (1996). Background and instrumentation for the helicopter instrument scan pattern research conducted at NAS Whiting Field. (NAMRL-TM-96- 1). Pensacola FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Lab.

Thomas, L. C., & Wickens, C. D. (2004). Eye-tracking and individual differences in off- normal event detection when flying with a synthetic vision system display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 223-227). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Tien, T., Pucher, P. H., Sodergren, M. H., Sriskandarajah, K., Yang, G. Z., & Darzi, A. (2014). Eye tracking for skills assessment and training: A systematic review. Journal of Surgical Research, 191(1), 169-178.

Todnem, B. R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.

Tole, J. R., & Harris Sr., R. L. (1987). In-flight assessment of workload using instrument scan. Reston, VA: Digital Analysis Corporation.

Truitt, L. J., & Kaps, R. W. (1995). Publishing aviation research: An interdisciplinary review of scholarly journals. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 15(4), 229-43.

Tvaryanas, A. P. (2004). Visual scan patterns during simulated control of an uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV). Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(6), 531-538.

383

Uhlarik, J., & Comerford, D. A. (2002). A review of situation awareness literature relevant to pilot surveillance functions. (DOT/FAA/AM-02/3). Washington, DC: FAA.

Underwood, G. (2007). Visual attention and the transition from novice to advanced driver. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1235-1249.

Valerie, A., Huemer, M. S., Hayashi, M., Renema, F., Elkins, S., McCandless, J. W., & McCann, R. S. (2005). Characterizing scan patterns in a spacecraft cockpit simulator: Expert vs. novice performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 83-87). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Van de Merwe, K., Van Dijk, H., & Zon, R. (2012). Eye movements as an indicator of situation awareness in a flight simulator experiment. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(1), 78-95.

Virgin Australia. (2017). Flight crew recruitment. Retrieved from https://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/about-us/careers/flight-crew-pilot-recruitment/

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543-548.

Walczak, S. (2002). Cirrus SR-20 – Private . [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cirrus-SR-20/249436

Wanga, L., Li, H., Dongb, D., & Shu, X. (2015). Relationship between the technical skills and eye-movement indicators of pilots. In Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia, 9 August – 14 August, 2015.

Ware, C., & Mikaelian, H. H. (1987). An evaluation of an eye tracker as a device for computer input. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 17, 183-188.

Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Hancock, P. A. (1996) Vigilance and workload in automated systems. In R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua (1996) (Eds.). Automation and human performance. (pp. 183 – 200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wegener, P. P. (1991). What makes airplanes fly? History, science, and applications of aerodynamics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Wells, A. (2001). Commercial aviation safety. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Wesslen, E. P., & Young, J. P. (2011). Pilot performance: Round dial and vertical tape altimeters. West Lafayette, IN: Aviation Technology Graduate Student Publications.

Wetzel, P. A., Krueger-Anderson, G., Poprik, C., & Bascom, P. (1996). An eye tracking system for analysis of pilots’ scan paths. (AL/HR-TR-1996-0145). Mesa, AZ: Hughes Training Inc.

Whitehurst, G. (2014). The multiple-baseline design. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 4(1), 1-12.

384

Whitehurst, G., & Rantz, W. (2011). Digital training to analog flying: Assessing the risks of a stark transition. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 20(3), 13-16.

Whitehurst, G., & Rantz, W. (2012). The digital to analog risk: Should we teach new dogs old tricks? Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 21(3), 17-22.

Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., Liu, Y., & Lee, J. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Wickens, C. D., Self, B. P., Andre, T. S., Reynolds, T. J., & Small, R. L. (2007). Unusual attitude recoveries with a spatial disorientation icon. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 17(2), 153-165.

Wickens, C. D., & Ververs, P. M. (1998). Allocation of attention with head-up displays. (DOT/FAA/AM-98/28). Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine.

Wickens, C.D., Xu, X., Helleberg, J.R., Carbonari, R., & Marsh, R. (2000). The allocation of visual attention for aircraft traffic monitoring and avoidance: Baseline measures and implications for free flight. (Technical Report ARL-00-2/FAA-00-2). Washington, DC: FAA.

Wiegmann, D., & Goh, J. (2003). Visual flight rules (VFR) flight into adverse weather: An empirical investigation of factors affecting pilot decision making. (Technical Report ARL-00-15/FAA-00-8). Washington, DC: FAA.

Wiener, E. L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology (glass cockpit) transport aircraft. (Technical CR-177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Wiener, E. L., & Nagel, D. C. (Eds.). (1988). Human factors in aviation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wiggins, M. W., Hunter, D. R., O’Hare, D., & Martinussen, M. (2012). Characteristics of pilots who report deliberate versus inadvertent visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions. Safety Science, 50(3), 472-477.

Williams, K. W. (2001). Comparing text and graphics in navigation display design. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(1), 53-69.

Williams, K. W. (2002). Impact of aviation highway-in-the-sky displays on pilot situation awareness. Human Factors, 44(1), 18-27.

Williams, J. R., Nicks, A. D., & Arnold, J. G. (1985). Simulator for water resources in rural basins. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 111(6), 970-986.

Wilson, G. F. (2002). An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(1), 3-18.

385

Wise, J. A., Tilden, D. S., Abbott, D., Dyck, J., & Guide, P. (1994). Managing automation in the cockpit. In Proceedings of the Annual International Air Safety Seminar, Lisbon, Portugal, 31 October – 3 November, 1994.

Woods, D. D., & Cook, R. I. (2002). Nine steps to move forward from error. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4(2), 137-144.

Wright, S., & O'Hare, D. (2015). Can a glass cockpit display help (or hinder) performance of novices in simulated flight training? Applied Ergonomics, 47, 292-299.

Wright, M. C., Taekman, J. M., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13 (1), i65-i71.

Wu, A. W., Pronovost, P., & Morlock, L. (2002). ICU incident reporting systems. Journal of Critical Care, 17(2), 86-94.

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of comparative neurology, 18(5), 459-482.

Young, J. P., Fanjoy, R. O., & Suckow, M. W. (2006). Impact of glass cockpit experience on manual flight skills.Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education &Research,15(2),27-32.

Yu, C. (2015). Boeing 737-7H4 – Southwest Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-7H4/2719510

Yu, C. S., Wang, E. M. Y., Li, W. C., & Braithwaite, G. (2014). Pilots’ visual scan patterns and situation awareness in flight operations. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 85(7), 708-714.

Yu, C. S., Wang, E. M. Y., Li, W. C., Braithwaite, G., & Greaves, M. (2016). Pilots’ visual scan patterns and attention distribution during the pursuit of a dynamic target. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 87(1), 40-47.

Yuxiaobin. (2006). Boeing 737-86N – Xiamen Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Xiamen-Airlines/Boeing-737-86N/1008783

Zhang, Y., Drews, F. A., Westenskow, D. R., Foresti, S., Agutter, J., Bermudez, J. C., Blike, G., & Loeb, R. (2002). Effects of integrated graphical displays on situation awareness in anaesthesiology. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4(2), 82-90.

Zhang, J., Johnson, K. A., Malin, J. T., & Smith, J. W. (2002). Human-centered information visualization. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning, Tubingen, Germany, 18 July – 19 July, 2002.

Ziv, G. (2016). Gaze behavior and visual attention: A review of eye tracking studies in aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 26(3-4), 75-104.

Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. (2014). Naturalistic decision making. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Psychology Press.

386

Appendix A – Email Advertisement Used for Recruiting Subjects

387

Appendix B – Fixed-Wing Experiment Ethics Email

SUHREC 2012/256 Scanning pattern and information gathering based on pilot experience and type of cockpit Dr David Newman, FEIS/ Mr Sravan Pingali Approved Duration: 13/12/2012 To 15/02/2015 [Adjusted]

I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol undertaken on behalf of Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by SUHREC Subcommittee (SHESC4) at a meeting held on 19 October 2012. Your response to the review as e-mailed on 11 December was reviewed for sufficiency.

I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard ongoing ethics clearance conditions here outlined.

- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.

- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely notification and SUHREC endorsement.

- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC. Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/ clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project.

- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project.

- A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any time.

Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance or you need a signed ethics clearance certificate, citing the SUHREC project number. A copy of this clearance email should be retained as part of project record-keeping.

Best wishes for the project.

Yours sincerely Kaye Goldenberg Secretary, SHESC4 Administrative Officer (Research Ethics) Swinburne Research (H68) Swinburne University of Technology P O Box 218 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Tel +61 3 9214 8468

388

Appendix C – Fixed-Wing Experiment Forms

Informed Consent Form

Scanning pattern and information gathering based on pilot experience and type of cockpit

Principal Investigator: Dr David Newman

Student Researcher(s): Mr Sravan Pingali

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project consent information statement to which this consent form relates and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following:

. I agree to complete the flight in the simulator wearing an eye tracking device Yes No . I agree to complete two short questionnaires Yes No . I agree to allow the researcher to observe and take notes on the session Yes No

3. I acknowledge that:

(a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation; (b) this Swinburne project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project; (d) my anonymity is preserved and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise.

By signing this document I agree to participate in this project.

Name of Participant: ……………………………………………………………………………

Signature & Date: ……………………………………………………………......

389

Information Statement

Scanning pattern and information gathering based on pilot experience and type of cockpit

Principal Investigator: Dr David Newman

Student Researcher: Mr Sravan Pingali

Background information and invitation to participate This project is aimed at Swinburne University aviation students who learn to fly in a glass cockpit aircraft. After graduation students get flying jobs which require them to fly aircraft equipped with analogue cockpits. This project will look at the effects of transiting from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. It will do so by using flight simulators and eye tracking devices.

Project and researcher interests This experiment is being conducted to meet the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy research project

What participation will involve – time, effort, resources, costs, compensatory payments, etc You will be required to complete a flight in the simulator twice, first in a glass cockpit and then in an analogue cockpit. Each flight will be approximately 30 minutes long, total experiment time will be approximately 60 minutes. The flight will require you to fly between two airports and also complete a few challenging flying tasks. You will also be required to wear an eye tracking device mounted on your head (similar to a headset) during the experiment. You will not be wearing a headset during the flight.

Participant rights and interests – Risks & Benefits/Contingencies/Back-up Support There are minimal risks associated with participating in this project. A potential benefit of participation is a greater understanding of your abilities and limitations, and experience while transiting to an analogue cockpit after learning to fly in a glass cockpit.

Participant rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation Participation in this project is completely at your free will, and you may withdraw from participation at any time. There is no risk of penalty or repercussion from your decision to withdraw, and any recorded data will be removed at your request. Your consent to participate is acknowledged by completing the attached “Informed Consent” form.

Participant rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality All steps have, and will be, taken to ensure your privacy and confidentiality. Your signed consent form will be retained on file, while your background information questionnaire will be transposed (without identity information) into electronic/printed format. Additionally all notes and results from the simulator session will be matched only by number with background data, to ensure you cannot be matched with your simulator outcome. All data will be password protected, or stored in a locked filing cabinet.

Research output The research data and conclusions reached will form part of the postgraduate research project for the above named researcher. The data may also be used for publication in an applicable journal. In both possible outcomes no identifiable data or personal details will be published without your express written consent.

Further information If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact: Dr. David Newman, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences Swinburne University of Technology P.O Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122 Tel: (03) 9214 8630 Email: [email protected]

This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

390

Appendix D – Rotary Wing Experiment Ethics Email

SUHREC 2013/121 Scanning pattern in an analogue helicopter cockpit Dr D Newman Mr Sravan Pingali FEIS Approved duration: 15/11/2013 To 31/12/2015 [Adjusted]

I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol undertaken on behalf of Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by SUHREC Subcommittee (SHESC3) at a meeting held on 23rd May 2013. Your responses to the reviews as e-mailed on 18 June and 14 November were reviewed.

I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions here outlined. - All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the current National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.

- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project.

- A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any time. Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance. The SUHREC project number should be quoted in communication. Chief Investigators/Supervisors and Student Researchers should retain a copy of this email as part of project record-keeping.

Best wishes for project.

Yours sincerely,

Ann ______Dr Ann Gaeth Administration Officer (Research Ethics) Swinburne Research (H68) Swinburne University of Technology P O Box 218 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Ph +61 3 9214 8356

391

Appendix E – Rotary Wing Experiment Forms

Informed Consent Form

Scanning pattern in an analogue helicopter cockpit

Principal Investigator: Dr David Newman

Student Researcher(s): Mr Sravan Pingali

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following: . I agree to complete the flight in the simulator wearing an eye tracking device Yes No . I agree to complete two short questionnaires Yes No . I agree to allow the researcher to observe and take notes on the session Yes No

3. I acknowledge that: (a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation; (b) this Swinburne project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project; (d) my anonymity is preserved and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise.

By signing this document I agree to participate in this project.

Name of Participant:

……………………………………………………………………………

Signature & Date:

……………………………………………………………......

392

Information Statement

Scanning pattern in an analogue helicopter cockpit

Principal Investigator: Dr David Newman

Student Researcher: Mr Sravan Pingali

Background information and invitation to participate This project is aimed at pilots who are able to fly helicopters. This project will examine the scanning pattern of pilots in an analogue cockpit helicopter during visual (VFR) and instrument (IFR) operations. It will do so by using flight simulators and eye tracking devices.

Project and researcher interests This experiment is being conducted to meet the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy research project

What participation will involve – time, effort, resources, costs, compensatory payments, etc You will be required to complete a flight in the helicopter simulator. The total experiment time will be approximately 60 minutes. The flight will require you to fly between two airports and also complete a few challenging flying tasks. You will also be required to wear an eye tracking device mounted on your head (similar to a headset) during the experiment. You will not be wearing a headset during the flight.

393

Appendix F – Frequencies and Charts Given to Each Subject

Moorabbin (YMMB) ATIS: 120.900 MHz Ground: 119.900 MHz Tower: 118.100 MHz Tower: 123.000 MHz Approach: 123.000 MHz Approach: 135.700 MHz Centre: 135.700 MHz MULTICOMM: 118.100 MHz MULTICOMM: 120.000 MHz

Latitude: S37*58.55' Longitude: E145*06.13' Elevation: 50 FT

Essendon (YMEN) ATIS: 119.800 MHz Ground: 118.450 MHz Ground: 121.900 MHz Tower: 125.100 MHz Departure: 118.900 MHz Departure: 129.400 MHz Approach: 132.000 MHz Approach: 135.700 MHz AWOS: 133.200 MHz

Latitude: S37*43.78' Longitude: E144*54.03' Elevation: 282 FT

Runway Length Surface ILS ID ILS Freq ILS Hdg 26 6295 Asphalt IEN 109.900 257

Melbourne Intl (YMML) ATIS: 132.700 MHz Clearance Delivery: 127.200 MHz Ground: 121.700 MHz Tower: 120.500 MHz Departure: 118.900 MHz Departure: 129.400 MHz Approach: 132.000 MHz

Latitude: S37*40.40' Longitude: E144*50.60' Elevation: 434 FT

Runway Length Surface ILS ID ILS Freq ILS Hdg 16 12014 Asphalt IMS 109.700 161

394

395

MOORABBIN (MELBOURNE) (MB) ESSENDON (MELBOURNE) (EN) Type: NDB Type: NDB Class: H Class: H Frequency: 398.0 kHz Frequency: 356.0 kHz Morse: - - - . . . Morse: . - .

PLENTY (MELBOURNE) (PLE) BOLINDA (MELBOURNE) (BOL) Type: NDB Type: NDB Class: Compass locator Class: Compass locator Frequency: 218.0 kHz Frequency: 362.0 kHz Morse: . - - . . - . . . Morse: - . . . - - - . - . .

MEADOW (MELBOURNE) (MEA) ARCADIA (MELBOURNE) (ARC) Type: NDB Type: NDB Class: Compass locator Class: MH Frequency: 230.0 kHz Frequency: 206.0 kHz Morse: - - . . – Morse: . - . - . - . - .

ROCKDALE (MELBOURNE) (ROC) MELBOURNE (ML) Type: NDB Type: VOR/DME Class: Compass locator Class: High altitude Frequency: 338.0 kHz Frequency: 114.10 MHz Morse: . - . - - - - . - . Morse: - - . - . .

396

Appendix G – YMEN ILS 26

397

Appendix H – YMML ILS 16

398

Appendix I – Demographic Questionnaire

399

Appendix J – NASA TLX

400