• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 219 236 SE 038 287 AUTHOR Jensen, R. S. TITLE First Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (Columbus, Ohio, April 21 and 22, 1981). INSTITUTION Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Aviation Psychology Lab. SPONS AGENCY .Battelle Memorial Iftst., Columbus, Ohio. Columbus Labs.; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mountain View, Calif. Ames Research Center. REPORT NO APL-TR-1-81 PUB DATE Apr 81 NOTE 419p.; Also sponsored by the Association of Aviation Psychologists. EDRS PRICE- MF01/PC17 Plus Postage: DESCRIPTORS *Aerospace Education; *Aircraft Pilots; Aviation Technology; *Flight Training; Higher Education; *Human Factors Engineering; *Performance Factors; *Psychology; Visual Perception IDENTIFIERS *Aviation Psychology ABSTRACT This volume contains five complete manuscripts and two abstracts presented, and three papers submitted but not presented, at this symposium on aviation psychology. The objective of the sympo4um was to critically examine the ympact of high technology on the role, responsibility, authority, and performance of human operators in modern aircraft and air traffic control systems. Papers are grouped by the following subject area categoOes: 1) cockpit monitoring concepts; 2) cockpit information systems; 3) pilot judgment; 4) vision and visual perception; 5) crew workload, coordination, and complement; 6) pilot selection; 7) pilot training; and 8) performance assessment. (Author/JN) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE Or EDUCATION E D, A T,(AAI HE,),;PL_S EN,(-1-4 TECHNICAL REPORT: APL-1-81 I ni u,n uun, i1.I Ir 1 11 1 I +, \If -1st First Symposium onAviation Psychology skgil 21 and 22, 1981 The Aviation Psychology Laboratory The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Convener: R. S. Jensen PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY A 4-1r, Tp THE EDUCATIONAL RjSOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERICI 1%. Sponsored by:* Op ty The NASA Ames Research Center td) The Association of Aviation Psychologists 4 Battelle, Columbus Laboratories 0. t ( /". 1 Proceedings of the SYMPOSIUM ON AVIATION PSYCHOLOGY April 21 and 22, 1981 .01 The Aviation Psychology Laboratory l The Ohio State University ColuNbus, Ohio i 4. l I Convener: R. S. Jensen Sponsoied by: The NASA Ames Research Center The Association of Aviation Psychologists Battelle, Columbus.Laboratories of .. 3 FORWARD This volume contains the proceedings of the First Symposium on Aviation Psychology conducted by the Aviation Psychology Laboratory of the Ohio State University in Columbus Ohio on April 21 and 22,1981 sponsored by the NASA Ames Research Center, The Association of Aviation Psychologists, and Battelle, Columbus Laboratories. The Technical Monitor wa§ Dr. John Lauber of the NASA Ames Research Center. It contains complet manuscripts of most of the papers presented at the meeting and abstracts of the others. It also contains three papers submitted for the proceedings and not presented at the meeting. The papers were grouped by subject areas closely following their order of presentation in the program: The objective of this symposium was to critically examine the impact of high technology on the role, responsibility, authority, and performance of human operators in modern aircraft and air traffic control systems. Our theme was "Aviation Psychology since Paul Fitts:Is Advancing Technology Ignoring Human Performance in Aviation Systems?" Human engineering principles set forth by Paul Fitts for aviation systems were used as the basis for an examination of modern ground and airborne display ana control concepts as they relate to human perceptual, motor, and decisional performance, operator selection and training requirements, and crew coordination. The role of the humanoperator in man-machine systems has been changing throughout the history of automation. Because newsystems frequently require information processiAg rates and prediction accuracies far exceeding man's capabilities, a tempting alternative is to limit man's roleto supervisorandto use a servo asthe active control element. Generally, it is more .difficult tofind 'solutions that enhance man's capabilities as the'system controller. Furthermore, because of their lack of experience with human information processing systems, engineers are less inclined to seek such solutions (Singleton,1976). Consequently, man ts being givbn a supervisory roleconsisting of planRing,teaching, monitoring, and intervening (Sheridan, 1976). One of the'best examples of the changing role of the human operator in a man-machine system is that of the pilot of a modern airplane. Continuing demandsfor improved safety, efficiency,energy conservation,and noise reductions with increasing trafftc. flow have ledto increasingly complex ' system and controltasks. dare and more functions are being handled automa L ically by ground-based 'ftnd airborne computing systems, and the pilot is to ng the role of a system supervisor who exercises "control by exception" authority only. Nevertheless, despite this increasing role of ' automation, thepilot remains aredundant system element responsible for manual takeover in the "exceptional" event of partial system failure or other unpredictable contingency that requires improvisation. In actual practice, the pilot's role as a redundant system element is extremely important. The autopilot is useful during the many "hours of boredom," relievingthe pilot of needless attention to aircraft control tasks. However, the autopilot has not been very useful during the "moments of stark terror"(Kennelly, 1970). At the first indication ofunusual circumstances (e.g., traffic avoidance, frequent flight path changes, partial system failure, turbulence penetration, passengerdiscomfort, wind shear,etc.) the pilot'sinitial action is Lo disengagethe autopilot, whether or not such action is needed. Thus, the autopilot has proOed to be most used when the pilot workloadlevels are low and least used during many periods of high cockpit workload. Ina 1951report fortheNRC entitled,"Human Engineeringforan Effective Air-Navigation and Air Traffic-Cont xollerSystem," Paul Fitts set forth a number of longstanding principles concerning theeffective allocation of tasks to men and machines that are studied inhuman factors classrooms to this day. Among the principles establithed by Fitts and his colleagues were the following: 1. Human tasks should provide activity, 2.' Human tasks should be intrinsically motivating. 3. Machines should monitor htimins; not the converse. Although the tasks of pilots and air traffic controllers at thattime were largely "manual"in comparison to today,Fitts could foresee the possibility ofconflictsin man-machine task allocations asautomation developed. In our day,the unquestioned motivation behind virtually every technological advancement in the cockpit is "workloadreduction". AS a result, we have combination control-w4eel steering,' auto-throttle, and autopilot systems that permit the pilot to assume control ,of thesystem at any level in the control hierarchy. A pilot can program his flight on the runway in PaFis,take off andtouch only push-button controls until he taxis off the runway in New York. His "workload" is "reduced" under normal flying conditions to the level of a living room observer ofMonday night football. As a result of these "advances", the task assigned to the pilot maybe inadequate coRsidering the Fitts principles. The pilot's task requires almost no physical activity, it fails to be intrinsically motivating,and it amountsto atask of monitoring a machine rather than the converse. Thus, the only conditions under which the pilot is overloadedare.thbse cases in which his equipment is degraded. The effect may have been to reduce the pilot's task in normal conditions to a level beneath whatFitts considered adequate without helping and perhaps even hurtinghis manual control capabilities during flight under degtaded conditions. In addition to the problems of continuous control-that areintroduced; automation tends to changethe requirements for complex decision-makingy operatpr selection and training, and crewcoordination. There is a real need at this time for a critical examination of the impact on ouraviation system of "engineering solutions" before they find a"problem" that may not exist. The 1981 Symposium on Aviation Psychology initiatedthis examination in a series of paper sessions given by experts in thefield. Richard S. Jensen ii CONTENTS FORWARD iROGRAM viii 1' INTRODUCTION The Role of Communications, Socio-Psychological, and Per nality Factors in the Maintenance of Crew-Coordination Foushee Monitors of Human Performance N,_ 12 J.W. Senders pumAnFactors and Aviation Safety: A Program oK Research on Human Factors in Aviation 21* S.N. Roscoe COCKPIT MONITORING CONCEPTS Fitts'.Princig,les Still Applicable: Computer Monitoring of Fighter Aircraft Emergencies 28 J. Reising L. Hitchcock The Performance-bf Warning Systems in Avoiding Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) Accidents 38 J.P. 'Loomis R.F. Porter Assessing Emergency Interface Desqn 51 W.C. Allen The Effects of Alert Priortization * 4 and Inhibit Logic on Pilot Performance 61 D.A. Po- Chediey PROCRU: A Model for Analyzing Flight ** Crew Procedures in Approach to Landing 62 S. Baron G. Zacharias R. Muralidharan R. Lancroft

Load more

  418

Copy Link