|
|
The Cockpit Automation Workshop, held as part of the 7th Symposium on Aviation Psychology at Ohio State University in April of 1993, provided participants with a comprehensive review of issues, achievements, and activities relating to human performance in the high technology cockpit. Participants developed generic philosophies of cockpit automation based on presentations by a panel of researchers and industry experts. Cockpit automation training programs were also reviewed and generic automation training objectives developed.
WELCOME
THE PHILOSOPHY OF COCKPIT AUTOMATION
TRAINING FOR THE AUTOMATED COCKPIT
BREAK
WORKING GROUPS
WORKING GROUP REPORTS
Workshop participants formed four working groups to address assigned objectives as detailed below. Each group had approximately one hour to accomplish their objective, following which they reported the results to the entire workshop.
The overall goal of all working groups was to identify and generate guidance on generic issues which affect the design, training, and operation of automated systems found in today's cockpits. Each working group took advantage of the expertise of the panel of presenters and other participants in addressing the specific issues assigned to their group. Cross-group interaction was encouraged if the individual groups found it beneficial.
Following the working session, each group presented the results of their discussions to the entire workshop. This presentation stated the group's objective, summarize discussions which took place, and presented the results.
Objective. Develop a generic philosophy for the implementation of cockpit automation.
Considerations. Of the four working groups, this one covered ground which has been explored most frequently over the last decade. Design philosophies range from "technology centered" to "human centered". This group focused on providing guidance to automation systems designers on the best ways to implement automated systems to ensure that they contribute to operational efficiency and safety of flight. Emphasis was given to the human side of the equation.
Results. Group A's discussions focused on the design philosophies which would support the implementation of adaptive automation. Among the points which they discussed were:
Objective. Develop a generic philosophy for the use of cockpit automation.
Considerations. Several operators have developed automation philosophies which address how they want their flight crews to use the automated systems which are available to them. These range from "We bought it, you use it" to "If something happens, turn it off", with "Use the appropriate level of automation for the situation" somewhere in between. This group focused on the guidance operators give to flight crews on the best ways to utilize automated systems, and the best ways to communicate this philosophy to flight crews.
Results. Group B's discussions focused on the elements required to implement automation operating philosophies. Among the points which they discussed were:
Objective. Develop generic flight crew training objectives relating to avionics hardware, software and procedures.
Considerations. Many trainers today believe that flight crews must receive training on both technical and human factors objectives to effectively perform their duties. Most training on today's automated systems focuses on the technical side. This group focused on what level of technical training on avionics hardware, software, and procedures is required to support flight crew proficiency in the automated cockpit. Issues include the depth of hardware and software training, use and types of training devices, training techniques, and integration of avionics training into the overall task of operating the aircraft.
Results. Group C's discussions highlighted the need to provide generic (vs. type specific) training for advanced avionics hardware, software, and procedures. Among the points which they discussed were:
Objective. Develop generic flight crew training objectives relating to management of automated cockpit systems.
Considerations. One of the characteristics often cited of today's automated cockpit systems is that they change the role of the flight crew from systems operators to systems managers. In general, flight crew training has not addressed this change, instead focusing primarily on technical issues. This group focused on how flight crews can be prepared to fill this management role effectively. Relationships between training objectives for automation management and Crew Resource Management (CRM) training objectives could be explored. Training methods and devices were also considered.
Results. Group D's discussions identified several training objectives which would enhance crew management of automated systems. Among the points which they discussed were:
Neil C. Krey. FlightSafety International, 8900 Trinity Blvd., Hurst, Texas 76053. 817-595-5450. 817-595-5479 (FAX)
Charles E. Billings, M.D. The Ohio State University, 1372 Hickory Ridge Lane, Columbus, OH. 614-292-9497. 614-885-9854 (FAX)
Rolf J. Braune, Ph.D. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Flight Test, Mail Stop 14-HC, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, WA 98124. 206-655-0870. 206-655-3694 (FAX)
Captain Peter H. Heldt. Lufthansa German Airlines, Freseniusweg 9, D-6242 Kronberg /Ts. 1, Germany011-49-6173-4130. 011-49-6173-79521 (FAX)
Captain Steve Paul, Delta Air Lines, Flight Training, Dept. 052, Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA 30320-5001. 404-715-1121. 404-715-1165 (FAX)
Lanny J. Ryan. Executive Vice President, Decision Services International, Consultant to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 817 Clearlake Drive, Port Orange, FL 32127-7780. 904-760-5777904-788-1777 (FAX)
The following works have helped define the study of human factors in the automated cockpit. They should prove to be excellent references for anyone wishing to learn more about cockpit automation's effect on human performance.
Billings, C.E. (1991). Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines (NASA Technical Memorandum No. 103885). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Boehm-Davis, D.A., Curry, R.E., Wiener, E.L., & Harrison, R.L. (1981). Human factors of flight deck automation - a NASA/industry workshop. (NASA Technical Memorandum No. 81260). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Braune, R.J. (1987). Summary of the workshop on cockpit sutomation in commercial airplanes. In R.S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. (pp. 9-15). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Braune, R.J., & Fadden, D.M. (1987). Flight deck automation today: where do we go from here? In Proceedings of the SAE AeroTech Ô87. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Braune, R.J., & Graeber, R.C. (1992). Human centered designs in commercial transport aircraft. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting.
Krey, N.C. (1992). Data, decisions, and cockpit automation. SAE Technical Paper Series 922049. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Norman, S.D. & Orlady, H.W. (Eds.). (1988). Flight deck automation: promises and realities (NASA Conference Publication No. 10036). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Sarter, N.B. & Woods, D.D. (1992). Pilot interactions with cockpit automation: operational experiences with the flight management system. In The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2. (pp. 303-321). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wiener, E.L. (1988). Cockpit Automation. In E.L. Wiener & D.C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation. (pp. 433-461). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wiener, E.L. (1989). Human factors in advanced technology ("glass cockpit") transport aircraft. (NASA Contractor Report No. 177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Wiener, E.L., Chidester, T.R., Kanki, B.G., Palmer, E.A., Curry, R.E., & Gregorich, S.E. (1991). The impact of cockpit automation on crew coordination and communication: Vol. I. (NASA Contractor Report No. 177587). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Wise, J.A., Guide, P.C., Abbott, D.W., & Ryan, L. (1992). Human factors in aviation safety: the effects of automation on corporate pilots: Vol 1 - Interim technical report. (CAAR-15406-92-1). Daytona Beach, FL: Center for Aviation/Aerospace Research.