Matching Items (2)
Description
From 2001-2011, the General Aviation (GA) fatal accident rate remained unchanged (Duquette & Dorr, 2014) with an overall stagnant accident rate between 2004 and 2013. The leading cause, loss of control in flight (NTSB, 2015b & 2015c) due to pilot inability to recognize approach to stall/spin conditions (NTSB, 2015b & 2016b). In 2013, there were 1,224 GA accidents in the U.S., accounting for 94% of all U.S. aviation accidents and 90% of all U.S. aviation fatalities that year (NTSB, 2015c). Aviation entails multiple challenges for pilots related to task management, procedural errors, perceptual distortions, and cognitive discrepancies. While machine errors in airplanes have continued to decrease over the years, human error still has not (NTSB, 2013).
A preliminary analysis of a PC-based, Garmin G1000 flight deck was conducted with 3 professional pilots. Analyses revealed increased task load, opportunities for distraction, confusing perceptual ques, and hindered cognitive performance. Complex usage problems were deeply ingrained in the functionality of the system, forcing pilots to use fallible work arounds, add unnecessary steps, and memorize knob turns or button pushes.
Modern computing now has the potential to free GA cockpit designs from knobs, soft keys, or limited display options. Dynamic digital displays might include changes in instrumentation or menu structuring depending on the phase of flight. Airspeed indicators could increase in size to become more salient during landing, simultaneously highlighting pitch angle on Attitude Indicators and automatically decluttering unnecessary information for landing. Likewise, Angle-of-Attack indicators demonstrate a great safety and performance advantage for pilots (Duquette & Dorr, 2014; NTSB, 2015b & 2016b), an instrument typically found in military platforms and now the Icon A5, light-sport aircraft (Icon, 2016).
How does the design of pilots’ environment—the cockpit—further influence their efficiency and effectiveness? To explore the possibilities for small aircraft displays, a participatory design investigation was conducted with 9 qualified instrument pilots. Aviators designed mock cockpits on a PC using pictorial cutouts of analog (e.g., mechanical dials) and digital (e.g., dynamic displays) controls. Data was analyzed qualitatively and compared to similar work. Finally, a template for GA displays was developed based on pilot input.
A preliminary analysis of a PC-based, Garmin G1000 flight deck was conducted with 3 professional pilots. Analyses revealed increased task load, opportunities for distraction, confusing perceptual ques, and hindered cognitive performance. Complex usage problems were deeply ingrained in the functionality of the system, forcing pilots to use fallible work arounds, add unnecessary steps, and memorize knob turns or button pushes.
Modern computing now has the potential to free GA cockpit designs from knobs, soft keys, or limited display options. Dynamic digital displays might include changes in instrumentation or menu structuring depending on the phase of flight. Airspeed indicators could increase in size to become more salient during landing, simultaneously highlighting pitch angle on Attitude Indicators and automatically decluttering unnecessary information for landing. Likewise, Angle-of-Attack indicators demonstrate a great safety and performance advantage for pilots (Duquette & Dorr, 2014; NTSB, 2015b & 2016b), an instrument typically found in military platforms and now the Icon A5, light-sport aircraft (Icon, 2016).
How does the design of pilots’ environment—the cockpit—further influence their efficiency and effectiveness? To explore the possibilities for small aircraft displays, a participatory design investigation was conducted with 9 qualified instrument pilots. Aviators designed mock cockpits on a PC using pictorial cutouts of analog (e.g., mechanical dials) and digital (e.g., dynamic displays) controls. Data was analyzed qualitatively and compared to similar work. Finally, a template for GA displays was developed based on pilot input.
ContributorsConaway, Cody R (Author) / Gray, Robert (Thesis advisor) / Branaghan, Russell (Thesis advisor) / Gibb, Randall (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
This thesis explores the human factors effects pilots have when controlling the aircraft during the takeoff phase of flight. These variables come into play in the transitory phase from ground roll to flight, and in the initiation of procedures to abort a takeoff during the ground run. The FAA provides regulations for manufacturers and operators to follow, ensuring safe manufacture of aircraft and pilots that fly without endangering the passengers; however, details regarding accounting of piloting variability are lacking. Creation of a numerical simulation allowed for the controlled variation of isolated piloting procedures in order to evaluate effects on field performance. Reduced rotation rates and delayed reaction times were found to cause significant increases in field length requirements over values published in the AFM. A pilot survey was conducted to evaluate common practices for line pilots in the field, which revealed minimum regulatory compliance is exercised with little to no feedback on runway length requirements. Finally, observation of pilots training in a CRJ-200 FTD gathered extensive information on typical piloting timings in the cockpit. AEO and OEI takeoffs were observed, as well as RTOs. Pilots showed large variability in procedures and timings resulting in significant inconsistency in runway distances used as well as V-speed compliance. The observed effects from pilot timing latency correlated with the numerical simulation increased field length outputs. Variability in piloting procedures results in erratic field performance that deviates from AFM published values that invite disaster in an aircraft operating near its field performance limitations.
ContributorsWood, Donald L (Author) / Takahashi, Timothy T (Thesis advisor) / Niemczyk, Mary (Thesis advisor) / Files, Greg (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017