Ergonomization needs in general aviation

---

< [PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D [ed] (2010). Ergonomization needs in general aviation. AviationKnowledge, 2010, page 5. ISSN 1179-6685.] >

Perezgonzalez, Gilbey and Diaz Vilela explored the ergonomization needs of general aviation pilots in 2010¹. Namely, they asked a group of pilots which technological features (including costs) they thought were important to their main general aviation flight activity. The group was mostly made of New Zealand and North American pilots² flying for purposes such as training, instructing, business and recreation. Yet, it included airplane, helicopter and glider pilots, male and female pilots, and pilots with licences ranging from no-licence (ab-initio student) to ATPL.

The research found that, overall, the cost (of acquisition and operation) of any technology was the main worry for general aviation pilots (the results also suggested that this might be more important than any other benefit the technology may bring to their flying). Yet, among ergonomic features, all those supporting flight operations (from the calculation of weight and balance to traffic avoidance features) were also of medium importance. Less important were features such as tracking and real-time monitoring, followed by post-flight analysis and 3-D displays.

Table 1. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots
group of features	mean*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance
Flight support	2.8	medium importance
Monitoring	2.4	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.0	little importance
3-D display	1.9	little importance
*average value out of 53

Also of interest was the importance attached to cockpit ergonomization by the different demographic groups.

Ergonomization by gender

Overall, female pilots gave less importance to ergonomization (including costs) than male pilots.

Table 2. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by gender
group of features	male pilot*	interpretation	female pilot*	interpretation
Low cost	3.5	important	2.7	medium importance
Flight support	2.9	medium importance	2.0	little importance
Monitoring	2.4	little importance	1.6	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.0	little importance	2.1	little importance
3-D display	1.9	little importance	1.5	little importance
*average value out of 53

Ergonomization by aircraft type flown

Airplane pilots showed results similar to those discussed for the overall sample (see table 1). In contrast, helicopter pilots valued monitoring features more than other pilots, but also placed lesser importance on 3-D displays, while glider pilots considered both post-flight analysis features and costs as more important than the other two groups did.

Table 3. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by aircraft type most often flown
group of features	airplane pilot*	interpretation	helicopter pilot*	interpretation	glider pilot*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance	3.0	medium importance	4.0	important
Flight support	2.9	medium importance	2.5	medium importance	2.5	medium importance
Monitoring	2.3	little importance	3.5	important	2.0	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.0	little importance	1.6	little importance	4.5	very important
3-D display	1.9	little importance	1.4	very little importance	2.0	little importance
*average value out of 53

Ergonomization by flight activity

Commercial pilots (i.e. those operating for business) and recreational pilots gave, overall, less importance to ergonomization, although the latter group still considered low costs as being important. Pilots in training as well as instructors gave more importance to ergonomization. It is interesting that instructors considered 3-D displays as important, but the student pilots did not.

Table 4. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by main flight activity
group of features	pilot in training*	interpretation	instructor*	interpretation	commercial pilot*	interpretation	recreational pilot*	interpretation
Low cost	3.5	important	3.7	important	2.8	medium importance	3.5	important
Flight support	3.0	medium importance	3.2	medium importance	2.5	medium importance	2.2	little importance
Monitoring	2.8	medium importance	3.4	medium importance	2.1	little importance	1.1	very little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.5	medium importance	2.3	little importance	1.5	little importance	1.9	little importance
3-D display	2.0	little importance	3.6	important	1.6	little importance	1.3	very little importance
*average value out of 53

Ergonomization by type of licence

Overall, the groups with the lowest (PPL) and the highest (ATPL) licences gave less importance to cockpit ergonomization than other pilots, while training pilots (without a licence) valued cockpit ergonomization more than the remaining groups.

Table 5. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by type of licence held
group of features	no licence*	interpretation	PPL*	interpretation	CPL*	interpretation	ATPL*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance	3.4	medium importance	3.4	medium importance	3.2	medium importance
Flight support	3.1	medium importance	2.6	medium importance	3.1	medium importance	3.4	medium importance
Monitoring	3.2	medium importance	1.6	little importance	3.1	medium importance	2.0	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.6	medium importance	1.7	little importance	2.0	little importance	2.1	little importance
3-D display	1.7	little importance	1.8	little importance	2.4	little importance	2.0	little importance
*average value out of 53

Ergonomization by country

Overall, pilots valued ergonomization similarly, independent of country of residence or operation. However, the results might suggest that American pilots valued low costs slightly more and monitoring features slightly less than New Zealand pilots.

Table 6. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by country of residence
group of features	NZ pilot*	interpretation	USA pilot*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance	3.5	important
Flight support	2.8	medium importance	3.1	medium importance
Monitoring	2.6	medium importance	1.5	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.1	little importance	1.6	little importance
3-D display	1.8	little importance	2.1	little importance
*average value out of 53

References

1. PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D, Andrew GILBEY & Luis DIAZ VILELA (2010). New technologies in general aviation. Aviation Education and Research Proceedings, volume 2010, pages 55-59. ISSN 1176-0729.

+++ Footnotes +++

2. Sample size = 70, of which 53 pilots were from New Zealand, 16 from the United States, and 1 from Australia.

3. Pilots rated the importance of various technological features to their GA flying according to a 6-point Likert-scale running from "0, Not-important" to "5, Very important". The mean is the average of their responses when grouped by features.

Want to know more?

AviationKnowledge - Ergonomization

This AviationKnoweldge page offers links to further information on aviation ergonomization.

Perezgonzalez et al's (2010) article

The original article provides further detail about the research. You can find it under the "2010 Symposium Proceedings" tab, as PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2010). Reliability analysis of assisted-GPS technologies for post-flight analysis. Aviation Education and Research Proceedings, volume 2010, pages 53-54. ISSN 1176-0729.

---

Editor

Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (JDPerezgonzalez).

Peer-reviewers

Stuart ANDERSON (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (stuartanderson).
Amber WAN (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (Amber Wan).

---