Situation Awareness Assessment of Pilots.

Introduction

National Aerospace Laboratory NLP of Netherland conducted an experiment to study pertinent human factors HF tools for situation awareness SA valuation (W.W Heesbeen, 2006) on six crews of pilots: pilot flying (PF) and pilot not flying (PNF) (Henk van Dijk K. v., 2011).

Results

The researchers found that the pilots were spending more time looking at Aols in the post-period than the pre-period especially at Own PFD.

TABLE 1: Percentage dwell time on Aols in the pre and post-period
Pre- Percentage Post- Percentage Total Difference Percentage
Other PFD 0 7 7
ECAM 3 7 4
ND 40 20 20
Own PFD 34 45 11

Analysis

As the TABLE 1 illustrates the significant interaction of pilots in the post-period with Other PED the percentage went from zero to seven, ECAM percentage went from three to seven, which is increase by four percent, the Own PFD percentage went from thirty four to forty five, which is increased by eleven percent increase, but with ND the percentage went down from forty to twenty percent, which is decreased by twenty percent decreases. This shows that the pilots had significant interaction with Aols in the post-period then pre-period and therefore increase in situation awareness.

Methods

An experiment was conducted in Generic Research Aircraft Cockpit Environment (GRACE) is a generic flight simulator for 25 minutes (W.W Heesbeen, 2006) on six crews of pilots: pilot flying (PF) and pilot not flying (PNF) (Henk van Dijk K. v., 2011) to study pertinent human factors HF tools for situation awareness SA valuation. In this experiment, a failure of the aircraft was simulated: an indicated air speed (IAS) inconsistency. The failure simulator was entered within first 10 minutes during the experiment without notice of pilots to find out how pilots detected the IAS inconsistency and the accurate air speed (Henk van Dijk, Flight Simulator Experiment, 2011).

Research Approach

In this experiment, an IAS inconsistency was indicated by the two primary flight displays (PFDs) in which, one display showed the correct air speed and the other incorrect (Henk van Dijk K. v., 2011). Also, five relent areas-of-interest were used to assist data analysis (AoIs) were defined for the PF and PNF: PFD, cross-check (i.e., other PFD), navigation display (ND), Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) system, and “other” (e.g., outside) (Stark, 1986). As the researchers expected that the pilots will be able to detect the failure of ISA inconsistency within 2 minutes, but none of six crews were able to detect the failure of ISA inconsistency on both PFDs. Finally, the auditory warning comes out of the ECAM system with reporting the air speed inconsistency (Henk van Dijk K. v., Data Analysis, 2011).

References

1. Henk van Dijk, K. v. (2011). Data Analysis. A Coherent Impression of the Pilots’ Situation Awareness: Studying Relevent Human Factors Tools, 349.
2. Henk van Dijk, K. v. (2011). Flight Scenario. A Coherent Impression of the Pilots' Situation Awareness: Studying Relevent Human Factors Tools, 348.
3. Henk van Dijk, K. v. (2011). Flight Simulator Experiment. A Coherent Impression of the Pilots' Situation Awareness: Studying Relevent Human Factors Tools, 345.
4. Henk van Dijk, K. v. (2011). Participating Pilots. A Coherent Impression of the Pilots' Situation Awareness: Studying Relevent Human Factors Tools, 347.
5. Stark, S. E. (1986). Human Factors, 28, 421-438. Statistical dependency in visual scanning.
6. W.W Heesbeen, R. R. (2006). GRACE—A versatile simulator architecture making simulattion of mutiple complex aircraft simple. AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit (August 21-24). Keystone, CO

Want to know more?

item
explanation

Contributors to this page

Authors / Editors


Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License