Absence of Pilot Monitoring Affects Scanning Behavior of Pilot Flying: Implications for the Design of Single-Pilot Cockpits.

OBJECTIVE This study examines whether the pilot flying's (PF) scanning behavior is affected by the absence of the pilot monitoring (PM) and aims at deriving implications for the design of single-pilot cockpits for commercial aviation. BACKGROUND Due to technological progress, a crew reduction from two-crew to single-pilot operations (SPO) might be feasible. This requires a redesign of the cockpit to support the pilot adequately, especially during high workload phases such as approach and landing. In these phases, the continuous scanning of flight parameters is of particular importance. METHOD Experienced pilots flew various approach and landing scenarios with or without the support of the PM in a fixed-base Airbus A320 simulator. A within-subject design was used and eye-tracking data were collected to analyze scanning behavior. RESULTS The results confirm that the absence of the PM affects the PF's scanning behavior. Participants spent significantly more time scanning secondary instruments at the expense of primary instruments when flying alone. Moreover, the frequency of transitions between the cockpit instruments and the external view increased while mean dwell durations on the external view decreased. CONCLUSION The findings suggest that the PM supports the PF to achieve efficient scanning behavior. Information should be presented differently in commercial SPO to compensate for the PM's absence and to avoid visual overload. APPLICATION This research will help inform the design of commercial SPO flight decks providing adequate support for the pilot particularly in terms of efficient scanning behavior.

[1]  Jillian Keeler,et al.  Measuring the Effectiveness of Human Autonomy Teaming , 2017, AHFE.

[2]  Jillian Keeler,et al.  Effectiveness of Human Autonomy Teaming in Cockpit Applications , 2018, HCI.

[3]  Kim-Phuong L. Vu,et al.  An Investigation of the Harbor Pilot Concept for Single Pilot Operations , 2015 .

[4]  Maxime Reynal,et al.  Pilot flying vs. pilot monitoring during the approach phase: an eye-tracking study , 2016, HCI-Aero.

[5]  Christoph Möhlenbrink,et al.  A guideline for integrating dynamic areas of interests in existing set-up for capturing eye movement: Looking at moving aircraft , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[6]  Eric Ruthruff,et al.  Visual Information Processing From Multiple Displays , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Good Vibrations: Tactile Feedback in Support of Attention Allocation and Human-Automation Coordination in Event-Driven Domains , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Jennifer Crawford,et al.  A Review of the Perceptual and Cognitive Issues Associated With the Use of Head-Up Displays in Commercial Aviation , 2006 .

[9]  Michael Matessa,et al.  Analysis of Airline Pilots Subjective Feedback to Human Autonomy Teaming in a Reduced Crew Environment , 2018, HCI.

[10]  David Harris,et al.  A human‐centred design agenda for the development of single crew operated commercial aircraft , 2007 .

[11]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Peripheral Visual Feedback: A Powerful Means of Supporting Effective Attention Allocation in Event-Driven, Data-Rich Environments , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Attentional Models of Multitask Pilot Performance Using Advanced Display Technology , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Costs and Benefits of Head-Up Display Use: A Meta-Analytic Approach , 1998 .

[14]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  The Need for Multisensory Interfaces in Support of Effective Attention Allocation in Highly Dynamic Event-Driven Domains: The Case of Cockpit Automation , 2000 .

[15]  Amy L. Alexander,et al.  Attentional Tunneling and Task Management in Synthetic Vision Displays , 2009 .

[16]  Ferdinand Behrend,et al.  A Holographic Checklist Assistant for the Single Pilot , 2019, 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS).

[17]  Joel Lachter,et al.  Crew Resource Management for Automated Teammates (CRM-A) , 2018, HCI.

[18]  Robert Moehle,et al.  Wearable Technologies as a Path to Single-Pilot Part 121 Operations , 2015 .

[19]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols , 2000, ETRA.

[20]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[21]  Joel Lachter,et al.  Single Pilot Operations in Domestic Commercial Aviation , 2018, Hum. Factors.

[22]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Pilots' Monitoring Strategies and Performance on Automated Flight Decks: An Empirical Study Combining Behavioral and Eye-Tracking Data , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[23]  Paul C. Schutte,et al.  How to Make the Most of Your Human: Design Considerations for Single Pilot Operations , 2015, HCI.

[24]  Vsevolod Peysakhovich,et al.  Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring’s Aircraft State Awareness During Go-Around Execution in Aviation: A Behavioral and Eye Tracking Study , 2017 .

[25]  Bor-Shong Liu,et al.  Inflight workload assessment: comparison of subjective and physiological measurements. , 2003, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[26]  Jarvis J. Arthur,et al.  Transition of Attention in Terminal Area NextGen Operations Using Synthetic Vision Systems , 2011 .

[27]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Superimposition, Symbology, Visual Attention, and the Head-Up Display , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Pilot Maneuver Choice and Workload in Free Flight , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[29]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Functional Requirements for Onboard Intelligent Automation in Single Pilot Operations , 2016 .

[30]  Joel Lachter,et al.  Enhanced ground support: lessons from work on reduced crew operations , 2017, Cognition, Technology & Work.