Regarding Pilot Usage of Display Technologies for Improving Awareness of Aircraft System States

Avionics-related systems and the procedures for interacting with them appear to be growing in complexity. This trend places a larger burden on pilots to manage increasing amounts of information and to understand system interactions. The result is an increase in the likelihood of loss of airplane state awareness (ASA). One way to gain more insight into this issue is through experimentation using objective measures of visual behavior. This study summarizes an analysis of oculometer data obtained during a high-fidelity flight simulation study that included a variety of complex pilot-system interactions that occur in current flight decks, as well as several planned for the next generation air transportation system. The study was comprised of various scenarios designed to induce low and high energy aircraft states coupled with other emulated causal factors in recent accidents. Three different display technologies were evaluated in this recent pilot-in-the-loop study conducted at NASA Langley Research Center. These technologies include a stall recovery guidance algorithm and display concept, an enhanced airspeed control indication of when the automation is no longer actively controlling airspeed, and enhanced synoptic diagrams with corresponding simplified electronic interactive checklists. Multiple data analyses were performed to understand how the 26 participating airline pilots were observing ASA-related information provided during different stages of flights and in response to specific events within these stages.

[1]  Florian Jentsch,et al.  Startle and Surprise on the Flight Deck , 2014 .

[2]  Lynda J. Kramer,et al.  Design and Piloted Simulator Evaluation Results of Model Independent Stall Recovery Guidance , 2019, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum.

[3]  Steven D. Young,et al.  Analysis of Eye-Tracking Data with Regards to the Complexity of Flight Deck Information Automation and Management - Inattentional Blindness, System State Awareness, and EFB Usage , 2015 .

[4]  Steven D. Young,et al.  Analysis of Eye-Tracking Data During Conditions Conducive to Loss of Airplane State Awareness , 2017 .

[5]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  Dual Oculometer System for Aviation Crew Assessment , 2010 .

[6]  Timothy J. Etherington,et al.  Evaluating Technologies for Improved Airplane State Awareness and Prediction , 2016 .

[7]  Lynda J. Kramer,et al.  Piloted Simulation Study Findings On Stall Recovery Guidance , 2019 .

[8]  Niels A. Kloosterman,et al.  Pupil size tracks perceptual content and surprise , 2015, The European journal of neuroscience.

[9]  Vahram Stepanyan,et al.  Stall Recovery Guidance Using an Energy Based Algorithm , 2017 .

[10]  Lance Sherry,et al.  Evaluation of Technology Concepts for Energy, Automation, and System State Awareness in Commercial Airline Flight Decks , 2019 .

[11]  Steven D. Young Airplane State Awareness and Prediction Technologies – Research Overview (2014-2018) , 2019 .

[12]  Max Mulder,et al.  The Influence of Surprise on Upset Recovery Performance in Airline Pilots , 2017 .

[13]  Lance Sherry,et al.  Design of Cockpit displays to explicitly support flight crew intervention tasks , 2014, 2014 IEEE/AIAA 33rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).