a comparison of pilot scanning patterns based on the type of … · 2020-05-13 · an aircraft’s...

A Comparison of Pilot Scanning Patterns Based on the Type of Cockpit

Sravan Pingali

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in the Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology,

Swinburne University of Technology

Melbourne, Australia

ii

Abstract

An aircraft’s cockpit contains flight instruments that can be displayed in two different

types. The traditional method of displaying the instruments is by using analogue dials and

needles. This type of cockpit is also known as an ‘analogue cockpit’. The modern cockpit, on

the other hand, takes advantage of computerised screens to digitally display the instruments.

This type of cockpit is also known as a ‘glass cockpit’. The differences between the two types

of cockpit are in the instrument display and information layout.

Another difference between the two types of cockpit lies in how pilots scan and

acquire information from the flight instruments. As a result, a pilot’s performance can differ

when flying in an aircraft with a different type of cockpit. This difference can raise several

challenges, particularly from a human factors point of view. Hence, it is important to research

and understand the issues that might arise in the cockpit types, to help in the training of pilots

who are making a transition from one type of cockpit to another.

Traditionally, a pilot made a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit.

Previous studies researched the human factors challenges that originated as a result of this

transition. The results of such research made the transition safer. In the past decade, a

transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit has become more common. Little

research has been undertaken into the challenges that arise from such a transition, and there is

limited human factors research that studies the effects of this transition. Furthermore, there

are no studies that collect objective data on the subject. This thesis fills the literature gap by

iii

conducting a series of experiments in different cockpit types, utilising flight simulators and

an eye tracking device. The aim of the thesis was to compare pilot scanning patterns based on

the type of cockpit.

Licensed pilots were recruited to participate in the experiments. Each subject flew a

simulated route in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The experiments were conducted

in visual and instrument flying conditions, and in normal and abnormal situations. This data

assessed pilot scanning patterns while flying in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

The results of the study show that there were differences in scanning patterns between

a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in normal daytime visual flying conditions. However,

as the circumstances changed, so did the scanning patterns. In other words, if poor visibility

conditions were experienced or an abnormal situation was encountered, then the pilots’

scanning patterns were modified to cope with the condition or situation. This modification

reduced the number of differences between cockpit types to just a few or almost zero, based

on the circumstance encountered.

The safety implications of the results are discussed, and recommendations are made to

assist any pilot who will be making a transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue

cockpit. One of the most important recommendations is the importance of transition training.

Offering such training will help in reducing error and assist in maintaining safety.

iv

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the following academics and industry experts for their

advice and support provided during my PhD candidature:

Associate Professor David Newman – This PhD would not have been successfully

completed without David’s supervision. His knowledge in the area of Aviation Human

Factors is extensive. His expertise is demonstrated through his portfolio of publications and

the positions he holds in the industry. I would like to thank David for his guidance and

encouragement throughout my candidature. I am more than grateful to have had him as my

primary supervisor. I also look forward to continuing working together in the future.

Captain Terry McMahon – I would like to thank Terry for the assistance he provided

me while I was preparing and planning the experiments. Terry is an experienced pilot, with

thousands of hours of flying experience. While I was designing the flight plans for my

experiments, I was able to get expert advice from Terry. Based on his advice, I was able to

modify my flight plans to meet industry standards.

Dr Chrystal Zhang – Finally, I would like to thank Chrystal for being willing to

become my main supervisor from Swinburne University, upon David’s resignation.

Chrystal’s readiness to accept me as an additional student meant that I was not left stranded.

v

Declaration by Candidate

I declare that this thesis:

- is my own work and is original.

- does not contain any material that I have submitted and been accepted for an

award of any other degree. If such material does exist, then I have made due

reference to the material.

- to the best of my knowledge, does not contain any material that has been

previously published or written by another person. If such material does exist,

then I have made due reference to the material.

- is not part of any joint research or publications.

- has been edited and proofread in compliance with the Institute of Professional

Editors (IPEd) guidelines.

Sravan Pingali

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Acknowledgement iv

Declaration by Candidate v

Table of Contents vi

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xv

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background

Introduction 3

Brief History of the Aviation Industry 3

Pilot Training in the Aviation Industry 6

Employment Opportunities after Obtaining Commercial

Pilot Licence 10

Purpose of this Thesis 13

Thesis Structure 15

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Introduction to the Cockpit 19

Description of the Main Instruments in the Cockpit 20

Different Types of Cockpit 35

vii

Cockpit Evolution 46

Importance of Aviation Human Factors 70

Situational Awareness 72

Decision Making 77

Workload 82

Automation Technology 88

Normal vs Emergency 93

Aviation Accidents 96

Human Error 106

Cockpit Transition 111

Human Factors Issues Arising Due to Cockpit Transition 115

Summary 138

Hypothetical Examples of Transition from a Glass Cockpit

to an Analogue Cockpit 138

Literature Gap 142

Chapter 3 – Flight Simulator Overview and Usage

Introduction to Simulators 147

Examples of Simulators 150

Simulators in the Transportation Industry 153

Types of Simulators used in the Aviation Industry 154

Usage of Simulators in the Aviation Industry 167

Research Applications of Flight Simulators 171

Flight Simulators Used in this Research 178

Redbird FMX Fight Simulator 179

FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator 185

viii

Chapter 4 – Eye Tracker Overview and Usage

Introduction to Eye Trackers 193

Human Senses 193

Types of Eye Trackers 197

Eye Tracker Usage 200

Research Applications of Eye Trackers 203

Eye Tracker Used in this Research 218

Arrington Research Eye Frame Scene Camera Systems 218

Chapter 5 – Visual Flight Rules Study

Introduction 228

Method 230

Subjects 230

Equipment 232

Procedure 233

Statistical Analysis 239

Results 242

Discussion 253

Chapter 6 – Instrument Flight Rules Study

Introduction 262

Method 264

Subjects 264

Equipment 265

Procedure 265


Results 270

ix

Discussion 280

Chapter 7 – Unusual Attitude Recovery and Failed Instrument Detection Study

Introduction 287

Method 289

Subjects 289

Equipment 290

Procedure 290


Results 295

Discussion 302

Chapter 8 – Rotary Wing Aircraft versus Fixed-Wing Aircraft Study

Introduction 309

Method 311

Subjects 311

Equipment 312

Procedure 313


Results 314

Discussion 324

Chapter 9 – Overall Discussion

Discussion 331

Transition Training Recommendation 341

Additional Recommendations 344

Limitations 346

x

Sample Size 346

Recent Experience 348

Rotary Wing Study 348

Workload Questionnaire 349

Transition Training Hours 349

Further study 350

Real World vs Simulator Study 350

Backup Instruments in the Glass Cockpit Study 352

Transition Training Hours 353

Eye and Head Movement Tracking Study 353

Larger Aircraft Study 354

Chapter 10 – Conclusion

Conclusion 356

References and Appendices

Reference List 359

Appendix A – Email Advertisement Used for Recruiting Subjects 387

Appendix B – Fixed-Wing Experiment Ethics Email 388

Appendix C – Fixed-Wing Experiment Forms 389

Appendix D – Rotary Wing Experiment Ethics Email 391

Appendix E – Rotary Wing Experiment Forms 392

Appendix F – Frequencies and Charts Given to Each Subject 394

Appendix G – YMEN ILS 26 397

Appendix H – YMML ILS 16 398

Appendix I – Demographic Questionnaire 399

Appendix J – NASA TLX 400

xi

List of Figures

Fig. 1: Airspeed indicator in a Cessna 172 22

Fig. 2: Attitude indicator in a Cessna 172 23

Fig. 3: Altitude indicator in a Cessna 172 24

Fig. 4: Heading indicator in a Cessna 172 25

Fig. 5: Turn and bank indicator in a Cessna 172 26

Fig. 6: Vertical speed indicator in a Cessna 172 27

Fig. 7: RPM indicator in a Cessna 172 28

Fig. 8: Fuel quantity indicator in a Cessna 172 29

Fig. 9: Fuel flow and exhaust gas temperature indicator in a Cessna 172 29

Fig. 10: Oil pressure and oil temperature indicator in a Cessna 172 30

Fig. 11: Radio stack in a Cessna 172 32

Fig. 12: Navigational information instruments in a Cessna 172 33

Fig. 13: Global positioning system in a Cessna 172 34

Fig. 14: Analogue cockpit in a Cessna 172 36

Fig. 15: The six primary flight instruments, also known as the six pack 36

Fig. 16: Glass cockpit in a Cessna 172 consisting of the PFD and MFD 37

Fig. 17: Additional information in the primary flight display 38

Fig. 18: Multi-function display in a Cessna 172 39

Fig. 19: Engine instruments in the glass cockpit of a Cessna 172 40

Fig. 20: Backup Flight Instruments in a Cessna 172 42

Fig. 21: Failed heading indicator in an analogue cockpit 43

Fig. 22: Failed heading indicator in a glass cockpit 44

Fig. 23: Switches and controls in a Cessna 172 45

Fig. 24: Cockpit of the DH 106 Comet 48

Fig. 25: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-100 50

xii








Fig. 33: Analogue instrument displayed in a glass cockpit 57

Fig. 34: Flight instruments and the head up display 58

Fig. 35: Cockpit of a Boeing 787 60

Fig. 36: Glass cockpit of a Cirrus aircraft, showing PFD and MFD 61

Fig. 37: MFD showing a checklist 62

Fig. 38: MFD showing an approach plate 63

Fig. 39: MFD assisting a pilot while landing 64

Fig. 40: MFD showing weather information 65

Fig. 41: Cirrus aircraft with half analogue and half glass cockpit display 66

Fig. 42: Cockpit of the Cessna 400 TTX 67

Fig. 43: Touch screen concept design by Thales 68

Fig. 44: Air France aircraft, photographed seven years prior to accident 98

Fig. 45: DHL aircraft, photographed one month prior to accident 100

Fig. 46: Air France aircraft, photographed five months prior to accident 102

Fig. 47: Emirates aircraft, photographed at Tullamarine after the incident 104

Fig. 48: Example of basic hardware & software required to operate simulator 156

Fig. 49: A screenshot of Microsoft Flight Simulator X 158

Fig. 50: Example of a personal computer flight simulator, with extra hardware 160

Fig. 51: A full motion high end Boeing 737 simulator 161

Fig. 52: Instructor station inside a high-end simulator 162

xiii

Fig. 53: Cockpit with realistic controls, display, instruments and other hardware 164

Fig. 54: The fixed-wing & rotary wing simulators used to conduct experiments 178

Fig. 55: Image taken inside the Redbird FMX flight simulator 184

Fig. 56: Image taken inside the FlyIt Simulator 187

Fig. 57: Close up of the monitors in the instructor station 188

Fig. 58: Instructor station inside the FlyIt simulator 191

Fig. 59: Arrington research head mounted eye tracker 219

Fig. 60: Computer with eye tracker calibration and data collection software 220

Fig. 61: Sixteen points used for calibration 221

Fig. 62: Example of the data captured by the eye tracker 222

Fig. 63: Example of the raw data saved in text format 223

Fig. 64: Example of raw data converted into a comprehensible text file 224

Fig. 65: Example of data points being analysed in Excel 226

Fig. 66: Flight route for VFR experiment 236

Fig. 67: Scanning pattern for full flight in visual flight conditions 242

Fig. 68: Instrument scan break down for the full flight 243

Fig. 69: Individual instrument scan pattern during full flight 244

Fig. 70: Individual instrument scan pattern during the take-off phase 245

Fig. 71: Individual instrument scan pattern during the climb phase 247

Fig. 72: Individual instrument scan pattern during the cruise phase 248

Fig. 73: Individual instrument scan pattern during the descent phase 249

Fig. 74: Individual instrument scan pattern during the landing phase 250

Fig. 75: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight 251

Fig. 76: Flight route for IFR experiment 267

Fig. 77: Scanning pattern for full flight in instrument flight conditions 270


Fig. 79: Individual instrument scan pattern during full flight 272

xiv






Fig. 85: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight 278

Fig. 86: Flight route for abnormal scenario experiment 291

Fig. 87: Scanning pattern during recovery in visual conditions 295

Fig. 88: Instrument scan break down during recovery 296

Fig. 89: Individual instrument scan pattern during recovery 297

Fig. 90: Scanning pattern during recovery in instrument conditions 298

Fig. 91: Instrument scan break down during recovery 299

Fig. 92: Individual instrument scan pattern during recovery 300

Fig. 93: Scan pattern comparison between aircraft types for full flight 314


Fig. 95: Individual instruments scan pattern during the full flight 316






xv

List of Tables

Table 1: Failure detection in different cockpits based on type of flight 301

“Of all the interfaces, that of the aircraft has presented and continues

to present challenges to designers and pilot.”

– L. F. E. Coombs, 2005, Ch. 1: How did it all start?

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

3

Introduction

Brief History of the Aviation Industry

In the transportation industry, the aviation industry is one of the youngest. In the last

century the aviation industry has also become one of the most advanced and complex modes

of transportation. Human beings have been pursuing their ambition to fly for a long time. The

passion to fly started with humans designing and building large wings. They hoped to be able

to fly like birds by jumping off tall structures while wearing these wings and flapping them

like birds. However, this concept was not successful and humans searched for alternative

methods of achieving flight. In the 18th century, balloons were successfully developed to

carry humans. During the 19th century, the glider was successfully developed and flown.

This provided humans the ability to fly without requiring any power (Chant, 1978; Wegener,

1991).

December 17 1903 was a significant day in the history of aviation. On that day,

humans embarked on their first heavier-than-air powered flight. That event started modern

aviation as we know it. Heavier-than-air powered flight meant that bigger aircraft could be

built that will still fly due to the power supplied by the engine. It also allowed aircraft to carry

passengers and cargo, and to fly longer distances (Taylor & Munson, 1973; Bednarek &

Launius, 2003).

4

Following the first flight, aircraft were built to transport cargo. They were flown

during daytime only, when the visibility was good. Flight was conducted by following

landmarks to reach the destination. However, it was not possible to fly at night or if the

weather was poor. This created a need for instruments in an aircraft, which would allow a

pilot to fly even when he or she was not able to follow the landmarks. The introduction of

instruments reduced flight cancellations and increased the number of regular flight services.

This also resulted in passengers being transported using an aircraft. Airlines started forming

around the world and passenger air travel became popular (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).

The demand to fly further and faster was increasing, and aircraft manufacturing

companies were designing and developing new aircraft. This demand resulted in the

introduction of the jet engine into the airline industry. The jet engine made air travel even

more efficient. Travel time was reduced and journeys became comfortable, as aircraft were

able to fly at higher altitudes where the weather was more stable (Klaus, 2008).

Aircraft evolved significantly over time and offered many usage options. They are

used not only as a mode of transportation but also to maintain security and peace (Bilstein,

2001; Rossano & Wildenberg, 2015). They can also be used for miscellaneous tasks, such as

searching for natural resources in the mining industry or tracking the migration of animals

over a period of time.

Over the past few decades, global air travel has grown (Button, 1997) and global

passenger numbers are still increasing. It is also one of the safest methods of transporting

5

passengers and cargo. Statistics show that aviation has fewer fatalities than driving, catching

a train or travelling by ship. According to preliminary statistics provided by the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), aviation had the lowest fatalities of all the

transportation modes in the year 2016 (NTSB, 2017). There are many reasons for the reduced

number of accidents. One of them is that a considerable amount of research and development

is conducted to make aircraft reliable and safer (Wells, 2001).

A modern aircraft can fly over ten thousand kilometres while carrying over five

hundred paying passengers. These aircraft also offer the luxury of having various levels of

entertainment on board. A wealthy customer can afford to pay for a private room in an

aircraft. A traveller on a budget can now enjoy benefits such as a quieter and more

comfortable journey than in the previous century.

It is also envisaged that within the next decade aircraft will be able to fly non-stop

from Sydney, Australia, to London, United Kingdom. This is one of the longest and most

popular passenger routes in the world (Hooper, 1985). A journey that once took months in a

ship will soon be completed in approximately twenty hours. Such an achievement will be a

result of the rapid evolution of the aviation industry.

While larger commercial aircraft are transporting people around the world, smaller

aircraft are capable of flying in remote parts of the world and operating from airfields that are

not well developed. These aircraft can be a vital source of supplies and assistance. For

example, farmers living in remote parts of the Australian outback rely on aircraft to bring

6

them mail and other supplies. At the same time, in the case of an emergency, they rely on an

aircraft to bring help.

In addition to serving passengers in remote locations, an aircraft can also be used for

recreation. A private buyer or a recreational pilot can fly an aircraft as a hobby. He or she can

enjoy soaring in the sky, like the birds. It also offers the opportunity to enjoy scenery from a

different perspective. This is the same intention that early humans had when they jumped off

tall structures wearing wings.

With the evolution of the aircraft over the last century, flying has become not only

possible but also safer and more reliable (Taylor & Munson, 1973). Today humans can fulfil

the dream of flying and enjoy it. Apart from flying as a passenger, most humans also have the

option to learn to fly an aircraft themselves.

Pilot Training in the Aviation Industry

The commercial aviation industry is expected to double in size over the next decade.

This expansion has mainly been occurring in Asian countries like India and China, and is

expected to continue (Croix, 1995). This will require many well-trained pilots in the near

future. Training pilots properly is important to maintain the safety record of the aviation

industry. Only through appropriate flight training can a pilot take advantage of all the

advancements that have been made in this industry over the last century.

7

In Australia, there are several options available for flight training: through a flight

training organisation, in an aviation course at a university, or in the military. Learning to fly

independently through a flight training organisation is open to anyone who is interested in

flying, either as a hobby or as a career. This option offers flexibility, as a person can start

training and progress at his or her own pace. There are generally no requirements placed on a

person to start flight training. Although not necessary, knowledge of basic physics and

mathematics helps a pilot who is progressing towards a commercial pilot licence (CPL).

Learning to fly through a university is more structured and accelerated than the

previous option. The requirements to enrol in an aviation program, for example Bachelor of

Aviation, are high. Because it is a university course, most of the students who are enrolled as

aviation students are high-school graduates who have an ambition of having a career as a

pilot. For most universities in Australia, the practical training is still conducted at a licensed

flight training school. However, the syllabus and time frame are managed by the university.

A student’s progress is also monitored closely to guarantee timely graduation.

Both these options have their advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of

enrolling in a university is that a student not only gets a pilot licence, but also a university

qualification in aviation. This makes him or her more qualified and employable. On the other

hand, the main advantage of learning to fly independently is that a student pilot can reduce

the cost associated with obtaining the licence. This can be done by choosing a training

8

organisation which offers the cheapest training rates. A university might not offer the same

flexibility of choosing the training provider.

In the civilian world, the practical and theoretical flight training syllabus is the same

regardless of the option chosen. A student pilot has to complete the minimum number of

hours of practical flight training and pass several theory exams. This will allow him or her to

obtain a licence and become a pilot. An individual obtains a student pilot licence in order to

start flight training. This licence allows a pilot to learn to fly with the aim of getting her or his

full pilot licence. It teaches a pilot all the practical and theoretical knowledge required to

complete the first solo flight (CASA, 2017).

The first solo flight is a major milestone in flight training. A student pilot can achieve

this milestone after 10–15 hours of flight training. It is the first time that a student pilot flies

unsupervised. Following this, he or she continues on with additional training to get a

recreational pilot licence. It allows a student to fly unsupervised within 25 nautical miles of

the airport. This helps a student to perfect his or her skills before continuing on with further

training.

After obtaining the recreational pilot licence, a student pilot is provided with

additional training on cross-country navigation and other skills such as managing complex

airspaces. Once completed, a student pilot can answer practical and theory exams before

obtaining her or his private pilot licence. It takes approximately fifty hours or more to obtain

a private pilot licence. This licence allows a pilot to fly anywhere in the country with

9

passengers. For a person who is not interested in flying as a career, this licence is sufficient to

legally fly anywhere in Australia.

Flying as a commercial pilot requires further training and flying experience. A CPL

requires between 150 and 200 hours of flying experience. Of this, approximately 100 hours

must be flown as a pilot in command of the aircraft. Apart from gaining the flying hours, she

or he is also required to fly different aircraft types, to broaden their experience. Once a pilot

obtains a CPL, it allows him or her to be employed as a pilot, and to earn a living by flying. It

also allows him or her to pursue a career in aviation.

Most pilots who want to work as an airline pilot cannot apply for a job in an airline

immediately after obtaining their licence. This is because airlines impose several minimum

requirements to employ a pilot. One of these requirements is that a person must have several

hundred hours of flying experience before she or he can join an airline (Virgin Australia,

2017). As a result, a pilot has to look for interim employment. During that time, she or he can

work for a smaller operator and bridge the difference in flying hours.

Starting a career with a smaller operator can be beneficial for a pilot. Not only does it

offer a stepping stone into the aviation industry, it also helps a pilot fly a wide range of

aircraft and experience various situations. These operators offer a range of opportunities, such

as transporting cargo in regional areas or operating scenic flights for tourists.

10

A dedicated and motivated newly licensed commercial pilot can build this experience

and increase his or her flying time to several hundred hours within a year. This will give her

or him the minimum hours required to be employed as an airline pilot.

Employment Opportunities after Obtaining Commercial Pilot Licence

A newly licensed commercial pilot has several job opportunities in Australia. For a

select few, it is possible to join the airlines immediately after obtaining a CPL. This method

of entering an airline is called a cadetship. In this method, a pilot has to go through a

selection process similar to that for a job. Once selected, she or he starts flying with an airline

and is provided with all required training (Virgin Australia, 2017).

Most newly licensed pilots, however, have to find work with a regional or remote

operator. A newly licensed pilot might be required to relocate to a remote township, for

example Coober Pedy, and fly with a local operator. While flying with such an operator a

pilot could be employed in a single role; for example, a mail run requires a pilot to pick up

and drop off mail or cargo between different townships in the outback. There might even be

the occasional visit to a large city. Alternatively, a pilot could be employed as a generic pilot

who will undertake any flying roles that arise. This could include delivering cargo one day

and taking tourists on a scenic flight the next day.

11

Apart from the flying role, the types of aircraft a pilot flies also vary. Smaller

operators in regional or remote areas could potentially face financial challenges (Baker &

Donnet, 2012), because the cost of operating in remote areas is very high; for example, fuel is

more expensive. They also might not get regular business providing a steady source of

income for their operations. For example, a joy flight operator might not get tourists

consistently during all months of the year. As a result, they may not have the budget to

regularly upgrade their aircraft, which means that a pilot with these regional or remote

operators may fly old aircraft.

The airports they operate to and from also lack infrastructure and can be basic. Most

remote airports have a grass or a gravel strip rather than a paved asphalt runway. The airport

might also not have any navigational equipment. Without this equipment, a pilot has to use

the global positioning system (GPS) and a compass to navigate between airports.

Finally, the conditions a pilot experiences in remote areas can be harsh. From a

weather perspective, the temperatures can be very hot during the day and cold at night. The

runways can be dusty and have several hazards, such as stones. Wildlife is also a major

threat, as wild kangaroos, dingoes or camels can obstruct the runway and prevent flight

operations taking place. The living conditions might also offer bare minimum comfort.

All the above challenges can lead to several issues. For example, after learning to fly

in a major city like Melbourne or Sydney, a pilot is accustomed to the facilities at an airport.

Relocating to a remote area from a major city, a pilot will have to cope without these

12

facilities. An example is the runway, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. A pilot is

required to operate from gravel runways in remote areas. A pilot has to take into

consideration additional factors like propeller damage from stones being thrown up from the

ground. Wildlife is also another major issue: a pilot who wants to land at a remote airport will

not be able to do so if there is wildlife on the runway. Being in a remote area, they also might

not have the flexibility to divert to another airport, particularly if the nearest alternative

airport is an hour or more away.

Finally, the biggest change they might encounter when commencing employment

with a remote operator is in the aircraft’s cockpit. Since most of the aircraft used by remote

operators are old, they have old technology in the cockpits. A lot of modern advancements

like GPS have been retrofitted in these aircraft. Although all the necessary instruments are

still in the cockpit, the way they are displayed and the layout of information can be different.

This change can affect a pilot’s ability to fly the aircraft and the way he or she performs.

With the above challenges and the change of the cockpit instruments, flying in an aircraft

with different instrument display and information layout is a potential issue that requires

investigation.

13

Purpose of this Thesis

Being employed as an airline pilot can be a rewarding career; however, it can also be

challenging, especially for low-hour pilots. Pilots who obtain their CPL typically have to find

interim jobs before they can enter the airline industry. As already discussed, one method used

by pilots in Australia to increase their experience is to spend time in a remote location.

During this time, a pilot builds experience by flying smaller propeller aircraft. He or she

might also spend most of this time flying older aircraft that might have different instrument

displays and information layout.

Most airlines around the world have a relatively modern fleet. With the introduction

of new aircraft like the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, airlines around the world are

purchasing these aircraft to enjoy the benefits they offer. These benefits include better fuel

efficiency, higher passenger comfort and more reliable operations. One of the biggest

improvements in aircraft over the last few decades has been in the cockpit or the flight deck.

Aircraft instruments were traditionally displayed using round dial instruments in what is

known as an ‘analogue cockpit’. In this type of cockpit, dials and needles were used to

present the information on the instruments. The modern cockpit is equipped with several

computerised screens that digitally display the instruments; hence, it is commonly known as

the ‘glass cockpit’. Information is presented in a different method in a glass cockpit: it uses a

combination of digital numbers and digital dials to present the information on the

instruments. The glass cockpit became successful in the commercial airline industry and, as a

result, was also introduced in the general aviation industry.

14

Prospective pilots learn to fly in the general aviation industry. They also build their

experience in the general aviation industry before moving into the airline industry. The

introduction of the glass cockpit in the general aviation industry was successful. When asked

about a cockpit preference, many pilots prefer a glass cockpit over an analogue cockpit

(Wright & O’Hare, 2015). As a result, over the last decade a glass cockpit became a common

type of instrument display in the general aviation industry. This means that a new student

pilot starts his or her flight training in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. During the

training, he or she spends almost all the time learning to fly in an aircraft equipped with a

glass cockpit.

After obtaining the CPL, a pilot finds himself or herself flying an older aircraft which

is not equipped with the glass cockpit. This is not only true for commercial pilots who are

employed in remote locations, it is also true for many other pilots in the general aviation

industry. Private pilots who learn to fly in modern aircraft might also encounter an analogue

cockpit, because there are still many planes around which have the analogue instruments.

Alternatively, if a private pilot is interested in restoring a historical aircraft, it will have an

analogue cockpit. A commercial pilot employed in the airline industry flies a modern aircraft

with a glass cockpit every day. He or she may also make a transition to an analogue cockpit,

if he or she goes on a joy flight in a smaller aircraft. There are many other reasons for a pilot

to make a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. As a result, there are many

pilots today making a transition from an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit to an aircraft

equipped with an analogue cockpit.

15

Thesis Structure

The aim of this thesis is to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of

cockpit. The research focuses on the civilian aviation industry. Although large commercial

aircraft will be mentioned and discussed, the emphasis is on the smaller propeller aircraft.

This thesis concentrates on the Australian general aviation industry; experiments were

conducted at an Australian university using only local pilots. Finally, this thesis assumes that

the reader has basic prior aeronautical knowledge.

Chapter 1 (this chapter) provides a brief history of the aviation industry, outlines the

various methods of becoming a pilot, and describes the existing problem that this thesis will

be focusing on (i.e. the transition between different types of cockpit).

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature. It discusses the flight instruments in the

cockpit, along with the layout of information. The comparison between a glass and an

analogue cockpit is also made. Evolution of the cockpit display is briefly discussed, along

with photographs of cockpit displays. Human factors issues that exist in the aviation industry

are mentioned. Topics covered include situational awareness, decision making and pilot

interaction with automation. These issues show why it is important to understand them when

there is a change in the cockpit display types. Current literature related to pilot interaction

with different types of cockpit will be analysed. This will also show the importance of

understanding the human factors issues before making a transition from a glass cockpit to an

16

analogue cockpit. Finally, the gap in the existing literature is highlighted. The importance of

this study will be evaluated based on the existing literature review.

Chapters 3 and 4 provide details of the equipment used for the experiments. Flight

simulators and eye trackers are introduced and reviewed. Their importance and use in

conducting human factors research is also mentioned. In particular, the importance of

understanding a pilot’s scanning pattern will be discussed. These two chapters will include

further literature relevant to simulators and eye trackers. The simulators and the eye tracker

used in this research are also described in detail.

Four experiments were conducted as a part of this research. Chapter 5, 6, 7 and 8

discuss each of the experiments in detail. Each includes a brief introduction and purpose, and

the procedures and results of each experiment are mentioned. Finally, each discussion

includes an explanation of the results and the relevance to current literature.

Chapter 5 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition in visual

flight conditions. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information in different types of

cockpit, when they can rely on the instruments and also the outside world.

Chapter 6 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition in

instrument flight conditions. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information in different

types of cockpit when they only have the instruments to rely on.

17

Chapter 7 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition and

experience an abnormal situation. This shows how pilots scan and acquire information in

different types of cockpit when they are recovering from unusual attitude.

Chapter 8 investigates pilot scanning patterns when they make a transition from a

fixed-wing aircraft to a rotary wing aircraft. This shows how pilots scan and acquire

information when they are flying in different types of cockpit in different aircraft types.

Chapter 9 is the discussion chapter. In this chapter the discussions from Chapters 5, 6,

7 and 8 are further linked to existing research. The implications of this research are described.

Recommendations are made for a pilot who is making a transition from one type of cockpit to

another type. Limitations of this study along with suggestions for future work are also

mentioned.

Chapter 10 is the final chapter. It concludes the thesis and provides an overall

summary of the main findings of this research.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

19

Introduction to the Cockpit

The cockpit, also known as the flight deck in the commercial aviation industry,

contains all the flight instruments that are required to fly an aircraft. These instruments

provide a pilot with all the necessary information to safely fly the aircraft. A pilot acquires

information from the instruments and the outside world to make decisions and perform

actions related to the flight.

All aircraft have the basic flight instruments, engine instruments and additional

instruments that help a pilot to navigate and manage the flight (Collinson, 1996). However,

the number of instruments that are displayed in the cockpit varies. This variation depends on

several factors, including the type, size and complexity of an aircraft. For example, a larger

commercial jet aircraft has more instruments to display the engine status and the flight

management information. A smaller single-engine propeller aircraft does not require as many

instruments to display the engine information. It also does not require a complex flight

management system.

The essential flight instruments which are included in all aircraft are discussed in the

next section. These instruments are crucial as they provide critical flight information to a

pilot and play a vital role in all stages of the flight. If required, it is possible to safely fly an

aircraft using these basic instruments only. With good visibility outside the aircraft and calm

weather, it is also possible to fly an aircraft just by looking at the outside world—this is how

pioneers in aviation flew aircraft. Instruments play an important role when it is not possible to

20

follow landmarks from the outside world due to high altitude flight or poor visibility. Within

the first decade of powered flight, aviators realised the need for instruments to fly when there

are no cues in the outside world (Coombs, 2005). The addition of flight instruments helped

aviators fly in daytime under good visibility conditions, and also in poor visibility and at

night.

Description of the Main Instruments in the Cockpit

For the purpose of this thesis, the instruments in the cockpit are divided into two main

categories, the primary flight instruments and the aircraft system status instruments. Only the

instruments included in these two categories will be discussed. The switches and controls in

the cockpit will not be discussed, as the purpose of this thesis was to investigate how a pilot

acquires information based on the type of cockpit.

First, each instrument in the cockpit will be discussed in detail. Following that, the

instrument display and information layout will be compared between a glass and an analogue

cockpit. The instruments discussed here are common in all aircraft of the same type; for

example, all Cessna 172s should have the same instruments in an analogue cockpit. However,

there can be some minor variations as a result of a pilot’s personal preference to have

additional instruments. For example, a pilot might prefer to install a radio altimeter, which is

not standard in a Cessna 172. It is different to the normal altimeter, as it shows the height

above the ground rather than the height above sea level. This instrument is valuable when

flying in locations with varying terrain that is higher than sea level.

21

The instruments discussed here are the same instruments that are analysed in the

experiments described in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. To maintain consistency between all the

chapters, all the photographs of the flight instruments have been taken from Microsoft Flight

Simulator X (Microsoft © Flight Simulator X, 2006). This has been done because the

experiments for this study have been conducted in a simulator using this software.

Photographs of real-world aircraft cockpits are also included in the next section of this

chapter.

There are six primary flight instruments that provide a pilot with the vital information

about the aircraft. A pilot needs to acquire information from these instruments regularly to

maintain a safe flight. Hence, these instruments are displayed in front of a pilot, making it

easy for him or her to scan and obtain information from them. The six primary flight

instruments are the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator, heading indicator,

vertical speed indicator, and turn and bank indicator.

The airspeed indicator provides a pilot with information about the speed of the

aircraft. Figure 1 shows an airspeed indicator from a Cessna 172. The moving dial indicates

the current speed of the aircraft. The green arc is the safe operating speed of an aircraft. The

white arc shows the speed range in which the flaps can be extended. The yellow arc shows

the speed range in which an aircraft can fly with extreme caution, generally when there is no

turbulence and the air is smooth. Finally, the red line indicates the maximum speed, which an

aircraft must never exceed. Exceeding this speed would result in structural failure and can

22

damage the engine. Other aircraft have additional information on this instrument; for

example, aircraft with retractable gear also have an indicator that shows the speed at which

the landing gear can be deployed.

Figure 1: Airspeed indicator in a Cessna 172.

The attitude indicator (also known as the artificial horizon) provides a pilot with

information about an aircraft’s orientation in relation to the outside world’s horizon. Figure 2

shows an attitude indicator from a Cessna 172. The white horizontal line with the dot in the

middle of the instrument represents the aircraft. The blue top half represents the sky and the

brown bottom half represents the ground. This instrument shows whether or not an aircraft is

in straight and level flight. When an aircraft is in straight and level flight, the artificial aircraft

points at the white horizon line, which is located between the blue and brown halves. When

an aircraft is climbing, the artificial aircraft will point up towards the blue part. The angle of

23

climb is also indicated in the blue section. The small black line represents five degrees of

climb, whereas the larger black horizontal line represents ten degrees of climb. An aircraft’s

angle of bank is also shown in this instrument. White lines above the blue sections represent

the angle of bank. From the centre to the sides, they represent ten degrees, twenty degrees,

thirty degrees, forty-five degrees and ninety degrees of turn respectively. These lines provide

valuable information that help judge the angle of an aircraft’s turn. Similar to the information

in the blue part of the instrument, the brown part has information that helps a pilot know the

aircraft’s angle of descent and angle of bank.

Figure 2: Attitude indicator in a Cessna 172.

24

Figure 3: Altitude indicator in a Cessna 172.

The altitude indicator (also known as the altimeter) provides a pilot with information

about an aircraft’s height above sea level. Figure 3 shows an altitude indicator from a Cessna

172. This instrument has two dials. The thick long dial is the fastest moving dial and shows

the altitude change in hundreds of feet; that is, it moves if the aircraft climbs or descends one

hundred feet. The slightly shorter dial shows the altitude change in thousands of feet. The

small white kite symbol, near the number zero, shows the altitude change in increments of ten

thousand feet. This symbol moves gradually as the aircraft climbs and is near the number one

when the aircraft reaches ten thousand feet. This instrument also allows a pilot to set the air

pressure at mean sea level, which will show the correct altitude based on the current weather

conditions.

25

Figure 4: Heading indicator in a Cessna 172.

The heading indicator (also known as the directional gyro) provides a pilot with

information about an aircraft’s heading. Figure 4 shows a heading indicator from a Cessna

172. This instrument is like a compass and shows the direction in which an aircraft is flying.

An image of the aircraft shows its direction as a degree based on the 360o circle. North, east,

south and west are also marked on the instrument (using N, E, S and W). This instrument

requires regular recalibration on long flights. In some modern aircraft, such calibration is

performed automatically by the aircraft’s computer. On several aircraft, there is also a

heading bug, which is an indicator that a pilot can manually set to the direction in which she

or he wants to be heading. This bug helps during navigation and makes it easy for a pilot to

maintain an assigned heading.

26

The turn and bank indicator provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s rate

of turn and whether the turn is coordinated. Figure 5 shows a turn and bank indicator from a

Cessna 172. An aircraft pointing horizontally represents a straight and level flight. When an

aircraft is turning, the artificial aircraft in this indicator also turns in the same direction,

depicting the aircraft’s turn. The ball below the artificial aircraft shows whether or not the

turn is properly coordinated, and whether an aircraft is slipping or skidding while turning. To

maintain a properly coordinated flight, the ball must be in the centre; if it is not, a pilot will

have to use the rudder to achieve a properly coordinated turn. Apart from demonstrating good

flying skills, a properly coordinated turn will also improve pilot and passenger comfort.

Figure 5: Turn and bank indicator in a Cessna 172.

The vertical speed indicator provides a pilot with information about an aircraft’s rate

of climb or descent per minute. Figure 6 shows a vertical speed indicator from a Cessna 172.

On this indicator, a dial points to an aircraft’s vertical climb or descent and moves to show

the rate of climb or descent. It shows the rate of climb or descent up to two thousand feet per

27

minute. Every five hundred feet is marked on the indicator with the appropriate number. This

instrument is valuable during turning, as it helps to maintain the assigned altitude while the

aircraft is turning. It is also helpful during landing, when an aircraft has to descend at a

certain vertical speed, i.e. five hundred feet per minute. This instrument is also prone to

constant changes unlike the altitude indicator; hence, it is important for a pilot to be aware of

this fact and not over-control the aircraft.

Figure 6: Vertical speed indicator in a Cessna 172.

Aircraft system status instruments provide additional information to a pilot, which

helps him or her maintain a safe flight. These instruments show information about the engine

instruments, fuel instruments, navigation instruments, GPS, radio stack, etc.

The engine instruments provide a pilot with information about an aircraft’s engine

status. In a Cessna 172 the main engine instruments are the revolutions per minute (RPM)

28

indicator, oil temperature and oil pressure. The RPM, as shown in Figure 7, measures the

revolutions of the propeller per minute. This information is important during all phases of a

flight. The correct RPM setting in different phases of flight will help a pilot achieve the

correct aircraft performance. For example, during approach the RPM is brought back to 1500,

allowing an aircraft to descend at 500 feet per minute at a speed of 75 knots. This setting can

vary depending on other factors such as weather. The RPM indicator has a green arc which

indicates the ideal operating range during cruise. If the weather is turbulent, regular changes

in RPM might be required during approach and cruise to maintain consistent aircraft

performance. The red line in the RPM indicator shows the maximum RPM, which should not

be exceeded. This indicator also has a counter which is used by a pilot to determine how long

he or she has been flying an aircraft.

Figure 7: RPM indicator in a Cessna 172.

29

Figure 8: Fuel quantity indicator in a Cessna 172.

Figure 9: Fuel flow and exhaust gas temperature indicator in a Cessna 172.

Engine and fuel instruments show the aircraft’s engine and fuel status. Figures 8, 9

and 10 show these instruments in a Cessna 172. The fuel quantity indicator shows the amount

of fuel an aircraft has on board. The fuel capacity of a Cessna 172 is 26 gallons. Based on the

30

amount of fuel an aircraft has, a pilot can calculate how long an aircraft can keep flying. The

fuel flow indicator shows a pilot how much fuel an aircraft is consuming, in gallons per hour.

The green arc represents the normal fuel flow rate while cruising.

Figure 10: Oil pressure and oil temperature indicator in a Cessna 172.

The radio stack allows a pilot to tune in to various frequencies required during the

flight. Figure 11 shows the radio stack of a Cessna 172. This includes the appropriate

frequencies for communication with air traffic control and frequencies that assist in

navigation. The communication frequencies allow a pilot to tune in to the appropriate radio

frequency that will allow her or him to talk to air traffic control. It also has a standby

frequency, which allows a pilot to tune in to a second frequency that might be required at a

later time. Entering the standby frequency will allow a pilot to reduce workload while flying.

Pilots can switch to the standby frequency by pressing a button. Apart from having the

second frequency on standby, it is also possible to listen to both the frequencies at the same

time. However, he or she can only communicate on one channel at a time.

31

Apart from communication, the radio stack also offers two channels for selecting

navigational frequencies, which provides navigational assistance to a pilot. For example,

while coming in to land at an airport, a pilot can enter the instrument landing system (ILS)

frequency in the radio stack and activate the ILS information on the instruments. These

instruments are shown in Figure 12. The instruments provide information about the aircraft’s

lateral and vertical position. A pilot can use this information to safely navigate to the runway

and land the aircraft.

The other important navigational frequency that can be entered into the radio stack is

the non-directional beacon (NDB) frequency. NDBs are common and help with cross-country

navigation. Once the frequency is entered in, the instruments (shown in Figure 12) show

whether an aircraft is flying towards the selected NDB, and whether the aircraft is on the

correct flight path towards the NDB.

The navigational information provided by these instruments is particularly important

when the visibility in the outside world is poor. When a pilot cannot follow landmarks in the

outside world, he or she can rely on these instruments to successfully navigate between two

points. Apart from poor visibility conditions, these instruments are also beneficial at night or

when flying over terrain without any geographical features or landmarks.

32

Figure 11: Radio stack in a Cessna 172.

33

Figure 12: Navigational information instruments in a Cessna 172.

34

Finally, the transponder allows a pilot to enter the code provided to him or her by the

air traffic controller. This provides the air traffic controller with the aircraft’s information,

such as altitude, which helps the air traffic controller monitor and direct the aircraft safely

through the airspace.

In a Cessna 172, the radio stack also has the autopilot option. This allows the pilot to

take their hands off the controls and let the aircraft fly automatically. The autopilot manages

altitude, navigation or heading, along with a few other functions. It does not offer an auto-

throttle option: airspeed has to be manually managed, even when the autopilot is being used.

Figure 13: Global positioning system in a Cessna 172.

35

Along with the navigational instruments, the aircraft also has a GPS. The GPS in a

Cessna 172 is shown in Figure 13. This provides information on an aircraft’s location on a

moving map. The GPS provides immense benefits, as it makes it easy for a pilot to always be

aware of the aircraft’s geographical location. It also helps in navigation and can be linked to

the autopilot for basic navigational assistance. GPS technology in an aircraft ranges from

basic to very complex, and discussing its full potential is beyond the scope of this section.

Different Types of Cockpit

Flight instruments in today’s aircraft can be displayed in two different types of

cockpit. The traditional method is known as an analogue or round dial cockpit, and the

modern method is known as a glass or digital cockpit. The same instruments are displayed in

both types of cockpit; however, the layout of information on the instruments can be different

between the two types of cockpit.

An analogue cockpit, as shown in Figure 14, displays each instrument separately.

Hence, there are many instruments in an analogue cockpit. The primary flight instruments are

displayed together and are commonly known as the six-pack, as shown in Figure 15. These

instruments include the airspeed at the top left corner, the attitude indicator in the middle of

the top row, and the altitude indicator in the top right corner. The turn and bank indicator is

on the bottom left corner, the heading indicator is in the middle of the bottom row and the

vertical speed indicator is on the bottom right corner. This layout includes the main

instruments organised in a ‘T’ format to facilitate easy scanning.

36

Figure 14: Analogue cockpit in a Cessna 172.

Figure 15: The six primary flight instruments, also known as the six-pack.

37

The aircraft system status instruments are normally displayed around the primary

flight instruments. The RPM, which is of vital importance, is displayed below the vertical

speed indicator. The radio stack and the GPS are displayed on the right of the primary flight

instruments. Fuel status instruments are displayed on the left of the primary instruments. It is

important to note that the display of the aircraft system status instruments varies between the

Cessna 172s. As a result, not all 172s will have identical layout.

The glass cockpit (as shown in Figure 16) integrates all the flight instruments and

displays them on digital screens. As a result, there are two main screens: the primary flight

display (PFD) and the multi-function display (MFD). The glass cockpit shown here is the

Garmin G1000 (Garmin © G1000, 2004). This is an advanced glass cockpit offered in a

number of new general aviation aircraft.

Figure 16: Glass cockpit in a Cessna 172 consisting of the PFD (left) and MFD (right).

38

The PFD, as the name states, includes all the primary flight instruments. The primary

instruments that are displayed in the ‘T’ format in an analogue cockpit are also displayed in a

similar ‘T’ format in a glass cockpit. However, the airspeed and altitude information are

shown in numeric form, known as tape display, rather than in the form of a dial. For example,

an analogue cockpit points to the speed or altitude using a needle, whereas in a glass cockpit

the instrument shows the exact speed or altitude in numeric form. This is not the only

difference. The vertical speed indicator and the turn and bank indicator are also displayed in

numeric form. The turn and bank indicator is integrated into the attitude indicator, and the

vertical speed indicator is shown next to the altitude indicator. This also makes room for

showing other parameters on the PFD.

Figure 17: Additional information in the primary flight display.

39

Apart from the primary instruments, the PFD also has a massive amount of additional

information incorporated into the display. The additional information provided is extensive

and only the main features are mentioned here. Figure 17 shows some of the additional

information that can be displayed on the PFD. Radio and navigational frequencies can be

brought up on the bottom right corner of the screen. A small moving map can also be

displayed on the bottom left corner of the screen. The top section of the PFD displays the

current and standby frequencies selected. Information related to the autopilot status is also

provided. The heading indicator in the PFD also offers more information than the heading

indicator in an analogue cockpit. This indicator shows whether or not an aircraft is on course,

and shows other navigational information including the ILS and NDB information. Finally, a

list of warning or cautions, if any, is displayed on the right side of the screen.

Figure 18: Multi-function display in a Cessna 172.

40

Figure 19: Engine instruments in the glass cockpit of a Cessna 172.

41

The MFD shows an aircraft’s system status instruments. This display is shown in

Figure 18. The main feature of the MFD is a display of a large moving GPS map. This map

shows the position of the aircraft, along with other details such as airports, landmarks, and

even traffic or weather in the area. One of the other main features of the moving map display

is the ability to create a complex flight path, which is a valuable tool for cross-country flights.

This is also integrated with the autopilot. Detailed information on all airports and all the

frequencies associated with a particular airport are also available in this display. This GPS

moving map has several other advanced features, which cannot be discussed in detail here.

To the left of the large moving map display are the engine and fuel instruments. These

instruments are shown in Figure 19. The RPM indicator is displayed as a digital dial.

However, all the other instruments are displayed as a tape display. These displays show a

horizontal tape with a moving bar that indicates the current status of that instrument. All

instruments have green and red bars or lines, which show the ideal operation range along with

the maximum limits of an aircraft.

A glass cockpit offers backup instruments which are not offered in an analogue

cockpit. The three backup instruments offered in a glass cockpit, shown in Figure 20, are the

airspeed indicator, attitude indicator and altitude indicator. These instruments are included in

case there is an electrical failure and the two main displays black out. In the event of an

electrical failure, a pilot can use the information from these instruments to safely land an

aircraft. These backup instruments are not included in an analogue cockpit, as there is no

42

threat of an electrical failure. Apart from having these backup instruments, a glass cockpit

also has the ability to duplicate the PFD screen on the MFD screen. This can be beneficial

during flight training, when the instructor is sitting in the right-hand seat and needs better

access to the PFD instruments. It can also be used if only the PFD screen fails; in such a

scenario, the MFD screen can be used as the PFD screen.

Figure 20: Backup flight instruments in a Cessna 172.

Instrument failure is a rare occurrence, although a glass cockpit includes a risk of total

instrument failure and individual instruments can fail in either type of cockpit. A failure is

indicated on the instrument, to show the status of that instrument to a pilot. The heading

instrument failure is shown and discussed below. This instrument failure is specifically

discussed here, as it is a part of the experiment conducted in Chapter 7.

Figure 4 shows the heading indicator in an analogue cockpit of a Cessna 172 while it

is working properly. Microsoft flight simulator does not differentiate between a failed and a

43

working heading indicator in a Cessna 172, therefore a failed heading indicator is shown

from a different aircraft in the flight simulator.

Figure 21 shows the heading indicator in an analogue cockpit while it is not working

or has failed. The only difference between the working indicator and the failed indicator is a

small red flag with the letters ‘HDG’ in the top right corner, denoting that the heading

indicator is not working.

Figure 21: Failed heading indicator in an analogue cockpit.

Figure 17 showed the heading indicator in a glass cockpit, integrated into the PFD.

This figure shows the heading indicator while it is working. Figure 22 shows this heading

indicator when it is not working or has failed. The difference between the working and failed

indicator is significant: the numbers, or the compass directions, on the instrument are

44

removed; there is a red cross in the rectangle showing the current heading; and the number in

the rectangle is replaced by the letters ‘HDG’.

Figure 22: Failed heading indicator in a glass cockpit.

Unlike an analogue cockpit, in a glass cockpit the failure is distinctly presented on the

heading indicator. This makes it hard for a pilot to miss it. Several other instrument failures

are also displayed in a similar fashion in a glass cockpit, which makes it easy to be aware of

the instrument status in a glass cockpit. However, it can be a challenge in an analogue

cockpit, particularly when a pilot makes a transition to an analogue cockpit without any

previous experience or training.

Despite the differences in flight instruments, there is no difference in the location and

layout of switches and flight controls.

45

Figure 23: Switches and controls in a Cessna 172.

Figure 23 shows some of the switches and flight controls in a Cessna 172. These are

used to start the aircraft and provide power supply to the flight instruments. They also help in

controlling the navigational lights and other lights of the aircraft. Other controls include

throttle control, trim setting and fuel selection. The image in Figure 23 does not show two of

the major controls, the yoke and the rudder pedals.

As the figures show, the flight instruments included in a glass and an analogue

cockpit are the same. However, the way the instruments are displayed and the information

layout are different. This difference has been a result of decades of cockpit design and

evolution. The advent of technology also helped in changing an analogue cockpit to a glass

cockpit. The evolution of the aircraft’s cockpit was not just a result of available technology, it

also arose from a need by pilots. The next section will briefly discuss cockpit evolution over

the past century, with some illustrations.

46

Cockpit Evolution

The Wright Flyer was the first powered aircraft to fly. This aircraft did not have a

cockpit as we see them today. For the first decade of powered flight, a pilot mainly flew an

aircraft based on the sound and feel of the engine. Most flights were conducted at maximum

engine power. However, if any adjustments were required to be made, it was done by hearing

the engine and adjusting the power. Also, pilots did not have an enclosed area, they were

exposed to the elements of nature. The Avro Type F was the first aircraft to have a closed

cabin in which a pilot could sit (Anderson, 2002; Coombs, 2005).

Powered aircraft in the early days crashed regularly due to poor management of

airspeed. Since these aircraft were mainly constructed with timber and they flew at low

altitude and at slow speed, the number of fatalities was minimal. However, these crashes

raised concerns and emphasised the importance of having instruments that would provide a

pilot with information on an aircraft’s performance (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).

It was not until thirteen years after the first powered flight that the first aircraft with a

cockpit was manufactured. The Jenny JN-4 was the first aircraft to provide a specific place

for a pilot to sit. There were also instruments in the cockpit which provided a pilot with

information about the aircraft’s performance. These instruments were displayed using

analogue dials and gauges. A pilot was now able to not only judge engine performance based

on the sound, but also had instruments to confirm the assumptions. Apart from the engine

47

information, a pilot was also provided with other vital information such as the aircraft’s speed

(Stoff, 2001).

These instruments revolutionised aircraft and made it possible to fly during daytime

or night-time. It also became possible to fly in poor visibility conditions, such as through

clouds. As a result, the aircraft became a reliable mode of transportation, which increased its

popularity and usage (Orlady & Orlady, 1999).

Transporting passengers using an aircraft became successful. Aircraft manufacturers

were building larger and more comfortable aircraft to increase the popularity of passenger air

travel. In the 1950s, the de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the first commercial passenger jet

aircraft to be mass-produced (Chant, 2002). Figure 24 shows the cockpit of the DH 106. It

includes analogue instruments and mechanical flight controls. While aircraft were being

manufactured, human factors scientists were also conducting research to develop and design

the cockpit (Plant, Harvey, & Stanton, 2013). Prior to this, aircraft cockpits were cluttered

with instruments and there was no specific layout of instruments.

Research conducted during this time helped standardise the instruments in the cockpit.

The primary flight instruments were ordered into the six-pack layout, also known as the ‘T’

instrument display layout. This layout places the six primary instruments in front of the pilot

and copilot in a consistent order, regardless of aircraft type. The engine instruments were

located in the centre of the cockpit display, allowing both the pilot and copilot to easily scan

and acquire the information.

48

Figure 24: Cockpit of the DH 106 Comet (Nicholson, 2012).

The early commercial passenger jets included over fifty instruments to provide a pilot

with all the necessary information to safely fly an aircraft. With the introduction of the

Boeing 747 in the 1970s, an aircraft’s cockpit was becoming crowded with instruments.

Although the instruments were necessary to be included in the cockpit, the increasing number

was making it difficult for a pilot to scan and monitor them. Research conducted by human

factors scientists provided a solution, and developments in computer technology were used to

develop a new digital cockpit.

49

The 1970s also saw the introduction of the glass cockpit into the commercial aviation

industry. The glass cockpit made it easier for a pilot to scan the instruments, as several

instruments were integrated together onto one screen (Coombs, 1990), which reduced the

number of instruments in the cockpit. It also created space in the cockpit to include additional

features. A moving map display, also known as the GPS display, was included in the glass

cockpit. This display offers a pilot accurate information on the position of an aircraft (Clarke,

1998) and improves a pilot’s awareness of an aircraft’s location. With benefits like this, pilots

preferred a glass cockpit over an analogue cockpit. New aircraft were being manufactured

with glass cockpits instead of analogue.

The glass cockpit has become common over recent decades. Today, all new

commercial passenger aircraft are being built with a glass cockpit as a standard option. Due

to the popularity of the glass cockpit, it was also introduced in other industries, and the

general aviation industry and recreational industry offer a glass cockpit as a standard option.

The benefits offered by the glass cockpit outweigh any challenges it might cause. The

glass cockpit is also visually appealing. The large screens offer an immense amount of

information to a pilot, much of which was not available in the older analogue cockpit.

50

Figure 25: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-100 (Potesta, 1994).

The Boeing 737 is one of the most popular commercial aircraft. Due to its popularity,

it is still in production and there are over five thousand aircraft on backorder (Boeing, 2017).

It is primarily used as a passenger aircraft, transporting between 150 and 200 passengers,

depending on the configuration. It started as a short haul commercial passenger aircraft;

however, with advancements in technology and aircraft design, its range has increased

significantly. The Boeing 737 was introduced in the 1960s and has significantly evolved

since then. When it was first launched, it included a full analogue cockpit. This is one of the

only aircraft to be transformed from a full analogue cockpit to a full glass cockpit. In this

section the change in the instrument display will be discussed briefly.

51

Figure 26: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-200 (Johnson, 2013).

The Boeing 737-100 and 737-200 variants were introduced in the 1960s. The cockpit

of the 737-100 and 737-200, as shown in Figures 25 and 26, include a full analogue display

of the flight instruments. The primary flight instruments are displayed in front of the pilot,

and the engine and aircraft status instruments are displayed in the centre of the cockpit. The

screen above the throttle quadrant in the 737-200 is the weather display; this was the only

digital instrument in the cockpit. The autopilot option was also available; however, it had

limited functionality.

52

Figure 27: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-300 (Flightdeckimages, 2014).

The Boeing 737-300 was introduced in the 1980s. The cockpit, as shown in Figure 27,

has some differences. Most of the analogue instruments are identical to the Boeing 737-200.

However, the 737-300 has a more advanced autopilot. It also offers the flight management

system (FMS), which provides immense capabilities that will not be discussed here. The

development and integration of the FMS resulted in one major change in the cockpit: it

reduced the flight crew from three to two, by automating the role of the flight engineer.

53

Figure 28: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-400 (Desa, 2007).

The Boeing 737-400 was also introduced in the 1980s. The cockpit, as shown in

Figure 28, offers some significant changes in the flight instrument display. The primary flight

display uses digital glass cockpit technology. The attitude indicator and heading indicator are

displayed on electronic screens. The heading indicator is also incorporated into the

navigational information on the screen. This offers a pilot more information to fly the aircraft.

Finally, the engine instruments also offer a digital display instead of using analogue dials.

This is an example of a half glass, half analogue cockpit.

54

Figure 29: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-500 (Herren, 2003).

The Boeing 737-500 was introduced in the late 1980s. It is interesting to note that

within each variant there were several sub-variants. These were either specifically made with

certain features or they were reserved for certain organisations such as the military. The

cockpit of the 737-500, as shown in Figure 29, is similar to that of the 737-400. It uses the

same digital screens for the attitude indicator and the heading indicator. The autopilot and

flight management computer are also similar to the previous version, and most of the

instruments are displayed in the same way as in the 737-400 series.

55

Figure 30: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-600 (Laszlo, 2005).

The Boeing 737-600 was introduced in the 1990s. The cockpit, as shown in Figure 30,

offers even more changes in the flight instrument display compared to the 737-500. This

variant no longer uses the analogue instruments as the primary method of display. Instead, all

the main instruments are integrated onto a digitalised computer screen. This is an example of

a full glass cockpit. The analogue instruments offered in this type of cockpit are for backup

only. There are six main screens that provide the pilot with all the required information. The

screen in front of the pilot shows all the primary flight information, the screen next to it

shows the navigational information, and the screen in the centre shows the engine status

information.

56

Figure 31: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-700 (Yu, 2015).


Figure 31, has similar screens to the 737-600 and provides the same information.


Figure 32, is similar to the previous versions; however, it comes with the option to be fitted

with the head up display (HUD). Figure 34 shows a close-up view of the HUD. As seen in

this photograph, this display provides the primary flight information. It allows the pilot to

easily acquire information about the important flight parameters. It also reduces a pilot’s head

movement, as a pilot does not have to look down to acquire primary flight information.

57

Figure 32: Cockpit of a Boeing 737-800 (Yuxiaobin, 2006).

Figure 33: Analogue instrument displayed in a glass cockpit (Hom, 2005).

58

Figure 34: Flight instruments and the head up display (Havenga, 2008).

59

Figure 33 shows a traditional display setup in a modern glass cockpit. In this type of

glass cockpit, the primary flight instruments are still displayed electronically as analogue

displays. Such a display can offer great benefits to a pilot who is transitioning from an

analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. A pilot requires training before being able to use a glass

cockpit efficiently. The literature associated with this is discussed in the subsequent sections.

A pilot who is unfamiliar with a glass cockpit can have the option to display the instruments

in analogue format. This allows a pilot to fly with the instrument display that they are

familiar with, which might make it safer for a pilot to fly an aircraft.

While these photographs show differences in the cockpit flight instrument display, it

is important to note that there are also differences within the individual variations of 737s.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that all aircraft can be retrofitted with modern flight

instruments. For example, it is possible to convert a Boeing 737-300 into a full glass-cockpit-

equipped aircraft. This allows older aircraft to be operated with newer technology. It also

allows pilots of older aircraft to take advantage of the benefits offered by modern technology,

such as reduced workload and improved situational awareness.

The digital nature of a glass cockpit allows information to be presented in interactive

pages format. This provides aircraft manufacturers with the opportunity to include enormous

amounts of information in the digital screens. Information such as airport approach charts and

terminal maps can be embedded into the displays; these are known as the electronic flight bag

(EFB). Such an option was not available in the static analogue cockpit.

60

Figure 35: Cockpit of a Boeing 787 (Borisov, 2014).

The Boeing 787, as shown in Figure 35, has incorporated many of the advancements

that were made in the 737 family and taken them a step further. As seen in the photograph,

the 787 includes five screens. These screens are larger and provide the pilot with more

information. The cockpit also includes the head up display to improve the pilot’s

performance. There are two screens on the left and right side of the cockpit that provide the

pilot with the EFB.

Similar to the 787, the Airbus A350 was introduced in 2015. This aircraft has bigger

screens to display more information and improve the pilot’s performance (Kingsley-Jones,

2008).

61

As a result of the success of the glass cockpit in commercial aircraft, it was also

introduced into other industries. The automobile industry is developing a similar version of a

glass cockpit, in which vehicle information is displayed on the dash board using digital

technology (Meyer & Heers, 2007). In the aerospace industry, the space shuttle was also

retrofitted with a glass cockpit (NASA, 2000). Even in the general aviation industry, smaller

single-engine propeller aircraft are being built with a full glass cockpit. A newly purchased

Cessna 172 is equipped with a Garmin G1000, which is a highly advanced and automated

glass cockpit (McCracken, 2011).

Figure 36: Glass cockpit of a Cirrus aircraft, showing PFD and MFD (Folkeringa, 2003).

62

Cirrus Aircraft manufacture general aviation aircraft. They offer many different

models of fixed-wing aeroplanes. They have also been offering the glass cockpit as a

standard option for any plane purchased since the early 2000s (FAA, 2003). As seen in

Figure 36, there are two main screens that display the flight instruments and navigational

information. There are three backup analogue instruments in case there is an electrical failure.

There are two additional GPS screens, which are useful in case the MFD is used to access

other information.

Figure 37: MFD showing a checklist (Savit, 2004).

The MFD offers a wide range of information. The photograph in Figure 37 shows a

comprehensive checklist that a pilot can access on the MFD.

63

Figure 38: MFD showing an approach plate (DJ, 2008).

The MFD also shows approach charts or plates on the display, as shown in Figure 38.

This allows a pilot to access and study charts on the display rather than having to carry paper

charts. It also reduces the weight a pilot has to carry on board, as all documents are available

electronically. These approach charts help during the landing at a busy airport, as shown in

Figure 39. If the aircraft has to go around, a pilot can follow the flight path indicated on these

electronic charts. This reduces the workload as the information is displayed in front of a pilot

and he or she does not have to search for it on paper charts.

64

Figure 39: MFD assisting a pilot while landing (Brackx, 2007).

The MFD can also provide valuable weather information, as shown in Figure 40. This

information is overlaid on the moving map display and, as a result, the weather information is

accurately displayed over the area it affects. In addition, the MFD in this photograph shows

areas of high terrain. A pilot can take into account these two factors to avoid areas of

deteriorating weather and high terrain while choosing a different flight path. Once again,

having such information shown on the display significantly increases the situational

awareness of a pilot. It helps him or her make better decisions during the flight.

65

Figure 40: MFD showing weather information (Leibowitz, 2005).

Although the glass cockpit is a standard option, Cirrus does offer the option of a

traditional analogue cockpit as shown in Figure 41. A pilot or buyer can choose to have

analogue cockpit instruments in the aircraft. Figure 41 is an example of a half glass and half

analogue cockpit. The PFD is replaced with round dials, but the MFD is still displayed as a

digital instrument. This still provides the pilot with all the information in the second screen,

which has been discussed above. In this option, there are no backup instruments. This is

because the full glass cockpit included the analogue instruments as backup instruments,

whereas in this case they are standard instruments.

66

Figure 41: Cirrus aircraft with half analogue and half glass cockpit display (Walczak, 2002).

Cirrus Aircraft have gained popularity and fame due to their glass cockpit technology.

Despite the analogue option, most Cirrus Aircraft are equipped with a glass cockpit. This is

because of the benefits a glass cockpit has to offer, such as lower workload and a higher level

of situational awareness. Following the success of the Cirrus Aircraft, other general aviation

manufacturers such as Cessna and Piper also incorporated glass cockpit technology into their

aircraft. As a result, a glass cockpit has become a standard option for any new general

aviation aircraft purchased today. Few aircraft are sold equipped with analogue instruments,

although, similar to the analogue options available with Cirrus Aircraft, other aircraft

manufacturers also offer the analogue cockpit option.

67

A glass cockpit offers the advantage of advanced automation. One of its benefits is

reduced pilot fatigue, as the automation controls the manual flying task. The autopilot was

first developed in the first decade of powered flight (Oakes, 2007); however, it was not until

the middle of the previous century that it had a significant impact on the industry. One of the

biggest changes it brought in was the automation of a flight engineer’s role (Knight, 2007),

which saw the reduction of the flight crew from three to two. Today, automation has evolved

by taking advantage of computing technology. Mechanical flight controls have been replaced

with digitalised controls, also known as fly-by-wire technology (Schmitt, Morris, & Jenney,

1998). This uses electrical signals to adjust the control surfaces of an aircraft, rather than

mechanical cables. This improvement in an aircraft’s cockpit also reduced the overall weight

of an aircraft. As a result, more paying passengers can be carried.

Figure 42: Cockpit of the Cessna 400 TTX (Michalzechen, 2015).

68

Figure 42 shows a glass cockpit from the Cessna 400. This is a full glass cockpit with

additional features. The PFD also includes additional information about the outside world.

This is called the synthetic vision display. This display provides geographical terrain

information, digitally recreating major natural and artificial landmarks to increase a pilot’s

navigational and spatial awareness. The backup instrument included in this cockpit also uses

digital screens. However, the power sources for the main instruments and the backup

instrument are different. Finally, this cockpit utilises the touch-screen technology, offering

additional opportunities.

Figure 43: Touch screen design concept by Thales (Avionics 2020, 2015).

69

The evolution of the cockpit is an ongoing process. The past decade saw the invention

of touch-screen technology. Aircraft manufacturers are taking advantage of this technology

and are conducting research to develop and incorporate it in the cockpit (Plant et al., 2013).

This will increase the productivity and performance of a pilot while flying an aircraft.

However, it will also introduce new challenges. The layout of the touch-screen technology

needs to be studied and understood. It is important to ensure that the screens are in easy reach

of a pilot, and it is important that the options not be accidentally selected on the touch screen.

An example of a futuristic cockpit is shown in Figure 43. This is a single touch

screen, fully integrated cockpit. This cockpit is still being developed by Thales and is

expected to be released in the next few years (Avionics 2020, 2015).

Aircraft manufacturers take advantage of new technology, integrating it into the

cockpit and improving pilots’ performance and aviation safety. However, with every new

inclusion come additional unknown challenges. Hence, it is important for human factors

researchers to continually study and understand how a pilot interacts with new types of

cockpit. The results of such research help reduce the human factors issues that arise due to a

cockpit transition.

70

Importance of Aviation Human Factors

Aircraft have evolved significantly in the past century, as a result of several factors.

One of the biggest reasons was the need for rapid improvement due to the popularity of the

jet aircraft as a mode of transporting passengers (Kaps & Phillips, 2004). This also required a

considerable amount of research and development from scientists in the aircraft

manufacturing industry, commercial airlines, government agencies and universities.

Research was conducted in several areas to design and assemble reliable and efficient

aircraft. These areas include aerodynamics, chemistry, economics, physics, mathematics and

engineering (Truitt & Kaps, 1995; Johnson, Hamilton, Gibson, & Hanna, 2006; Barker,

NewMyer, Truitt, Kaps, & Fuller, 1995). These areas help in the physical design and also

improve the efficiency of aircraft, such as better fuel consumption and increased passenger

capacity.

Aircraft were designed to be used by humans for humans. As a result, studying and

understanding how humans interact within an aircraft was, and still is, an important aspect of

the aircraft design process. Scientists conduct research in physiology, psychology, sociology

and other fields to make an aircraft human-friendly. Such research helps humans to use and

operate an aircraft competently and safely. It also provides additional benefits such as

reducing workload of pilots and increasing well-being of passengers. Aviation human factors

is one of the disciplines in which such research and development has been conducted. This

scientific discipline was created as the aviation industry expanded and there was a worldwide

71

demand for aviation safety. The definitions below highlight the importance of aviation human

factors.

Edwards (1988, p. 9) defined human factors as:

“Human factors (or ergonomics) may be defined as the technology concerned to

optimize the relationship between people and their activities by the systematic application of

the human sciences, integrated within a framework of system engineering.”

Christensen, Topmiller and Gill (1988, p. 7) defined human factors as:

“Human factors is an eclectic field encompassing disciplines such as psychology,

engineering, ergonomics, anthropometry and psychophysiology. Specifically, human factors

is that branch of science and technology that includes what is known and theorised about

human behavioural, cognitive, and biological characteristics that can be validly applied to

specification, design, evaluation, operation, maintenance of products, jobs tasks, and systems

to enhance safe, effective, and satisfying use by individuals, groups and organisations.”

In the aviation industry, human factors scientists conduct research to understand

various aspects of human performance. These include cockpit (flight deck) design (Graeber,

1999, Harris, 2011); sleep and fatigue (Wiener & Nagel, 1988); physical exercise suitable

while flying in an aircraft (Hawkins & Orlady, 1993); ground crew and passenger safety;

72

maintenance (Johnston, McDonald, & Fuller, 1994); pilot decision making (Martinussen &

Hunter, 2009); situational awareness (Salmon et al., 2009); flight instruction (Kaps &

Phillips, 2004); engineering the cockpit (Wickens, Gordon, Liu, & Lee, 1998; Abbott, 2001);

and several other topics (Jensen, 1997). The results of these studies help in making the

industry safer and expanding even more. For example, sleep and fatigue studies help in

understanding the circadian rhythm of pilots, enable better crew rostering, and assist in

scheduling breaks to avoid fatigue.

Flying an aircraft is a complex task. To fly safely, a pilot needs to acquire information

from several sources, including the instruments inside the aircraft and cues from the outside

world. They have to constantly change their attention between the different sources, and they

must acquire the information in a timely manner. This helps a pilot maintain good situational

awareness.

Situational Awareness

Situational awareness (SA) refers to a person’s ability to be aware of what is taking

place around him or her. A person can maintain a high level of SA by obtaining information

from his or her surroundings and knowing what is happening. Achieving SA is important in

any scenario and for everyone involved in that scenario. A surfer needs to be aware of the

intensity of the waves and also whether there is any unwanted wildlife in the area. Hikers

need to be aware of their geographical location, personal abilities and the weather conditions.

73

Knowing what is happening around a person can directly affect the person or can have

no relevance to the person at all. A person walking on the side of the road monitors the traffic

on the road to maintain a good level of SA. This information can be of great benefit to a

person if he or she is thinking of crossing the road; however, it might be of no relevance if he

or she is planning to stay on the same side of the road.

Situational awareness is not just achieved and maintained at an individual level. In

environments such as hospitals, SA also has to be maintained at a team level. In order to

successfully perform surgery on a patient, doctors and nurses have to maintain individual and

team-level SA. This helps the team members perform their individual tasks and their team

tasks in an efficient manner. Apart from people, SA is also affected by the equipment that is

being used. Modern technology helps people maintain good SA and conduct their tasks more

efficiently (Zhang et al., 2002). Understanding SA is important as it helps in improving

performance and reducing human error (Wright, Taekman, & Endsley, 2004).

In the aviation industry, a pilot must obtain information from several sources,

including the outside world, the copilot, cabin crew and air traffic controllers, to build a

picture of what is happening to and around the aircraft. Hence, SA in the aviation industry is

achieved and maintained at an individual and team level.

Achieving SA is important for a pilot. In order to land at an airport, a pilot needs to

acquire information about the airport and its altitude, and also about the elevation of the

terrain around the airport. To attain traffic awareness around that airport, a pilot can listen to

74

air traffic control and build a picture of the traffic density and movement around the airport.

While flying to a cross-country destination, a pilot has to be aware of the weather in the area

of the intended flight. Maintaining SA helps her or him to fly the aircraft safely.

A pilot can be highly skilled and experienced, but if she or he does not actively gather

information from the sources and maintain good SA then it can result in incidents or

accidents. This is because SA lays the groundwork for safely flying an aircraft.

Several scientists have defined situational awareness. Below is one of the commonly

used definitions (Endsley, 1995a, p. 36) :

“Situation awareness is the perception of the elements in the environment within a

volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their

status in the near future.”

According to Endsley’s (1995a) definition, there are three main levels of achieving

situational awareness. The first level is to gather the appropriate information from the

available sources. For a pilot, this information can be gathered from the flight instruments in

the aircraft’s cockpit. Information can also be obtained from the air traffic controllers and/or

other crew members, either in the aircraft or on the ground. For example, a pilot can obtain

traffic information from either the air traffic controller or the multi-function display. This

information builds the foundation on which a pilot can achieve situational awareness.

75

Without obtaining this information a pilot cannot build a picture of what is happening around

the aircraft, which is part of the next level of SA.

The second level requires a pilot to understand the information that she or he has

obtained. This level entails a pilot recognising the importance and relevance of the

information acquired. A pilot processes information and creates a mental model based on the

information attained. This model is a mental representation of what is happening around the

aircraft, and it helps a pilot understand the situation which the aircraft is in. For example,

after obtaining the traffic information, a pilot can understand the position of the traffic in

relation to his or her aircraft. This mental model also helps a pilot predict the future status of

the aircraft, which is part of the next level of SA.

The final level involves a pilot determining what is going to happen in the near future.

This requires a pilot to make appropriate predictions of the future, based on the information

that was gathered and understood. Following on from the previous example, a pilot can now

predict the flight path of the other traffic around his or her aircraft. This will help him or her

judge whether the other traffic creates a potential threat or not.

Achieving situational awareness based on these three levels not only helps a pilot be

aware of what is happening around the aircraft, it also helps the pilot know what will happen

in the near future. The above example helps us understand SA, and also illustrates the

importance of knowing what is going on around the aircraft to achieve a safe flight (Uhlarik

& Comerford, 2002). As illustrated above, without knowing and understanding the

76

information about the position of the traffic in the area, a pilot might not be able to maintain

the highest level of safety. This could lead to errors by a pilot, as she or he might detect the

traffic very late and have a near-miss encounter, or might not be aware of the traffic. This

could lead to a disaster.

SA is an important concept for both pilots and human factors scientists (Patrick &

Morgan, 2010). For a pilot, it is important to maintain good SA. For a scientist, it is important

to understand how a pilot’s performance is affected by his or her ability to achieve and

maintain SA. It is particularly important to understand the reasons for poor SA. Human

factors scientists strive to understand these issues and address them by conducting

appropriate research. In recognition of the importance of this concept, there is extensive

research being conducted in this area (Sorensen, Stanton, & Banks, 2011; Endsley &

Garland, 2000).

Each pilot can differ in the way he or she achieves and maintains SA (Endsley &

Bolstad, 1994). Individual differences in the ability to recognise, remember and interpret

information can help a pilot have a higher level of SA than others. The human being, the

operational environment and a pilot’s ability to interact with the environment help in

achieving SA (Stanton, Salmon, Walker, & Jenkins, 2010). It cannot be achieved just by a

pilot’s cognitive ability or the way information is presented in the environment. It is a

combination of all the three factors that helps a pilot to achieve and maintain SA.

77

Situational awareness is the first step in maintaining safe flying skills. Once a pilot

has a good level of SA, it helps her or him make good decisions at the right time. In contrast,

poor SA may result in making an inaccurate decision or not making the required decision at

all.

Decision Making

Decision making (DM) refers to a person’s ability to make choices based on obtained

information. Once a person is aware of the surroundings, he or she can then decide on the

actions to perform. Good decision making is vital to accomplishing goals successfully. A

surfer can decide whether or not to go surfing after being aware of the wave conditions. A

hiker can decide to go on a longer walk once she or he knows that it will not be too hot, or a

shorter walk if rain is forecast in a few hours.

Similar to SA, the decisions a person makes can affect him or her as well as others. A

pedestrian wanting to cross the road has to decide where to do so safely. This depends on a

person’s awareness of the traffic intensity. During peak hour traffic, the safest option might

be to walk to the nearest pedestrian crossing. This decision will help a pedestrian safely reach

the other side and will also make it easier for the motorists to maintain their safety.

Similar to SA, DM is also performed at an individual level and at the team level.

Doctors make decisions, with the help of nurses, to successfully perform surgery. This

78

requires team members to share the information obtained at individual level to make a joint

team decision. Decision making is also assisted by using additional equipment and/or

technology.

Decision making is a part of daily life and is required in every industry. It is not

unique to human beings only—even automated systems are programmed to make decisions.

Whether it is humans or systems, good decision making is essential for performing

appropriate and safe actions.

A shop manager has to make decisions about how much stock to order. This decision

ensures that there are enough products available at all times. It also safeguards the reputation

of the shop (Grigorak & Shkvar, 2011). A manager also makes many kinds of decisions to

continue and improve their service to the customers. Maintaining stock level is a regular

repetitive decision; however, obtaining new products for sale can be an innovative decision.

This requires her or him to conduct surveys analysing consumer needs. Such investigation

helps in determining which new products to introduce.

On the other hand, consumers are making more purchases online. Online shopping

offers several products to choose from and, due to the global nature of online stores, it also

offers the flexibility of buying products which are not locally available. Whilst technology

offers several advantages, it also changes the way a person makes a decision. For example,

online shopping requires a person to make purchase decisions in a different way than

shopping instore. With the vast options available online, a consumer can browse many

79

products at the same time. She or he chooses a small group of items from the available

products, and the smaller group is then further analysed based on personal needs and

requirements. This analysis can be detailed, and factors in the product’s features and

reputation. This is then followed by the final decision and the purchasing of a product (Häubl

& Trifts, 2000).

In the aviation industry, a pilot has to make many routine, and at times non-routine,

decisions to safely fly an aircraft. A pilot obtains information from several sources and then

uses that to make appropriate decisions that result in the successful completion of a flight. By

knowing the elevation of an airport and the terrain around the airport, a pilot can decide on a

safe altitude to maintain while on descent to land. While flying to a cross-country destination,

a pilot can also choose the best flight path by factoring in the weather conditions and

avoiding flying into cloud or severe turbulence. Finally, by listening to air traffic control, a

pilot can build a picture of other aircraft that are in close proximity, which helps avoid any

close encounters.

Decision making is defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (1991a, p. 4) as:

“Aeronautical decision making is a systematic approach to the mental process used

by aircraft pilots to consistently determine the best course of action in response to a given set

of circumstances.”

80

According to this definition, the step that precedes decision making is a pilot’s

knowledge of what is happening around the aircraft. In other words, a pilot must be

situationally aware and have the most up-to-date information of what is happening to and

around the aircraft. Having this information will help a pilot build a mental model of what is

happening, and will then help a pilot make suitable decisions.

Poor decision making will result in errors, which can lead to incidents or accidents

(Simpson, 2001). Hence, it is important to learn good decision-making skills. Some of these

skills can be learnt during training. For example, one of the emergencies that a pilot trains for

regularly is an engine failure. By practising the procedures to perform during an engine

failure, a pilot learns the decisions that have to be made. Such practice enables him or her to

make the correct decisions in the case of a real engine failure. This helps resolve the situation

quickly and with the least risk (Zsambok & Klein, 2014).

Not all scenarios can be scripted like an engine failure. One of the poorest decisions

that a general aviation pilot makes is flying into bad weather (Hunter, Martinussen, &

Wiggins, 2003). This can be due to several factors, including lack of awareness or

desperation to reach the destination. A pilot can often start a flight in good weather conditions

and experience deteriorating conditions while flying towards the destination. Hence, being

aware of weather patterns and alternative airports in the flight route area is important.

A low-hour general aviation pilot, especially a pilot who has not been trained to fly in

low visibility conditions, should avoid flying into areas of deteriorating weather. This

81

requires a pilot to obtain and understand the weather information regularly (Wiggins, Hunter,

O’Hare, & Martinussen, 2012). Regular information acquisition will help a pilot constantly

update his or her mental model. This helps in making appropriate decisions regarding

whether it is safe to keep flying.

Apart from detecting and comprehending the weather, he or she can also recollect

reports of other pilots’ experiences of flying into bad weather (O’Hare, Mullen, & Arnold,

2009). This will help a pilot realise the risks associated with the wrong decision and avoid an

unnecessary flight into poor weather conditions. If a pilot does encounter reduced visibility

while flying, then she or he has to utilise all available resources and skills to successfully

return to safety (O’Hare, 1992), such as communicating with air traffic controllers and using

on-board GPS to divert to a different airport.

Decision making is an active process. A pilot has to constantly make new decisions

and also revise old decisions if necessary. This requires a pilot to constantly update his or her

SA to determine if the previous decision needs changing or if a new decision needs to be

made. A good example of this is low-hour pilots making weather-related decisions, as

mentioned above. When a pilot receives information about bad weather, he or she will have

to act on it by making decisions to avoid it. Failure to make appropriate decisions has resulted

in pilots flying into deteriorating conditions that have caused accidents or incidents (Detwiler,

Holcomb, Hackworth, & Shappell, 2008). A pilot, especially a low-hour pilot, needs to

constantly update her or his awareness of the weather, because the weather constantly

changes and a novice pilot might not be equipped with the skills to handle adverse weather

(Hunter et al., 2003).

82

Individual differences such as personality also affect decision making (Wiegmann &

Goh, 2003). A pilot’s risk-taking personality might make him or her underestimate the

severity of weather in a certain area. This will provide an unrealistic confidence that she or he

can safely fly through the storm. In addition to the influence of a risk-taking personality, it is

also believed that a pilot who proceeds into deteriorating conditions might not precisely

understand the severity of the conditions (Wiegmann & Goh, 2003). This is a result of poor

awareness of the conditions. As a result, a pilot who has the best SA can make appropriate

decisions and choose not to fly into poor conditions. Apart from the individual personality, a

pilot can also make risky decisions when there are time constraints (Grigorak & Shkvar,

2011). If a pilot has to reach the destination at a certain time, there is a higher chance of

continuing to fly the original planned route even if there is bad weather predicted in the area.

Decision making is a vital task that every pilot has to perform. It is important to

understand how a pilot makes decisions to reduce the number of incidents (Murray, 1997).

Situational awareness and decision-making skills help in managing workload.

Workload

Managing workload is an important skill to learn. It is important for every human

being to be able to manage his or her work in a timely and orderly fashion, whether as a

student, an employee of a large organisation, a postal delivery driver or even a parent.

83

A postal delivery driver has to deliver a certain number of parcels to the customers

within a given time frame. This is achieved by planning the best route to all the different

customer locations. If a driver is running late, then there will be delays in delivery. A driver

might try to improve his or her performance by speeding or taking short cuts. This increases

the risk of error, which could result in an accident. Errors can be made by taking the wrong

turn and getting lost, and an accident can occur if a driver exceeds the speed limit allowed on

a certain road and is unable to stop in time at the traffic lights.

Workload cannot be avoided; however, it can be delegated to other people. To

maintain integrity and reliability a person has to complete the assigned workload by himself

or herself. This requires proper workload management skills, which will result in the

successful completion of a task. This will also allow for the task to be completed safely, as

risks will not be taken to speed up the process and get the task done on time.

For the purpose of this discussion, time management will also be included with

workload management, since workload management is generally determined by the amount

of time available (Kember & Leung, 1998).

Similar to situational awareness and decision making, workload management can also

be achieved at an individual and team level. Tasks completed as a team require the work to be

evenly distributed and completed. Additional equipment also helps in managing and reducing

the workload, while completing tasks by the deadline.

84

In the education industry, students are often required to complete assignments as a

group. This requires them to distribute the task amongst the group members with everyone

making an equal contribution. This also requires the group to come together regularly to

discuss the overall progress and work completed. Finally, they have to integrate individual

components into one report. Equipment, such as computers and online storage platforms,

helps the group to easily integrate the individual contributions into one report.

A student is often placed under immense workload. Educational institutions have

increased the amount of work performed by a student to offer competitive qualifications. The

design of courses and classes has always been a challenge. In order to be successful, a student

not only has to attend classes, but also has to spend time outside scheduled classes to study

(Kember & Leung, 1998). The workload is high not only for a student but also for the

teacher. One of the reasons for this is reduced staff levels due to the economic pressures,

meaning that fewer teachers are required to take an increasing number of classes and spend

time between classes to grade assignments (Easthope & Easthope, 2000).

In the aviation industry, a pilot encounters an enormous workload. The workload

starts well before a pilot enters the aircraft, beginning with pre-flight checks and other

preparations. She or he also has to perform a considerable amount of work after the flight is

complete. The level of workload is unevenly spread, as it varies during different phases of the

flight (Wilson, 2002). For example, the cruise phase has one of the lowest levels of workload

85

and the landing phase has one of the highest. During the busy phases a pilot manages the

workload with the help of the copilot and the available equipment to safely fly the aircraft.

Workload is a combination of a pilot being situationally aware, making appropriate

decisions, and performing accurate actions (Orlady & Orlady, 1999). For example, while

landing an aircraft a pilot has to constantly monitor the cockpit instruments to obtain the

necessary information. In particular, a pilot has to monitor the airspeed to ensure that the

aircraft’s speed is within the recommended range. Regular monitoring will help him or her

achieve situational awareness and make appropriate decisions. If the aircraft is landing at the

recommended speed, then a pilot only has to make small adjustments to the power to

maintain the landing profile. This situation presents a pilot with a normal level of workload.

In the same scenario, if the aircraft was approaching the runway at a higher speed,

then the workload of a pilot increases as he or she has to make more decisions and perform

more actions to bring the speed within the recommended range. The best solution for a pilot

in this scenario is to go around and come back for a second landing attempt. By doing so, he

or she will be solving the problem of an unstable approach and achieving a successful landing

on the second attempt. This also ensures a pilot practises safe flying skills.

The workload of a pilot affects his or her flying performance (Morris & Leung, 2006;

Svensson, Angelborg-Thanderez, Sjöberg, & Olsson, 1997). A pilot who experiences higher

than normal workload can have difficulty concentrating and accomplishing a task. She or he

can make errors while performing a routine task like tracking and maintaining the assigned

86

heading. This can reduce situational awareness and increase the risk of errors. A pilot can

also reflect on his or her past experiences to perceive the workload of the situation they

encounter (Hancock, Williams, & Manning, 1995). Such recollection helps in better

management of the workload.

Workload can be measured using subjective questionnaires. One of the well-accepted

workload questionnaires in the aviation industry is the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX) (Hart & Staveland, 1988; Hart, 2006; NASA,

1986); refer to Appendix J. This questionnaire includes six questions which require a person

(or a pilot) to rate her or his perceived workload. A pilot is required to rate the workload on a

twenty-point Likert Scale. The six questions address mental demand, physical demand,

temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration level.

The question on mental demand requires a pilot to rate how hard he or she had to

think while completing the task. The physical demand question requires a pilot to rate how

physically demanding the task was. The question on temporal demand requires a pilot to rate

whether or not he or she felt that sufficient time was available to complete the task. The

performance question requires a pilot to self-judge how well she or he performed on the task.

The effort question requires a pilot to indicate how much effort she or he had to put in to

complete the task. Finally, a pilot has to rate her or his level of frustration while completing

the task.

87

After completing the rating scales, a pilot has to weigh which loads she or he feels

contributes more towards the workload. A pilot is provided with fifteen combinations of two

loads, for example effort vs temporal demand, frustration level vs physical demand. A pilot

has to pick the one he or she felt contributed more towards the workload while completing

the task. This allows the researcher to calculate an overall workload score for the pilot.

The NASA TLX helps researchers gather data on workload. Although the

questionnaire provides subjective data, it helps scientists understand how a pilot perceives the

workload intensity. The results from such research help in improving pilot performance and

aviation safety (Warm, Dember, & Hancock, 1996). The immense success of this

questionnaire in the aviation industry has resulted in it also being incorporated into other

industries (Hart, 2006).

Workload is affected by a pilot’s situational awareness and decision-making skills. A

pilot can maintain and achieve good situational awareness by acquiring the information from

the instruments regularly. It helps him or her in decision making and in performing necessary

actions, thereby reducing the workload. Instruments help a pilot obtain a lot of important

information; hence, proper display of instruments and layout of information is crucial.

Technology has changed the instrument display and information layout in the cockpit,

providing benefits of reduced workload and improved situational awareness due to the

immense amount of information presented on the flight instrument. Finally, technology has

also introduced new features such as automation and the autopilot.

88

Automation Technology

With the advent of computer technology, automation has become a part of daily life.

Every industry is taking advantage of technology to improve efficiency. At the same time,

technology also has some disadvantages. For example, a car-manufacturing company uses

automation technology to increase the number of cars produced per year. This is done by

increasing the speed at which cars are manufactured, as automated processes can yield higher

productivity while maintaining efficiency. On the other hand, the negative effect of this is the

reduction in the number of employees. Since automation technology can replace a lot of

manual labour, fewer employees are required. These employees also take on a different role,

monitoring the automation and the overall system rather than performing manual activities

themselves. Another disadvantage is that automation requires a much higher initial expense.

In order to buy and install an automated product, large capital is required, and the cost takes

years to recuperate before the company can start making profit as a result of the automated

product.

The aviation industry is no exception. In fact, automation technology is widely used

in aviation. Aircraft manufacturing companies are developing new aircraft using a high level

of automation. One of the biggest areas of automation in a modern aircraft is the cockpit. This

is because a pilot prefers the benefits it provides and automation offers great reliability during

a normal flight. A pilot also exhibits a great deal of confidence in the automated systems

when it is performing as expected (Muir, 1994; Muir & Moray, 1996).

89

Automation has also introduced a new type of aircraft, the unmanned aerial vehicle

(UAV) (Gottschalk, 1996; Dalamagkidis, Valavanis, & Piegl, 2011). This is a fully

automated aircraft that flies just like a conventional aircraft. The only difference is in the

cockpit. Most of these aircraft do not have a traditional cockpit, as they are fully automated

and a pilot is not required to be physically sitting in the aircraft. Instead, a pilot can be located

in an office on the other side of the world. She or he can also be managing and controlling

more than one UAV simultaneously. Such a task is only possible because the UAVs are

highly automated.

This technology has become popular in military aviation and is being used widely due

to its greater operational flexibility. Also, in the case of an accident the government loses an

expensive aircraft but, with a UAV, they preserve a much greater asset: the human pilot.

Despite the popularity in military aviation, UAVs have not gained popularity in the

commercial airline industry yet. This is mainly because fare-paying passengers feel more

comfortable having a human pilot physically present in an aircraft’s cockpit, available to

bring the aircraft to safety in an emergency (MacSween-George, 2003).

The modern cockpit takes advantage of automation to provide a pilot with plenty of

information. At times, a pilot is provided with more information than required (Curtis,

Jentsch, & Wise, 2010). This information allows a pilot to maintain a high level of situational

awareness and helps in making appropriate and timely decisions. A pilot’s decision making

and action execution are also made easier in an automated cockpit. For example, a pilot can

overlay traffic and weather information on the instruments, allowing her or him to choose the

90

best route for a cross-country flight. Finally, automation reduces a pilot’s workload; not only

does it provide abundant information, it can also perform several tasks using the autopilot.

Technology has made it possible to perform tasks that could not previously be

performed. One of the best examples is the autopilot, which today is advanced and is capable

of performing even the most complex flying tasks. It helps a pilot fly for much longer than

was possible before its introduction. This is because it does not require manual control of an

aircraft, therefore a pilot’s fatigue is reduced and he or she can fly for longer durations. This

changes the role of a pilot, as she or he is no longer actively controlling an aircraft. Instead he

or she is passively monitoring the aircraft’s systems. This affects the pilot’s performance in

an aircraft’s cockpit, because, while flying in an automated aircraft, a pilot trusts the autopilot

to perform the correct actions.

Automation is reliable and a pilot who utilises it regularly develops a significant

amount of trust in it (Mosier, Skitka, Heers, & Burdick, 1998). This eventually results in

reduced monitoring and crosschecking of its accuracy. Apart from not checking the accuracy,

a pilot also does not confirm with other crew members about its accuracy (Bowers, Deaton,

Oser, Prince, & Kolb, 1995). A pilot may not scan the instruments in an automated cockpit in

the same way as a non-automated aircraft (Endsley, 1996). Automation has the capability to

perform a lot of actions in the background without a pilot’s knowledge. When combined with

the reduced level of monitoring by the pilot, this characteristic puts the pilot out of the loop

about what the automation, or the aircraft, is doing (Endsley & Kiris, 1995).

91

Automation results in over-trusting by pilots, which is called automation-induced

complacency (Singh, Molloy, & Parasuraman, 1993). A pilot who is complacent and does not

constantly monitor the instruments will not have good situational awareness. This can have

negative implications when a pilot has to make decisions, and it affects his or her workload,

particularly in the case of an emergency.

Automation offers several advantages and disadvantages. All the issues discussed

such as situational awareness, decision making and workload can be experienced either

positively or negatively when flying in an automated aircraft. Automated cockpits provide a

lot of information to a pilot, and make decision making easier and faster (Crocoll & Coury,

1990). However, this can also be a problem as more time might be spent searching for the

required information (Hamblin, Miller, & Naidu, 2006). There is evidence to suggest that

automation reduces workload (Billings, 1991). This is an advantage, but others have also

suggested that a lower level of workload can lead to loss of awareness of the situation (Durso

& Alexander, 2010). This is because workload and situational awareness are related. Periods

of higher or lower workload can affect a pilot’s attentional ability. There have been

suggestions made to instead have a balance between workload and automation (Harris,

Hancock, Arthur, & Caird, 1995). However, this works best when the operations are normal

and no abnormal or emergency situations arise (Endsley, 1999).

A pilot who is familiar with the automated display in the cockpit is able to use it much

more efficiently than someone who has never experienced it before (Meintel, 2004). A pilot

who has never used automation might be overwhelmed by it and can be fixated on a

particular task (Endsley & Strauch, 1997). For example, a pilot flying in an automated

92

cockpit can spend too much time looking at an instrument trying to understand the

information that is being presented. Hence, automation requires additional knowledge and

skills to operate (Wise, Tilden, Abbott, Dyck, & Guide, 1994). Due to its complexity, a pilot

has to learn about the automated cockpit and also the extra information that it provides. They

have to learn how to use it properly and learn the functions that the automation can perform

in the background. This requires additional training before a pilot can successfully operate it

(Billings, 1997).

As mentioned earlier, automated aircraft are capable of performing tasks in the

background without a pilot’s input or knowledge. This could potentially put a pilot out of the

loop. If a pilot is out of the loop, then the benefits offered by automation can be instantly

eliminated, particularly in an emergency. During such an event, a pilot ideally takes full

manual control of the aircraft. If he or she is not aware of the tasks that automation has

completed in the background, then a pilot faces additional challenges and workload on top of

the emergency situation. This increases the chances of mistakes made by a pilot (Norman,

1990).

An example of this is stall recovery. When an aircraft is climbing at a high pitch

angle, the autopilot might use significant nose-up trim to maintain the rate of climb. This also

affects the speed performance of an aircraft. An unexpected change in weather, such as a

strong gust of wind, can result in a stall. Once an aircraft enters a stall, a pilot might

disengage the autopilot and take full manual control. She or he reduces the pitch angle to gain

speed and to recover to a normal flight. However, this action might not instantly produce a

93

successful result if a pilot is not aware of the high nose-up trim status. This was the reason for

the 2009 Air France accident (BEA, 2012), and is discussed further in the following section.

Automation technology helps a pilot achieve and maintain a high level of situational

awareness, make good decisions and reduce workload. It helps a pilot not only during normal

flying conditions but also during abnormal situations or emergencies.

Normal vs Emergency

In the event of an emergency, a pilot uses years of theoretical knowledge and practical

experience to achieve safety. This helps him or her to not only survive, but also to handle the

event calmly and confidently. At the same time, automated technology can assist in dealing

with the event and successfully resolving the problem.

In the aviation industry, an emergency situation is potentially fatal. An emergency has

to be handled quickly and efficiently to avoid a disaster. A pilot who experiences an

emergency has to control the situation either individually or with the help of the copilot or

other crew members. If a copilot is present, the workload can be shared to reduce the stress

and increase the performance. However, if a pilot is flying individually, then he or she has to

use the available resources, including technology, to reach safety.

94

One example of an emergency in the aviation industry is engine failure. During such

an event, a pilot must land at the nearest airport as soon as possible. However, this is only

possible if an aircraft has several engines and only one has failed. In a smaller, single-engine

aircraft, an engine failure would require a pilot to land in the nearest open area like a farm

paddock or a sports field. With the loss of the only working engine, a pilot has no power

source to keep flying and instead the aircraft’s gliding ability is used to reach the open area

and safely land. A pilot practises such a scenario several times during training. Hence, in the

event of a real emergency, the procedures are clearly known (Burian, Barshi, & Dismukes,

2005). However, other unanticipated situations might require a pilot to use every available

resource and skill to respond to the situation.

Handling an emergency situation during flight requires the highest priority. This is

because the number of options available might be limited. It also comes with an additional

time challenge. An emergency might be unique and require a pilot to act quickly due to the

limited time available (Burian et al., 2003). In the above example of a single-engine aircraft

with engine failure, a pilot does not have the flexibility of a second landing attempt. Because

the first attempt is the only chance to get the aircraft safely on the ground, prompt action is

required. This might also present unique challenges as there might be limited open spaces in a

populated area.

A pilot’s situational awareness, decision-making skills and workload have to be

maintained and managed efficiently during an emergency. Any error could reduce the

likelihood of attaining safety. Although an emergency situation might not have a prescribed

solution, it is important to follow the basic flying principles (Schutte & Trujillo, 1996). This

95

includes flying an aircraft first and making sure that it is operated within its performance

capabilities; navigating towards the intended location or destination; and communicating with

others about the aircraft’s status.

By following the above strategy, a pilot can manage the situation more efficiently and

reduce the potential number of mistakes he or she might make. Planning and managing the

situation is also an important part of handling an emergency. With a highly automated

cockpit, a pilot has the option to utilise it to her or his advantage. This can be done by getting

additional information from the displays and spending time planning the actions (Johannsen

& Rouse, 1983). This increases the likelihood of a safe landing.

Reducing incidents and accidents is a high priority for human factors scientists. The

aviation industry uses a secure and confidential incident reporting system to learn and keep a

track of near misses and other events. One of the most popular examples is the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Aviation Safety Reporting System, NASA ASRS

(NASA, 1976; Reynard, 1986). This system has improved aviation safety by acting on

previous incidents and preventing such events from happening again (Degani, Chappell, &

Hayes, 1991). The positive results obtained from this system have resulted in similar systems

being incorporated into other industries (Wu, Pronovost, & Morlock, 2002).

Human factors scientists aiming to improve safety in the medical industry conduct

research similar to that of the aviation industry (Barach & Small, 2000). The medical industry

also utilises a similar method of reporting emergencies as the aviation industry, such as the

96

Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS). ICUSRS reports are also

confidential and voluntary (Holzmueller et al., 2005), allowing the medical industry to

improve safety by learning from past mistakes (Degani et al., 1991).

Handling an emergency situation properly and quickly is a very important skill for a

pilot to master. Poor management of the situation could lead to an accident.

Aviation Accidents

An accident occurs when an emergency is not handled properly. Accidents can be a

result of mistakes made by humans or machines. A person operating heavy machinery might

lose control of the equipment due to brake failure and this could result in an accident.

Alternatively, she or he might lose control due to operating the machinery outside its

recommended operating procedures.

Accidents can involve just an individual or several people. An example of an accident

involving a single person is a motorist losing control of a car she or he is driving and crashing

into a tree. An accident involving several people might include a motorist losing control of a

car in the city centre and injuring others on the sidewalk.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB, 2015, para. 1) defines an aviation

accident and an aviation incident as:

97

“An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft

that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight

and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious

injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.”

“An incident is an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the

safety of operations.”

As the definition states, an accident can lead to injuries or fatalities, and injuries can

be serious or minor. An incident is not as serious, but still affects safety. Each country has its

own aviation safety authority that aims to investigate incidents or accidents and reduce them

in the future. These authorities and their investigation processes will not be discussed here, as

it is outside the scope of this thesis.

Aviation accidents and incidents can be a result of several factors (Aeronautica Civil

of the Republic of Columbia, 1996). Human error is one of the biggest reasons (AOPA, 2006;

AOPA, 2010; Lenné, Ashby, & Fitzharris, 2008). This error could be made by many people,

for example a pilot in the cockpit, an engineer maintaining an aircraft, or an air traffic

controller. Finally, an error made by crew can also be detected and corrected before it results

in an accident. Below are some examples of accidents and incidents that have resulted from

human error. It is important to note that the accidents discussed below are a result of several

98

contributing factors, but for this brief discussion only the errors relevant to this thesis will be

mentioned.

Air France flight AF 4590 (BEA, 2000) is an example of an accident caused by an

error made by a maintenance engineer. This accident occurred on 25 July 2000 and involved

a single Aerospatiale Concorde passenger aircraft (Figure 44). Continental Airlines flight CO

55 was also indirectly involved in this accident. The aircraft used by Continental Airlines was

a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 passenger aircraft.

Figure 44: The Air France Aerospatiale Concorde aircraft involved in the July 2000 accident,

photographed seven years prior to accident (Dallot, 1993).

99

The Concorde flight was schedule to fly from Charles de Gaulle International Airport

in Paris, France, to John F Kennedy International Airport in New York, United States of

America. While taking off, the aircraft tyre ran over foreign object debris (FOD) on the

runway. This resulted in a tyre blowout and caused a large piece of the tyre to hit and

puncture the fuel tank. The ruptured fuel tank caught fire and caused the aircraft’s engine to

fail. The pilots were unable to control the crippled aircraft and it crashed soon after take-off.

All crew and passengers on board the aircraft perished.

The accident was attributed to a number of causes. However, the main reason was that

the aircraft ran over a metal strip that was on the runway. This FOD was left on the runway

by a Continental Airlines DC-10 aircraft that took off from the same runway approximately

five minutes earlier. The reason for the FOD being dropped on the runway by the DC-10 was

attributed to poor maintenance.

The DC-10 was maintained approximately a month prior to this accident. The metal

strip was incorrectly replaced on the DC-10’s engine. The strip was not installed according to

the manufacturer’s specifications, which resulted in the metal strip breaking loose and falling

on the runway on the day of the accident. If the maintenance engineer had made the correct

decision and did not make the error, this accident would have been avoided.

The Überlingen midair collision (BFU, 2004) is an example of an accident caused by

an air traffic controller’s error. This accident involved two aircraft that collided in midair

while cruising at high altitude. It occurred on 1 July 2002 and involved Bashkirian Airlines

100

flight V9 2937 and Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn (DHL) flight QY 611. The Bashkirian Airline

aircraft was a Tupolev Tu154 passenger aircraft, and the DHL aircraft was a Boeing 757-200

cargo aircraft (shown in Figure 45).

Figure 45: The DHL Boeing 757-200 aircraft that was involved in the July 2002 accident,

photographed one month prior to the accident (Gladines, 2002).

The Bashkirian Airline flight originated from Domodedovo International Airport in

Moscow, Russia, and was flying to Barcelona International Airport in Barcelona, Spain. The

DHL flight was flying from Orio al Serio International Airport in Bergamo, Italy, to Brussels

International Airport in Brussels, Belgium. The two aircraft collided while flying towards

their destination. They collided over the township of Überlingen in southern Germany.

101

The aircraft were at thirty-six thousand feet and flying towards each other. The air

traffic controller noticed this problem at the last minute. The controller, whose workload was

high, asked the Bashkirian Airline crew to descend to thirty-five thousand feet. Both aircraft

had technology on board to prevent the accident, called the traffic collision avoidance system

(TCAS). While the controller asked the crew to descend to thirty-five thousand feet, the

TCAS instructed the crew to climb to a higher altitude. At the same time, the TCAS in the

DHL aircraft instructed the crew to descend to avoid a collision.

The DHL aircraft descended to a lower altitude. The Bashkirian Airline aircraft

ignored the TCAS, and followed the air traffic controller’s instruction and also descended to

a lower altitude. Both the aircraft descended to thirty-five thousand feet, where they collided.

There were no survivors as a result of this collision.

Although there were several factors involved in this accident, the error made by the

air traffic controller was one of the biggest causes. If the controller had noticed the potential

collision course of the two aircraft, he could have diverted one of them earlier. However, he

did not notice the problem until it was too late. Not only was the controller’s workload high,

his situational awareness was low. This resulted in poor decision making by him. The pilots

could have also prevented this accident by following the instructions issued by TCAS.

However, they decided to follow the controller’s instruction instead. They also had a low

level of awareness regarding the technology available in the cockpit.

102

Air France flight AF 447 (BEA, 2012) is an example of an accident caused due to an

error made by the pilots. This accident involved a single aircraft, an Airbus A330-200

passenger aircraft, shown in Figure 46. It occurred on 1 June 2009.

Figure 46: The Air France Airbus A330-200 aircraft that was involved in the June 2009

accident, photographed five months prior to the accident (Balzer, 2009).

The aircraft was flying from Galeao International Airport in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to

Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris, France. The aircraft took off and was

cruising towards the European destination. While in the cruise phase over the Atlantic Ocean,

the aircraft experienced high altitude icing. This resulted in conflicting speed readings

103

between the pilot’s and copilot’s flight instruments. As a result, the autopilot was

disconnected and the crew took control of the aircraft.

The crew exhibited poor situational awareness and decision-making skills. They did

not understand the situation properly and applied the incorrect technique to handle it. Despite

their experience, they did not follow the standard operating procedures outlined by the

manufacturer in the case of inconsistency in the display of airspeed. The pilot flying the

aircraft did not know that the aircraft was flying too slowly, and erroneously increased the

pitch of the aircraft. This action resulted in a high-altitude stall. Moreover, when manual

control was taken, the status of the trim setting was also not comprehended. Hence, the

aircraft did not recover from the stall and everyone on board the aircraft perished.

This accident is also a good example of a pilot’s overdependence on automation.

Today all commercial passenger aircraft are fully automated and offer the autopilot.

Autopilot is used extensively by pilots while flying in a modern commercial aircraft. Only the

take-off and landing phases are manually performed by a pilot. As a result, a pilot does not

spend an extensive amount of time manually flying an aircraft in other phases of flight. A

pilot spends most of the time monitoring the flight instruments and the autopilot. Such over-

reliance on automation also has negative implications, one of which is the lack or degradation

of manual flying skills. This was one of the main contributing factors in the Air France AF

447 accident.

104

Emirates flight EK 407 (ATSB, 2009) is an example of an incident that could have

resulted in a major accident. However, in this scenario an error made by the pilot was

discovered and preventative actions were taken. This incident involved a single aircraft, an

Airbus A340-500 passenger aircraft, shown in Figure 47. It occurred on 20 March 2009.

Figure 47: The Emirates Airbus A340-500 aircraft that was involved in the March 2009

incident, photographed at Tullamarine after the incident (Canciani, 2009).

The flight was scheduled to fly from Melbourne Tullamarine International Airport,

Australia, to Dubai International Airport, United Arab Emirates. The aircraft experienced

difficulty during the take-off phase, as an incorrect amount of thrust was used. This was a

result of pilot error. The total weight of the aircraft was entered erroneously in the flight

105

management system during the pre-push-back preparations. This incorrect entry was not

detected by either crew members prior to the take-off phase. However, the error was detected

and rectified while rolling on the runway during the take-off phase.

During the take-off phase, the captain noticed the situation and applied maximum

power immediately. This helped the aircraft get airborne, but it incurred damage from a tail

strike. Figure 47 shows the section of the aircraft where the damage occurred. The aircraft

made it back to the airport safely and no one was hurt. This incident is an example of the pilot

being aware of the situation and promptly making the correct decision to attain safety.

This incident is also an example of improper usage and understanding of the

automation, which was poorly managed. An automated aircraft requires a lot of time to be

spent on systems management. One of the biggest tasks in an automated aircraft is entering

data into the flight management system (FMS), one of the main components of a modern

aircraft. The FMS helps a pilot manage the flight path, autopilot, auto throttle, etc. Accurate

entry of data into the FMS is important for the safety of the flight. In the Emirates EK 407

incident, the data was not entered correctly, and the weight that was entered was 100 tonnes

too low. As a result, the FMS calculated and recommended a lower thrust for take-off.

The above examples provide an insight into how incidents or accidents have resulted

from human error in the aviation industry. Such errors can be made due to many factors, such

as a lack of situational awareness, poor decision making, and lack of automation

understanding.

106

Human Error

Aviation safety authorities around the world collect data on accidents and incidents, to

investigate the cause of each in an attempt to avoid a similar event in future (NTSB, 2015;

Wells, 2001; Helmreich, 2000). Each of the above-mentioned events has been investigated by

the relevant safety organisations, and a report has been prepared on each, detailing the causes

and steps to prevent such occurrences from happening again.

Although a pilot is a highly skilled and trained individual, she or he can still make

errors by failing to pay attention to the available information. This information can be

displayed on the flight instruments in the cockpit, offered by cues in the outside world, or

communicated by other crew members. It is also possible to make mistakes by skipping or

forgetting to complete all the steps in the checklist. Finally, a pilot can perform an action and

the outcome might not be as expected, resulting in a decision-making error (Endsley, 1995a;

Sarter & Alexander, 2000; Endsley & Rodgers, 1994).

Errors are not always a result of pilot incompetence. Instead, they could be a

consequence of the threats in the operational environment. Errors made by a pilot could be

due to the time pressure that he or she is placed under, unexpected malfunctions with the

aircraft, or a mistake made by another human outside the aircraft (Helmreich & Anca, 2010).

107

As discussed in the previous section, human error is one of the main causes of

aviation accidents. It is estimated that three in every four accidents are caused by human error

(Sarter & Alexander, 2000); that is, 70% to 80% of all aviation accidents are caused by

mistakes or errors made by humans. It is not possible to expect humans to not make any

mistakes (Shappell & Wiegmann, 1997). Instead, it is important to attempt to reduce the

number of errors made by humans (Garland, Wise, & Hopkin, 2010; Green, 1996).

This requires aircraft manufacturers, commercial airlines and government agencies to

support and encourage a pilot to recognise and reduce his or her error rate (Sarter &

Alexander, 2000). Instead of blaming a pilot for making mistakes, it is important to help him

or her understand human limitations (Dekker, 2012). Apart from focusing just on a pilot, the

operations in the entire aviation industry need to be studied. This will help to understand all

the operational threats that can potentially cause pilot error. It will also allow a pilot to

improve his or her performance, which will increase the safety of the aviation industry

(Helmreich & Davies, 2004).

In particular, it is important to understand the potential problems that can arise when

there is a change introduced in the aviation industry. Introducing change in any industry can

be challenging. Change is introduced for several reasons. It can be either necessary or

voluntary. Typically, systems and procedures are changed to enhance existing products and

services. However, this comes with initial drawbacks and difficulties (Hayes, 2014).

108

It takes time to reap the benefits of introducing a change, particularly a major change.

During this period, it is important to ensure that the current tasks are being performed

flawlessly. Change requires dedication by the users and supervisors for successful execution.

Finally, it requires additional work on top of the existing load to cope with and manage the

change (Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005).

It is important for everyone to accept and positively implement the change. This is

particularly important for supervisors (Aladwani, 2001). Managing change efficiently is vital

and poor management can result in resistance from users (Waddell & Sohal, 1998), which

can result in a failure to incorporate the change. Research conducted to understand the effects

of change helps in successful management (Todnem, 2005; Kramer & Magee, 1990). Such

research describes the theory behind change management. For example, they mention the

different types of change and offer strategies to successful implementation.

Training is an important part of implementing a change in any industry (Hayes, 2014).

In the aviation industry, proper training helps a pilot to cope with the change efficiently and

maintain safe flying skills. Improper training can result in unwanted incidents or accidents.

The challenges of introducing a change are especially emphasised during an emergency. This

can be highlighted with an example of an accident from the aviation industry.

British Midlands flight BD 92 (AAIB, 1990) is an example of an accident that was

caused by a lack of transition training. This accident, also known as the Kegworth accident,

occurred on the 8 January 1989. It involved a single aircraft, a Boeing 737-400.

109

The aircraft was scheduled to fly from Heathrow International Airport in London,

United Kingdom, to Belfast International Airport in Belfast, United Kingdom. While en

route, the aircraft suffered a mechanical failure, which also resulted in the cabin being filled

with smoke through the air conditioner unit. The aircraft diverted to Kegworth in

Leicestershire, United Kingdom, to execute an emergency landing.

While diverting to Kegworth, the crew diagnosed the problem and tried to manage it.

The crew were not aware of the situation that unfolded, they used the wrong mental models

to handle it, and made incorrect decisions as a result. They tackled the problem with their

knowledge of the previous type of aircraft that they were used to.

In order to prevent the cabin being filled with smoke, the crew shut down the right-

hand engine, where they thought the air conditioner unit was installed. However, the crew

was flying a new type of aircraft, which included a different air conditioning system. As such,

the crew shut down the only working engine. Unaware of the aircraft’s status, the crew also

pumped fuel into the malfunctioning engine, which caused further deterioration in the

situation. The aircraft was unable to safely reach the airport it was diverted to, and it crashed

only half a kilometre from the runway. More than a third of the passengers died and over half

were seriously injured.

This accident is a good example of pilot error made because of a change in

information layout and poor training. Flight simulator training is provided to a pilot when she

110

or he transitions from one type of aircraft to another. This helps a pilot learn the similarities

and differences in the new type of aircraft. The crew that were involved in the Kegworth

accident were not provided with any simulator training. Hence, they were not familiar with

the 737-400 aircraft’s systems and instruments and they used their knowledge and skills from

the 737-300 aircraft to manage the emergency situation.

There are substantial differences between the aircraft. The engine instruments use

different methods to provide information to the pilots. Whereas the 300 series has big needles

inside the instrument, the 400 series includes a smaller light-emitting diode (LED) indicator

to show the engine’s vibration. This resulted in difficulty obtaining information. The 300

series also has an unreliable vibration indicator, whereas the 400 series includes reliable

indicators. However, the pilots were unaware of this enhancement due to their inadequate

training. Despite the improvements made in the newer 400 series aircraft, the pilots exhibited

poor situational awareness and decision making due to lack of transition training. This

resulted in improperly managing an event that could have resulted in a safe landing if the

single working engine been used.

The above accident highlights the importance of training when making a transition

from one type of aircraft to another. The differences between the two types of aircraft were

not significant. However, even such small modifications resulted in a major disaster. This

accident shows that a small change in instrument display and information layout is very

important to understand, and pilots must be educated about it. If a small change needs to be

studied, then a bigger change needs extensive research to understand the human factors

implications.

111

Cockpit Transition

When the modern glass cockpit was introduced in the aviation industry, it was a

revolutionary change. This required considerable research and understanding of the new

cockpit technology to ensure successful implementation. For example, one of the challenges a

pilot faced after transition was being unaware of what the automation was doing in the

background. This problem was understood through research, and it was suggested that a pilot

be given regular feedback by the automation to help her or him be aware of the automation

status (Woods & Cook, 2002). A pilot was also offered training before making a transition

from an analogue cockpit aircraft to an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit.

Today, pilots in the aviation industry are making a new kind of transition. As

mentioned in Chapter 1, more pilots are making a transition from a glass cockpit to an

analogue cockpit aircraft. Due to the differences in instrument displays and information

layout, a pilot’s ability to scan and acquire information from the two types of cockpit can be

different. As discussed in the previous section, acquiring information forms the basis of safe

flying skills. It builds a pilot’s situational awareness and allows him or her to make good

decisions and perform appropriate actions.

Understanding a pilot’s attention strategies is very important. This is because if a pilot

does not pay attention to the available information, he or she can make mistakes. A survey

conducted in 1996 showed that approximately three-quarters of the situational awareness

112

errors made by a pilot were due to a failure to monitor and obtain data from the instruments

and the outside world (Jones & Endsley, 1996). In other words, this is a failure at the first

level of situational awareness. Regular attention or scanning of available information is a

vital skill a pilot has to learn and maintain to safely fly an aircraft.

Regular monitoring is an active process that all pilots have to perform, and it can be

easily hindered. A disruption, such as from a conversation with another crew member or a

warning light flashing, can affect the way a pilot monitors the instruments and the outside

world following the distraction (Debroise, 2010; Flight Safety Foundation, 2014). This can

also affect a pilot who makes a transition between cockpit types. A disruption in scanning

patterns in an unfamiliar analogue cockpit could make it even more challenging to regain.

The modern glass cockpit is highly advanced and automated, which makes a pilot rely

extensively on the automation. This results in him or her not monitoring the instruments

regularly (Skitka, Mosier, Burdick, & Rosenblatt, 2000). As a result, whether flying

individually or with a copilot, a pilot fails to obtain the information from the automated

instruments. On the other hand, research also suggests that recent experience with automation

helps reduce the number of errors that result from lack of information acquisition (Fennell,

Sherry, Roberts, & Feary, 2006).

The above research suggests that recent experience in a glass cockpit helps with

improving a pilot’s scanning strategies. However, it is also important to note that extensive

experience in a glass cockpit could introduce complacency. Complacent behaviour can be

113

overcome by introducing adaptive automation (Di Nocera, Camilli, & Terenzi, 2007). This

technology allows the pilot to control the level of automation, so that automation does not

complete all the tasks. This allows her or him to be actively involved in the flying process.

Such technology can also assist in the transition to an analogue cockpit, because a pilot will

be able to perform certain tasks by controlling the level of automation in a glass cockpit.

Hence, when she or he makes a transition to an analogue cockpit, their flying performance

will not suffer due to over-reliance on automation.

As discussed, obtaining and maintaining a good level of situational awareness lays the

foundation of safe flying skills. Situational awareness is achieved by acquiring information

from all the available sources. One of the sources is the flight instruments. As a result, when

there is a change in the instrument display, it is important to study and understand how it

affects a pilot’s information acquisition. The results of such research will help in providing

recommendations to a pilot who is making a transition to a different type of cockpit, and will

ensure that her or his scanning patterns are not affected in the new type of cockpit.

Achieving situational awareness helps a pilot to make appropriate decisions and

perform actions in a timely manner. This will also help a pilot to manage workload

efficiently. Proper decision making will ensure that a pilot does not make any unwanted

mistakes. At the same time, if an error has been made by a pilot or someone else, she or he

will have spare workload capacity to deal with the situation. This will ensure that any

unexpected events are handled quickly and disasters are avoided.

114

When making a transition from a glass cockpit aircraft to an analogue cockpit, a

pilot’s decision-making skills and workload are affected. A glass cockpit offers a much

higher level of situational awareness, due to the immense amount of information that is

presented on the instruments. As a result, a pilot is able to make quick decisions which are

backed up with an enormous amount of information. This detailed information also reduces a

pilot’s workload in a glass cockpit. However, an analogue cockpit does not offer the same

amount of information. As a result, a pilot’s performance can be affected by the lack of the

information in an analogue cockpit.

The next section will discuss the performance differences when there is a change in

the instrument display and information layout in an aircraft’s cockpit.

115

Human Factors Issues Arising Due to Cockpit Transition

Flying requires a pilot to learn and develop several complex skills, including physical

skills, mental skills, emotional skills and interpersonal skills. Flying is more than just the

ability to control an aircraft using the yoke and the rudder (ECA, 2013).

The skills required to fly an aircraft can be divided into two main categories: technical

skills and non-technical skills. The technical skills include a pilot’s ability to manually fly an

aircraft using the flight controls in the cockpit. The non-technical skills include a pilot’s

ability to acquire information, to understand and use that information to make decisions, to

manage workload, to communicate with others, etc. Therefore, a pilot’s performance can be

judged by studying her or his technical skills and/or non-technical skills.

Aviation human factors scientists design cockpits to provide a pilot with the best

environment while flying (Jensen, 1997) and to be intuitive, with the best instrument display

and flight control layout. This allows a pilot to easily fly an aircraft an also helps in faster

transition between different cockpit types. At the same time, it is beneficial in case of an

emergency.

In the event of an unexpected problem in the cockpit, such as an electrical failure in

an automated glass cockpit, a pilot can still manually fly the aircraft. She or he can remember

the basic skills of flying that were learnt during flight training and can maintain safety

116

(Roscoe, 1980). In such a scenario, a pilot can gather information from other available

sources to safely fly the aircraft. This can include judging the power setting by listening to

the sound of the engine.

It is possible to safely fly a general aviation aircraft just by listening to the sound of

the engine. This skill is still taught by many flight training schools, so that in the case of

instrument failures a pilot can still safely fly.

Flight instruments offer a good source of information to a pilot, and instrument failure

is a rare event. Hence, good instrument display is vital to aircraft manufacturers and pilots

alike. Literature suggests that the attitude indicator is one of the most important instruments

in the cockpit (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig, Anders, &

Tautz, 1999). This instrument shows the orientation of an aircraft in relation to the outside

world, as described previously in this chapter. This information can be provided as an inside-

out display or an outside-in display. Inside-out display keeps the artificial aircraft in the

attitude indicator fixed, while the artificial horizon moves when an aircraft is turning or

climbing. Outside-in display keeps the artificial horizon fixed, while the artificial aircraft

moves to indicate pitch or roll changes.

Studies comparing the two types of displays show that pilots maintained the highest

level of situational awareness when the outside-in display was used (Andre, Wickens, &

Moorman, 1991). This is because the information presented in the outside-in attitude

indicator is more natural to comprehend. It is a more accurate representation of what is

117

happening in the real world, because the aircraft is pitching and rolling rather than the

horizon. However, a third type of attitude indicator display called the arc-segmented attitude

reference (ASAR), which is mainly used in military aviation, results in the highest pilot

performance. A study comparing unusual attitude (UA) recovery in all three types of attitude

display showed that pilots recovered from UA fastest when using ASAR (Self, Breun, Feldt,

Perry, & Ercoline, 2003).

Information laid out in the most accessible configuration on the instruments improves

safety and allows for quick acquisition. This is true for low-hour general aviation pilots and

for experienced commercial aviation pilots. For example, it is important to have a good

understanding of the weather while flying. For a low-hour general aviation pilot, in the event

of a change in the weather and reduction in visibility in the outside world it is imperative to

find the nearest airport and land. In commercial flight, instruments help in continuing the

flight safely in deteriorating weather.

The modern glass cockpit provides aircraft manufacturers with the ability to present

information in many ways, such as using text, graphical overlay on maps, and aural methods.

A study comparing graphical format, text format and a combination of both formats was

conducted by O’Hare and Waite (2012). This research revealed that pilots were able to recall

the highest amount of weather-related information when they used the combination of both

displays. However, due to the greater amount of information provided by the combined

display, it also took the pilots more time to acquire the information.

118

Another study by William (2001) found similar results. Weather information was

displayed either in graphical format or text format. It revealed the graphical display to be a

better way to display information. In deteriorating weather conditions, pilots were able to find

the nearest airport fastest when the graphical display was used. There was also an

improvement in pilots’ performance when the map was displayed with geographical north

facing the top of the display. However, Olmos, Liang and Wickens (1997) suggested that,

while flying cross-country, the map displayed with an aircraft pointing towards the top of the

display resulted in the best performance. This display, also known as track-up display, helped

a pilot maintain the highest level of navigational situational awareness. Hence, proper

information layout is vital to achieving the best flying performance.

The above research comparison shows that just changing one instrument display or

laying out the information in a different manner can affect a pilot’s performance. Hence, it is

even more important to understand how the performance is affected when the entire cockpit

is changed, when the instrument display and information layout can be very different.

Technology makes it easy to design, modify and evolve flight instruments. It is

possible to provide a pilot with a lot of information by incorporating it into the instruments.

This additional information improves a pilot’s situational awareness, decision making,

workload, etc. For example, a pilot has the highest level of awareness of the traffic around an

aircraft when he or she is provided with the information on instrument displays. Research by

Strybel, Vu, Battiste and Johnson (2013) showed that a pilot was able to maintain adequate

traffic separation when she or he was aware of the traffic around the aircraft.

119

Military aircraft offer a head up display (HUD), which takes advantage of technology

and improves a pilot’s performance. Some civilian aircraft also offer a similar display. The

HUD provides the ability to fly in poor conditions and land an aircraft even when visibility is

below the prescribed minimums (Kramer, Bailey, & Prinzel, 2009). The inclusion of outside

visual cues, such as terrain, in the form of a synthetic vision on the HUD offers great benefits

(Snow & French, 2002). It allows for better navigation and improves a pilot’s decision

making, particularly during the landing phase.

The HUD allows a pilot to maintain a higher level of situational awareness during

critical phases of flight (Goteman, Smith, & Dekker, 2007). This is achieved because a pilot

can be aware of the important flight parameters and can also easily scan the outside world.

This reduces workload, as the information can be quickly acquired just by looking at one

instrument. However, this does raise other human factors issues. For example, it might be

challenging for a pilot to focus on the outside world at decision height (Kramer et al., 2009;

Goteman et al., 2007), and she or he might pay more attention to the instrument than to

obtaining cues from outside. Although this technology is not available in the general aviation

industry, it is a possible solution for the future.

Introducing a new instrument display, changing the information layout or offering

additional information can have a significant impact on a pilot’s performance. This impact

can be positive or negative. The highway-in-the-sky (HITS) display is a novel way of

providing navigational flight information on the PFD in a glass cockpit. This is similar to the

120

synthetic vision in HUD. HITS provides an artificial flight path in the PFD and helps a pilot

navigate between two points. Although this display positively improves navigational

awareness, it can have a negative impact on the acquisition of other information. One of the

major effects of this display is on the amount of time a pilot spends looking outside. Looking

outside is very important, as it helps a pilot observe traffic, terrain, weather, etc. A study by

Williams (2002) found that a pilot who over-relies on HITS has a lower level of situational

awareness of the primary flight information, like airspeed and altitude. This shows that,

although a pilot can maintain good situational awareness in one aspect of the flight

information, he or she might lack awareness of other vital information.

Displays such as the HITS and the HUD are developed to provide extra information

and to increase a pilot’s performance. This is particularly true when the visibility in the

outside world is poor. However, as the above research shows, introducing a new display can

also have negative effects. A pilot might become fixated, or focus all of his or her attention,

on a display rather than seeing the overall big picture (Endsley & Strauch, 1997). This is

particularly true in a glass cockpit, where the digital displays are made visually appealing and

attention capturing (Andraši, Novak, & Bucak, 2016). In a similar way, the information

presented on the display can also be time consuming to obtain. For example, a glass cockpit

uses a pages format to display all the information (Curtis et al., 2010). It is therefore possible

that a pilot might spend a lot of time searching for the information she or he is looking for

(Hamblin et al., 2006). It is important that a pilot acquires information from all the sources

regularly to help her or him maintain safe flying skills. The above-mentioned features of a

glass cockpit make it considerably different to an analogue cockpit.

121

The glass cockpit was introduced into commercial passenger jet aircraft in the 1970s.

Since then it has become a standard option for instrument display in the commercial

passenger jet aircraft. Consequently, many pilots made a transition from an analogue cockpit

to a glass cockpit aircraft, and pilots who flew in an analogue cockpit had to be trained to use

and manage the sophisticated glass cockpit. This training was necessary as a glass cockpit

provided several new features that had to be learnt before being used. An example of these

features is the autopilot mode awareness (Sweet, 1995; Wiener, 1989).

The complex autopilot included in a glass cockpit offers several autopilot modes, and

choosing the correct mode depends on the phase of the flight. A wrong selection could lead to

an incident or an accident. Incorrect mode selection was one of the reasons for the Asiana

Flight 214 accident (NTSB, 2014). Another major issue faced by a pilot in a glass cockpit is

the awareness of what the autopilot is doing. The computerised nature of the autopilot allows

it to complete the entire flight without any input from a pilot. This raises issues, as a pilot can

be unaware of the autopilot status and can be surprised when he or she gets unexpected

results from the automation (Sarter & Woods, 1994, 1995, 1997). As a result, it is important

that a pilot not only knows how to use the glass cockpit, but also when to use it. This helps

him or her utilise a glass cockpit in the most efficient manner. Such challenges are not only

present in commercial airlines, they can also be an issue in general aviation and can affect

student pilots.

The advances in technology and the popularity of the glass cockpit have made it a

standard option for any new aircraft purchased today. This is true even in the general aviation

122

and the recreational aviation industry. Due to the ease of availability, it is also being used for

training ab initio pilots (AOPA, 2005).

Universities in the USA are incorporating glass-cockpit-equipped aircraft into their

training fleet, replacing the older aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit. As an

alternative to purchasing new aircraft, a cost-effective method is to retrofit older aircraft with

a glass cockpit. Younger pilots welcome this transition more than older pilots, because a glass

cockpit uses computer technology, which the younger generation has grown up with (Smith,

2008; McDermott & Smith, 2006). In recent years, glass cockpit aircraft have also been

incorporated into flight training schools in other parts of the world. This includes Australia,

where most large flight training schools’ aircraft fleets comprise only glass-cockpit-equipped

aircraft (CAE Oxford Aviation Academy, 2014).

Government agencies and industries are developing training programs to properly

utilise the modern glass cockpit (Dornan, Craig, Gossett, & Beckman, 2004). As mentioned,

flying in a glass cockpit requires a pilot to learn new skills that are independent of, and

additional to, any previous experience a pilot has in an analogue cockpit (Hamblin, Gilmore,

& Chaparro, 2006). The manual flying skills required in an analogue cockpit aircraft and a

glass cockpit aircraft are the same; the differences are in the cognitive skills needed. This is

because a pilot has to learn how to manage and utilise the advanced functionality of a glass

cockpit (NTSB, 2010a).

123

Today, a pilot can obtain his or her licence by completing all the flight training in an

aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. He or she might not come across an analogue cockpit

aircraft during training. There are no regulatory requirements that require a pilot to spend a

certain number of hours in each type of cockpit while learning to fly. There are also no

restrictions on the type of cockpit a pilot flies in after obtaining his or her licence (FAA,

2011). As a result, a pilot can learn to fly in a modern aircraft equipped with an advanced

automated glass cockpit and, after obtaining a licence, can fly in an older aircraft equipped

with an analogue cockpit. This transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit raises

several human factors issues which require further study by researchers (Wright & O’Hare,

2015).

A pilot must be aware of differences in information layout on the instrument displays.

She or he must be trained to properly acquire information from an unfamiliar or new display.

As the above discussion shows, changing only one instrument display, changing the

information layout, or adding a new instrument can impact a pilot’s performance. This is also

highlighted in the British Midlands accident (AAIB, 1990), as discussed in the previous

section. As such, training is especially necessary when the entire cockpit has changed.

A pilot making a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit might

experience an initial reduction in performance (Chidester, Hackworth, & Knecht, 2007), as he

or she experiences a higher level of workload and a lower level of situational awareness. This

decrease in performance can be overcome by training (Casner, 2003).

124

A survey conducted by McCracken (2011) compared results of a flight test conducted

in a glass cockpit following a test in an analogue cockpit. The results revealed that almost

half of the students found a glass cockpit to be more difficult to fly in than an analogue

cockpit. Results from Wright and O’Hare’s (2015) study revealed a similar trend. Subjects

with no prior flying experience were tested on their performance between the two types of

cockpit. Results showed a consistently poorer performance in an aircraft equipped with a

glass cockpit, with flight parameter deviations higher in a glass cockpit than an analogue

cockpit. Despite the poorer performance, a glass cockpit was preferred over an analogue

cockpit. However, a survey of commercial passenger jet aircraft revealed that most altitude

deviations were detected in a glass cockpit (Degani et al., 1991).

The results from the above studies reveal an interesting and important point: pilots

who were not trained to fly in a glass-cockpit-equipped aircraft failed to perform well, but

airline pilots who were experienced in flying glass cockpits performed considerably better.

Although it offers many benefits and is preferred among pilots, a glass cockpit requires a

pilot to be trained in its use (Chidester et al., 2007). Proper training is essential, and helps a

pilot reap its benefits. Airline pilots who were trained to use a glass cockpit indicated that

they use the automated glass cockpit because of the benefits it offers (Curry, 1985). Good

training is not only important for qualified pilots, it is also important for a student pilot who is

learning to fly in a glass cockpit aircraft (McCracken, 2011) and for anyone who is making a

transition between cockpit types.

When making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit, a pilot has to

preserve his or her technical and non-technical skills. Technical skills can be easy to transfer,

125

because the flight controls are generally in the same location and layout in both types of

cockpit. However, the non-technical skills can be more challenging to transfer. Failure to

properly transfer the non-technical skills can also negatively impact the technical skills after

the transition (Boehm-Davis, Holt, & Seamster, 2001; O’Connor, Flin, & Fletcher, 2002).

Utilising a glass cockpit aircraft to train a pilot has its challenges and promises. A

preliminary report from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation (AOPA, 2005) revealed that one of

the reasons for accidents in a glass cockpit aircraft is the lower amount of time spent in them.

This could also be a result of a glass cockpit aircraft not being around for many years, which

was true at the time the report was published. Another document showed that fatality rates for

low-hour pilots in a glass cockpit aircraft were higher than in an analogue cockpit aircraft

(AOPA, 2007). Once again, it is important to note that these are initial conclusions. In

addition, comparison between accidents in glass cockpit and analogue cockpit aircraft is

challenging, as accident reports in general aviation might not state the cockpit type at the time

of the report. It is expected that this information will be added to accident reports, which will

make future comparisons easier.

A general aviation pilot also prefers a glass cockpit over an analogue cockpit, as

mentioned earlier. She or he understands the challenges that can be faced in a glass cockpit

(Casner, 2008). To attain the benefits offered by a glass cockpit, it is important that a pilot

learns and understands how to use the modern technology. This will help a pilot maintain

high levels of safety while flying (Fiduccia et al., 2003). Likewise, a student pilot who is

learning to fly in the advanced glass cockpit can achieve high levels of safety through proper

training (AOPA, 2005; Dahlstrom, Dekker, & Nahlinder, 2006). This is crucial, as a pilot

126

uses different mental models when flying in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit (Sarter

& Woods, 1994; Sarter et al., 2003; Baxter, Besnard, & Riley, 2007; Hamblin et al., 2006).

Learning to fly is different in a glass cockpit compared to an analogue cockpit, due to

the different instrument display and information layout. As already mentioned, a student pilot

is provided with an immense amount of information. A flight instructor can take advantage of

this and teach a student pilot advanced navigational skills during the introductory lessons.

These advanced skills are normally taught later in the flying syllabus. If a flight instructor

does offer these lessons early in the syllabus, then it increases the workload of a student pilot

initially, but they benefit with a lower workload later in their training (Craig, Bertrand,

Dornan, Gossett, & Thorsby, 2005). As such, proper syllabus development is also vital.

A glass cockpit offers enormous functionality. One of them is the large moving map

display, which can make the navigational task easy. A pilot can also over-depend on the

automation in visual flight rules (VFR) conditions (Casner, 2005). A subsequent study

revealed that a pilot who is actively involved in the navigational task has a higher level of

awareness; this is achieved by crosschecking the navigational information on the display with

the landmarks in the outside world (Casner, 2006).

In an analogue cockpit, a pilot does not have a large moving map display. As such, a

pilot’s performance can be affected after making a transition. For example, cross-country

navigation requires a pilot to be aware of the aircraft’s location. Without the moving map

display, a pilot’s navigational awareness might be reduced. However, performing a minimal

127

task like crosschecking navigational information with a map can make it easier for a pilot to

transition to an analogue cockpit (Casner, 2006). This is because the reduced level of

information will be substituted by a pilot’s active involvement.

A pilot who transitions between the types of cockpit encounters different instrument

display and information layout, which has an effect on her or his scanning pattern (Hayashi,

Oman, & Zuschlag, 2003; Hayashi, 2003). Understanding a pilot’s scanning pattern is vital as

it lays the foundation of safe flying skills, and proper scanning patterns help him or her

acquire the information to make appropriate decisions and reduce error.

Flying in instrument conditions requires a pilot to maintain a good scanning pattern

(Tole & Harris, 1987). The instruments have to be regularly scanned to maintain situational

awareness. One of the reasons for the importance of an effective scan is the lack of outside

cues. The complexity of flying in such conditions requires a pilot to perfect basic flying skills

before starting this advanced training.

The difference between instrument conditions and visual conditions lies in a pilot’s

non-technical skills, not in the technical skills (English, 2012). This is only true when a pilot

is flying in the same type of cockpit in both conditions, although technical skills can also be

affected when a pilot is making a transition between cockpit types (Lindo, Deaton, Cain, &

Lang, 2012). Consequently, it is important to examine and understand a pilot’s scanning

patterns when making a transition.

128

In visual flying conditions, a pilot can safely fly an aircraft by scanning the

instruments and using the cues from the outside world. The instruments scanned by a pilot in

visual conditions can depend on the phase of flight. For example, the airspeed indicator is one

of the most important instruments scanned during the take-off phase, whereas the altitude and

heading indicator also have to be scanned in the cruise phase.

In instrument flying conditions, a glass cockpit offers the benefit of improved

performance by using the moving map. This can be a challenge initially, which can be

overcome through practice (Casner, 2004). A pilot flying in instrument conditions has to land

an aircraft using the instrument landing system (ILS landing). While flying in an automated

glass cockpit aircraft, a pilot can use the autopilot to fly the aircraft. The large map display

also assists a pilot while landing the aircraft. A pilot who makes a transition to an analogue

cockpit might not have the assistance of the autopilot or map display, meaning that she or he

has to land the aircraft using manual flying skills.

Research suggests that using the automated glass cockpit reduces the ability to

manually fly an aircraft (Young, Fanjoy, & Suckow, 2006). Similarly, Haslbeck and

Hoermann, (2016) showed that long-haul commercial pilots experience degradation in their

manual flying skills. This is mainly due to the reduced amount of time spent manually flying

an aircraft equipped with an automated glass cockpit. This also has implications for a pilot

making a transition to an analogue cockpit, because an analogue cockpit aircraft does not

have the same level of automation as a glass cockpit and a pilot will be required to use more

manual flying skills. Hence, it could be an issue after the transition. However, this issue can

129

be overcome by regular manual flying during certain phases of flights, such as the landing

phase (Curry, 1985).

Apart from manual flying skills, a pilot’s scanning pattern also differs between flying

using automation or manual skills (Young et al., 2006). Spady (1978) showed that pilots use

different scanning techniques when manually landing an aircraft compared to when landing

with automation assistance. Therefore, a pilot’s scanning patterns might also be affected

when transitioning to and flying in an analogue cockpit.

A pilot uses a specific scan path when flying in instrument conditions (Jones, 1985).

Four of the six primary instruments, also known as the ‘T’ instruments, are scanned regularly

in instrument conditions. These instruments are the airspeed indicator, the attitude indicator,

the altitude indicator and the heading indicator (Rinoie & Sunada, 2002). The attitude

indicator is one of the main instruments that a pilot scans. A pilot begins his or her scan at the

attitude indicator, then scans another instrument and returns back to the attitude indicator

(Pennington, 1979). This type of scanning pattern is called the ‘T’ scan path, and is

commonly used in instrument flying conditions where the visibility in the outside world is

very poor. As a result, a pilot only has the instruments to rely on to obtain information about

the flight parameters. The ‘T’ layout of the primary flight instruments is similar in a glass and

an analogue cockpit. However, the ‘T’ scan path was developed in an analogue cockpit.

There are no documented studies that compare the ‘T’ scan path between the two types of

cockpit.

130

The above studies illustrate the difference in performance between pilots in the two

types of cockpit when flying in visual and instrument conditions. However, the effects of

making a transition between the two types of cockpit are emphasised during an abnormal or

emergency situation.

There are many reasons for an aircraft to enter an abnormal situation. It could be due

to a mechanical failure or pilot error, and errors can be made intentionally or unintentionally

(Dismukes, 2017). However, a pilot is less likely to take risks and make errors if he or she is

aware of the outcome (Simpson & Wiggins, 1999). For example, a pilot is less likely to fly

into bad weather after learning about accidents that were a result of such an action.

A study conducted on Airbus A320 pilots in a flight simulator showed that a pilot’s

scanning pattern is affected when there is a malfunction (Van de Merwe, Van Dijk, & Zon,

2012). In this study, after a fuel leak was introduced the pilot’s attention shifted from the

primary flight display and the navigational display to the electronic centralised aircraft

monitoring display. This display received the most attention once the malfunction was

introduced and this continued until it was resolved. Russi-Vigoya and Patterson (2015) also

found that a pilot’s scanning pattern changes during an abnormal event or in poor visibility in

the outside world. In addition, they indicated that proper training can help a pilot cope with

such scenarios.

Training for such events can be conducted in a simulator. Chapter 3 discusses the skill

transfer between a simulator and a real aircraft. Training in a personal computer simulator

131

and theory classes on unusual attitude recovery help a pilot to transfer their skills to a real

aircraft and successfully recover from UA (Rogers, Boquet, Howell, & DeJohn, 2010). The

information layout on the instruments also helps a pilot in recovery (Beringer & Ball, 2009;

Lee & Myung, 2013; Braithwaite et al., 1998). Results from these studies show that the

attitude indicator is one of the main instruments that help in recovery, therefore this is an

important instrument to scan when an aircraft is in or entering UA. Presenting the attitude

information on the HUD also helps in recovery and can reduce the time taken to return to

normal flight (Huber, 2006; Wickens, Self, Andre, Reynolds, & Small, 2007).

The attitude indicator is also one of the main flight instruments scanned during

normal flight. As such, it is the subject of a lot of research and development. An example of

different types of attitude indicator display was discussed in the beginning of this section.

The location of the attitude indicator is the same in the two types of cockpit, and the attitude

information is also displayed in a similar manner. Despite the similarities in the attitude

indicator, other instruments differ between the two types of cockpit. In particular, information

is presented differently in the airspeed indicator and the altitude indicator. In an analogue

cockpit, the information is displayed using a dial and a needle, and in a glass cockpit, the

information is displayed using a tape and a number. Because of these differences, these

instruments receive a lot of attention from researchers (Harris, 2004). The parameters

provided by these instruments are vital for flight safety, and poor information layout can

result in a pilot being unable to understand the information, which can lead to an incident

(ICAO, 1962; ICAO, 1959).

132

Hiremath, Proctor, Fanjoy, Feyen and Young (2009) exposed the challenges of UA

recovery in a glass cockpit, with a study that concluded that recovery in a glass cockpit was

slower than in an analogue cockpit. A pilot took longer during recovery to acquire and

understand the airspeed and altitude information in a glass cockpit. It was easier to obtain and

process the information in an analogue cockpit. This is because the analogue instruments

provide the overall representation, whereas in a glass cockpit a pilot had to visualise the

overall representation, as the tape displays do not show the full range of flight parameters

(Zhang, Johnson, Malin, & Smith, 2002; Gordon & Etherington, 2004). However, a tape

display does offer realism by presenting the higher altitude at the top of the display and lower

altitude at the bottom (Roscoe, 1968), which helps during a normal flight.

A study by Wesslen and Young (2011) showed similar results. During a normal flight,

altitude was maintained best when flying in an analogue cockpit. Despite this, a glass cockpit

was preferred over an analogue cockpit, which is similar to the conclusion of Wright and

O’Hare (2015). This also indicates a disassociation between the subjective preference and the

objective performance of a pilot (Roberts, Gray, & Lesnik, 2016; Andre & Wickens, 1995).

As already discussed, flying skills can be divided into two main categories: objective

performance, which includes the technical manual flying skills, and subjective preference,

which includes the non-technical cognitive skills and even the opinions of a pilot.

A pilot transitioning between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit will encounter

either a dial or a tape display in the instruments. Apart from the airspeed and altitude, even

the system status instruments use a tape display in a glass cockpit. Tape display presents

information using digits, compared to a dial display which points using a needle. The changes

133

in these displays result in a difference in information acquisition (Hosman & Mulder, 1997)

and also require a different mental model from a pilot (Baxter et al., 2007; Hamblin et al.,

2006).

The tape display presents a major challenge, because it has continuous information

fluctuations (Rolfe, 1965; Sanders & McCormick, 1993). For example, in the cruise phase an

aircraft constantly experiences small changes in altitude. In a dial display, these small

changes do not cause major variations on the instrument. However, in a tape display, any

deviation in the altitude can change the information on the instrument. This can lead to

misunderstanding or constant processing of information, and can also surprise a pilot who is

not experienced in a glass cockpit. This requires a pilot to spend more time understanding the

information acquired from a glass cockpit (Sanders & McCormick, 1993; Harris, 2004).

These differences highlight the importance of proper instrument display and

information layout. A combination of dials and a numeric display can offer a better solution,

as discussed earlier. It can also help in meeting the subjective preference and objective

performance of a pilot (Curtis et al., 2010; Hiremath et al., 2009; O’Hare & Waite, 2012).

Studying and understanding a pilot’s performance in different types of cockpit is vital.

This is true for all aircraft types. The above literature shows that there is a difference in

performance between different types of cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft. However, there are

few studies that compare the performance of a fixed-wing aircraft and a rotary wing aircraft.

When considering rotary wing aircraft, most of the empirical research conducted on scanning

134

patterns has been in the military (Kirby, Kennedy & Yang, 2012; Barnes, 1972; Temme &

Still, 1996), and there is limited research on civilian rotary wing pilots.

A preliminary study conducted by Pingali, McMahon and Newman (2014) showed

that, during autorotation, a pilot spends most of the time looking outside searching for a

suitable place to land. Within the cockpit, a pilot mainly looks at the rotor revolutions per

minute (rotor RPM). The instrument looked at second most often is the airspeed indicator.

These two instruments are vital for a successful landing after engine failure. For example,

maintaining enough forward airspeed is crucial to reaching the chosen landing spot. Hence,

these instruments are scanned regularly. The results also showed that, during autorotation, a

pilot scans specific instruments to obtain the required information. This study provides an

initial insight into the unique and different scanning patterns of a rotary wing pilot. For

example, the rotor RPM instrument is only installed in helicopters. During normal and

abnormal flight, it is important to scan this instrument regularly to ensure safe operations.

Because this instrument is not present in a fixed-wing aircraft, it is only incorporated into the

scanning pattern of a rotary wing pilot.

Another study conducted by Pingali, McMahon and Newman (2015) reveals similar

results for pilots who were performing unusual attitude recovery in a simulator. Most of the

time was spent looking outside. The instrument that was scanned first during recovery was

the attitude indicator. This instrument is important during recovery as it provides information

about the aircraft’s pitch and roll. This instrument helps a pilot bring the aircraft back to

normal flight. Hence it was scanned first, to obtain information about the aircraft’s status.

135

The results of this study are similar to the results of the fixed-wing UA recovery study

mentioned earlier, which stressed the importance of the attitude indicator.

These initial rotary wing studies show the similarities and differences between the

scanning patterns in the two types of aircraft. However, there are not enough empirical

studies comparing a pilot’s scanning patterns between the two types of aircraft.

It is also important to note that the above-mentioned rotary wing studies were only

conducted in an analogue cockpit. This is because the glass cockpit is still not a common

feature in rotary wing aircraft. Nevertheless, comparing and understanding scanning patterns

in fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft can be beneficial, partly because, although they are

both analogue cockpits, some of the instruments in a rotary wing aircraft are unique to

helicopters.

The aviation industry today has several types of aircraft. These vary in many aspects

including size, capabilities, performance and features. One of the biggest variations is in the

cockpit. As discussed, there are two main types of cockpit, an analogue cockpit and a glass

cockpit. Within these cockpit types, it is common to have slight variations in instrument

display between different aircraft. This raises human factors issues, as these differences could

lead to variations in pilot performance.

136

The transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit was researched intensively

to ensure a safe transition, as discussed in the literature review above. Similarly, it is also

important to understand the transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit, because a

pilot who transitions to an analogue cockpit can also experience several issues. For example,

a pilot might not be familiar with the instrument display or the information layout, which can

affect performance (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011; Lindo et al., 2012). It might also be hard to

cope with the reduction from the immense amount of information that was present in the

pages format in a glass cockpit (Curtis et al., 2010).

Literature also suggests that the transition to an analogue cockpit can be more

challenging than the transition to a glass cockpit (Lindo et al., 2012). In a glass cockpit, it

takes longer to understand the obtained information (Lindo et al., 2012; Hiremath et al., 2009;

Wesslen & Young, 2011; Harris & Christhilf, 1980), although this can be overcome through

training (Wright & O’Hare, 2015). Similarly, it is necessary to find out what training can be

implemented to make the analogue transition easier.

Due to the differences between the two cockpit types, a pilot’s scanning patterns can

also be different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001; Van de Merwe et

al., 2012). Hence, these patterns need to be further researched to understand how they are

affected by a transition between cockpit types. Once again, results of such research can help

train pilots to use the correct scanning patterns after making the transition.

137

Most new aircraft are equipped with a glass cockpit and many older aircraft are being

retrofitted with a glass cockpit. However, there are still many aircraft equipped with an

analogue cockpit, therefore the transition to an analogue cockpit is an issue that needs to be

studied by scientists (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011). Since this is a recent issue, few studies

have been conducted to understand the human factors challenges when making this transition

(Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011).

The above literature highlights the differences in performance when making a

transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit aircraft. The next section provides

hypothetical examples of a pilot making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue

cockpit and discusses the challenges that arise due to the transition.

138

Summary

Hypothetical Examples of Transition from a Glass Cockpit to an Analogue Cockpit

The transition from the new type of cockpit to the old type raises several human

factors issues. This section discusses some hypothetical situations encountered by a pilot

when making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. There are many

reasons for a pilot to make such a transition, including employment, availability, financial,

and aircraft ownership. These have been discussed in Chapter 1. One of the biggest reasons

for making the transition is that most pilots are now trained in a glass cockpit, however, once

they complete their training, not all pilots will continue to fly in an aircraft equipped with a

glass cockpit. This hypothetical section will consider a pilot who learns to fly in a glass

cockpit aircraft and then makes a transition to an analogue cockpit aircraft.

The Cessna 172 is an aircraft commonly used for basic and advanced flight training,

and has been used for training for several decades. The aircraft has evolved over time,

although its overall structure has not changed. The main flight controls in the cockpit, such as

the rudder, yoke and throttle controls, are in the same position. The main change is the way

that flight instruments are displayed in the cockpit. Historically, this aircraft was equipped

with an analogue instrument display. The modern aircraft is equipped with a glass instrument

display. Most flight training schools that have recently upgraded or acquired new aircraft

have a glass cockpit fleet. As a result, a pilot who learns to fly in a Cessna 172 aircraft

encounters a high-level cockpit like the Garmin G1000 or equivalent, which is sophisticated

139

and complex. A pilot who learns to fly in an aircraft with this technology is provided with

ample information. The information usage can depend on the type of flight and also the phase

of flight.

A student pilot who is learning to control an aircraft and learning skills like climbing

and turning may not find all the additional information very useful. She or he has to focus on

the primary flight display and acquire the basic flight parameters, such as airspeed and

altitude, to successfully complete a manoeuvre. While learning and practising circuit patterns,

a pilot might benefit from the additional traffic information that is overlaid on the moving

map display. This map display provides many features, including weather and terrain

overlays, and detailed information about airports and airspace. This GPS display benefits a

student pilot significantly during cross-country flying, because a pilot can create a flight plan

that helps in navigation. This map provides information about the location of an aircraft and

shows whether it is on track or off track. This information is also integrated into the attitude

indicator and the heading indicator on the primary flight display. This helps a pilot to

maintain a high level of situational awareness just by scanning the instruments on the primary

flight display, which means that they are able to make decisions quickly and maintain a low

level of workload.

After obtaining a pilot licence, a pilot might fly in an aircraft equipped with an

analogue cockpit, which will not have all the additional information that was offered in a

glass cockpit. Apart from the lower level of information, the layout of information and the

display of instruments are also different. This change can be challenging to a pilot, and might

increase her or his workload. He or she might not be able to maintain the same level of

140

situational awareness in an analogue cockpit aircraft, and will have to work more to make

decisions.

In a glass cockpit, a pilot could see traffic information on the instrument display. Such

information is not available in an analogue cockpit. This information has to be supplemented

by regular additional scanning of the outside world and listening to the air traffic on the radio.

While this scanning is also performed in a glass cockpit, the traffic display reduces the

workload. Also, a pilot does not maintain the same level of situational awareness while flying

cross-country in an analogue cockpit. The primary flight instruments no longer display the

additional navigation information, and a pilot has to constantly scan the primary instruments

and crosscheck with GPS or paper maps to maintain awareness of the flight path.

In good weather conditions, a pilot flying cross-country can scan for landmarks in the

outside world while navigating. A pilot who transitions to an analogue cockpit can still

navigate to the destination, by looking for landmarks and crosschecking it with paper maps.

This provides a pilot with additional information, which increases navigation situational

awareness. However, this can only succeed if visibility outside an aircraft is good. In poor

visibility conditions, such as in cloud cover, a pilot will not be able to acquire information

from the outside world. A pilot flying in an analogue cockpit in such a situation might find it

difficult to maintain navigation situational awareness. Airport information provided in a glass

cockpit, such as navigational frequencies and elevations, has to be manually obtained and

entered in an analogue cockpit. This increases the workload of a pilot in a situation that is

already demanding.

141

A glass cockpit provides weather information that is overlaid on the moving map

display. A low-hour pilot has to avoid bad weather while flying. This is not only a regulatory

requirement but also a safety requirement. A pilot who transitions to an analogue cockpit has

to monitor the weather by performing extra tasks, including listening to air traffic control, and

manually calculating weather patterns based on the weather information obtained before

flying. A glass cockpit offers the ease of looking at a display, whereas an analogue cockpit

requires higher workload to make weather-related decisions. In an analogue cockpit, the extra

work is necessary to ensure that a pilot does not fly into deteriorating weather.

This transition is particularly important to understand when a pilot encounters an

emergency. Apart from the loss of information in an analogue cockpit, the layout of

information is also different. For example, the altitude indicator and airspeed indicator are

displayed as round dials rather than tape displays. This requires a pilot to process the

information differently in an analogue cockpit. A pilot who is flying at a low speed or turning

too steeply needs to carefully monitor the instruments. He or she also needs to know and

comprehend the flight parameters, to ensure that an aircraft does not enter a stall or an

unusual attitude. If an aircraft does enter an unusual attitude, then it is important that a pilot

acquires the necessary information from the instruments to recover promptly. This is

important as the outside-world cues for unusual attitude recovery might not always be

available, for example, if a pilot is flying in a cloud. Hence, it is important that a pilot

understands the instrument display and information layout in an analogue cockpit to avoid

unnecessary incidents.

142

The above examples provide a glimpse of the challenges that a pilot might face when

making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit.

Literature Gap

The literature discussed in this chapter highlights the importance of human factors in

the aviation industry. A pilot needs to understand and use this knowledge to safely fly an

aircraft. At the same time, scientists need to continue researching the human factors issues

that pilots face while flying.

The literature shows that making a transition from one type of cockpit to another

raises several human factors issues. Factors such as a pilot’s situational awareness, decision

making and workload are affected by the type of cockpit they fly in. A pilot has to understand

the instrument display and information layout to safely fly an aircraft.

When commercial passenger aircraft were being manufactured with a glass cockpit as

a standard option, a pilot had to be trained before making the transition. A pilot was taught

the skills to acquire information from a glass cockpit, and was taught how to manage the

glass cockpit and utilise it efficiently. Without this training, a pilot was overwhelmed by the

automated glass cockpit and had difficulty understanding the processes that a glass cockpit

can perform. Sometimes a pilot was also surprised with the procedures a glass cockpit

completed in the background, which reveals that a pilot felt out-of-the-loop in a glass cockpit

143

aircraft. Hence, training was necessary before making a transition from an analogue cockpit

to a glass cockpit.

Today the aviation industry is facing the opposite problem, and many pilots are

making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. This transition has not been

investigated in detail, because it is a recent issue. Only in the last decade did the transition

from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit become a reality.

The hypothetical situations, explained in the previous section, show that a pilot who

flies in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit can maintain a higher level of situational

awareness and also have a lower level of workload. Once he or she makes a transition to an

aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit, his or her performance is affected, situational

awareness can be reduced, and workload can increase. Hence, there is an impact on the

decision-making ability of a pilot. A pilot also uses different mental models when flying in a

different type of cockpit. Ultimately, the real challenges of making the transition might be

uncovered in an emergency scenario. As a result, it is important to recognise and study this

transition to help future pilots make the transition easily.

This thesis examines the transition by conducting several experiments in a simulator.

An eye tracking device was used to collect objective data of where a pilot was looking while

flying. Scanning patterns were compared between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit, to

assess whether scanning patterns were different between the two cockpit types.

144

It is possible for a pilot to fly a small aircraft just by obtaining visual cues from the

outside world. With good visibility and by listening to the sound of the engine, a pilot can

successfully fly and navigate the aircraft. Hence, this thesis also compares how a pilot

performs in poor visibility conditions that require him or her to rely only on the instruments.

If there were any challenges to acquiring information from the instruments in instrument

conditions, they were highlighted.

Additionally, an abnormal scenario was introduced. This helped understand if a pilot

was able to acquire information and recover similarly in both types of cockpit. In addition to

the fixed-wing studies, this thesis also compared scanning patterns between a fixed-wing and

a rotary wing aircraft.

The visual, instrument and abnormal experiments compared the scanning pattern

between the two types of cockpit. The rotary and fixed-wing comparison was made in an

analogue cockpit only. Because the analogue cockpits in the two types of aircraft have

several differences, scanning patterns were compared.

The above experiments compared pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit,

to assess whether she or he was able to scan the instruments similarly and obtain the

necessary information. As discussed in the literature, obtaining the information from the

available sources is the first step in maintaining good situational awareness. This allows a

pilot to make good decisions, which results in efficient management of workload and a

145

reduced rate of error. As such, a pilot will fly safely and the chances of accidents will be

minimal.

There are few studies that compare the performance between the two types of cockpit.

There are no studies that compare the scanning patterns of a pilot who is making a transition

from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. Most of the comparison studies are based on

subjective personal opinion.

Objective scientific data is required to understand the effects on the transition and

prevent accidents (Haslbeck & Hoermann, 2016; Lindo et al., 2012; Whitehurst, 2014;

Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011, 2012; Wright & O’Hare, 2015). Understanding the scanning

pattern is important as it shows how a pilot gathers information from a glass cockpit and an

analogue cockpit. Proper information acquisition is a vital skill and lays the foundation for

safe flying skills.

The transition from an advanced glass cockpit to a conventional analogue cockpit is a

recent issue. Hence, there are few studies in this area. This thesis fills the gap in the literature

by conducting the above-mentioned experiments. The aim of this thesis is to compare pilot

scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

Chapter 3

Flight Simulator Overview and Usage

147

Introduction to Simulators

A simulator offers a replication of the real world. It provides an artificial imitation of

a real-world system, either digitally or mechanically. This chapter will primarily focus on the

digital computerised flight simulators used in the aviation industry.

Simulators are popular and commonly used as games. The improvements in computer

technology have made advanced simulator software highly realistic and easily accessible. It is

possible to acquire a simulator for almost any real-world system. Although simulators are

essentially gaming technology, they can be used for several other purposes. These are

discussed in the next section.

Simulators have several advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include their role

in training and learning, which is particularly beneficial for a novice learning new skills.

Because simulators offer an alternative to real-world training, they help both novices and

experts to learn how to use a system. It is also a cheaper and safer method of building

experience than using a real-world system.

Apart from learning new skills, simulators are also helpful in maintaining proficiency.

This is particularly advantageous for pilots who are flying in a modern aircraft. The

automation of a modern aircraft reduces the amount of time a pilot spends manually flying an

aircraft. To ensure that manual flying skills do not decay, a pilot can spend time in simulators

148

practising these skills. These skills, also known as the technical skills, can be rehearsed and

perfected in a simulator.

Apart from the manual flying skills, simulators are also beneficial to learning and

maintaining non-technical skills. These skills are just as important as the technical skills.

Non-technical skills include management of the aircraft’s systems, interaction with other

crew members, managing workload, and managing personal limitations such as fatigue.

While flying an aircraft, the workload varies during different phases of the flight, and

simulators can help in planning and managing this workload. In addition to workload

management, simulators also help in making decisions and executing actions. They assist in

learning to acquire information from the appropriate sources and to maintain situational

awareness. They are beneficial in learning the procedures and skills required in different

phases of flight. Multi-crew skills and teamwork can also be learned and practised in

simulators, which helps an individual learn crew resource management skills.

Despite the advantages offered by simulators, they are not accepted by everyone as a

valuable tool. This is due to the disadvantages that might arise when using a simulator.

Spending too much time in a simulator can negatively affect the way a pilot behaves and

interacts with the real-world system. A person might also behave differently in a simulator

compared to the real-world system. In other words, a pilot might not be willing to engage

with the simulated system in the same manner as he or she would with the real-world system.

This affects a pilot’s performance in a simulator. He or she might be willing to take a higher

level of risk in a simulator rather than the real world, or might not follow procedures

correctly in a simulator. For example, checklists may be ignored, or she or he might attempt

149

landing an aircraft even if it is in an undesired state, such as deploying the flaps despite the

speed being too high.

A simulator might not offer an accurate representation of the real-world system,

particularly with lower-end simulators. At the same time, higher-end simulators that offer a

high level of realism tend to be very expensive, and smaller operators or individuals cannot

afford to buy or even temporarily rent them. The cost depends on the complexity of the

simulator. Flight simulators are developed and designed using computer software., which can

be time consuming and challenging to design. On average, simulator software can have more

than half a million lines of code and high-end simulator software can have over a million

lines of code. This complex code provides more detail and realism. Running such software

also requires high-end computer hardware to cope with the complexity, which further

increases the cost. However, it is possible to purchase custom-built hardware and software to

a specific budget.

It is important for a user to understand the advantages and disadvantages offered by a

simulator. Proper use of flight simulators can outweigh the disadvantages and make it a

valuable device. Effective use can help in attaining skills that can be transferred to real

aircraft. Along with other benefits discussed above, this also increases the safety of the

aviation industry. For example, a pilot can refer back to his or her simulator training when an

unexpected situation is faced while flying in a real aircraft. This unfamiliar situation can be

managed efficiently and effectively by recollecting the skills learnt in the simulator.

150

Examples of Simulators

Simulators are used in many industries, including transportation, education, medicine,

mining, and space. They can be used for numerous purposes, including training, testing,

development, analysis, mathematical prediction, engineering, education, entertainment,

scientific modelling, and research. This section briefly discusses how simulators can be used

in various industries for the above-mentioned purposes. As mentioned in the previous section,

simulators offer a realistic replication of the real world, which helps in training and learning.

This is particularly beneficial for novices who can gain and understand new knowledge

through practical simulated training. Simulators are the only way to train students in some

industries. For example, astronaut training is conducted only in simulators, because it is not

feasible to take new astronaut candidates into space to train them. Similar training is also

conducted in other high-risk industries, such as the nuclear industry and law enforcement.

Military organisations regularly simulate war scenarios to train new soldiers. This

simulation includes real people, although fake weapons are used to teach novice soldiers how

to advance in the battlefield during combat. Such simulated training can be effective, as a

novice soldier may be required to spend weeks in a remote area and this prepares him or her

physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Apart from training students or novices, simulators are also used for regular testing.

Experts who work in a particular field can be regularly tested to ensure that their skill has not

degraded and that they maintain proficiency. For example, airline cabin crew are regularly

151

tested on their evacuation skills. This ensures that they have not forgotten this vital skill and

can evacuate an aircraft quickly during emergencies.

Simulators are used for developing and engineering new products. This offers a cost-

effective alternative while designing a new product. New products, such as new car models,

can be complex to design and develop. Using simulators to virtually engineer a new car is

cheaper and more effective. All aspects of the new car can be engineered using the simulator,

including aerodynamics, physical design, and interior layout. This allows for it to be easily

modified and perfected before building a real-world car.

Aircraft manufacturing companies can also use simulators to virtually build new

aircraft before building a real aircraft. This allows them to test various aspects of the new

design, including aerodynamics, weight and balance, and fuel efficiency. It is also a cost-

effective method of designing a new aircraft. Similarly, architects can use simulators to

design a building before constructing the real building.

University students can use simulators for educational purposes. Students enrolled in

a medical degree can use simulators to replicate various medical scenarios. Students can

practise performing a surgery on a dummy patient. Alternatively, with the advancements of

computer technology, this same surgery can be practised in a virtual reality simulator which

offers even more realism. Such training prepares a student with practical, albeit simulated,

experience. This also offers a more interactive education, educating the students while also

preparing them for employment.

152

Simulators also offer casual entertainment to the general public. An example is

allowing the general public to use high end flight simulators, which are the same as those

used by airlines for training pilots. This not only offers entertainment to the public but also

offers an insight into the airline industry. It allows a person to appreciate the complexity of

flying a modern aircraft while enjoying being at the controls of an aircraft, in a flight

simulator, for a period of time. As discussed in the introductory paragraphs, simulators are

also commonly used as games which offer entertainment. Such games are often installed on

personal computers and even mobile phones. Although such simulators offer entertainment,

they can be poor quality.

Researchers use simulators for scientific modelling. Theoretical concepts can be

practically understood by using simulators, and simulators provide a practical insight into

theoretical ideas. Astronomers use simulators to understand several theoretical concepts, such

as the merging of two galaxies. Such an event can take millions or billions of years to occur,

but the process can be sped up and practically observed using simulation.

Meteorologists use simulators in a similar way to predict weather patterns over a

period of time, using complex computer software that simulates the weather patterns. This

software can predict the weather over the course of hours, days, weeks or years. It is also

possible to plan for disasters using such simulations. For example, towns and cities can be

evacuated if severe weather is expected in the area. Economists can also use simulators in a

similar way, to predict the growth or decline of businesses using simulators.

153

Finally, simulators can be used for research purposes. This is one of the biggest uses

of simulators in the scientific industry. In the transportation industry, car simulators can be

used to study factors such as the effects of texting while driving or the effects of fatigue while

driving at night. This helps scientists understand the behaviour of a person when

encountering certain situations. Such behavioural studies can include measuring reaction

times, stress and workload management, and situational awareness. Based on the results of

those studies, recommendations can be made to improve road safety.

Simulators in the Transportation Industry

Simulators are extensively used in the transportation industry for all the purposes

mentioned above. For example, government agencies use driving simulators to test the

driving skills of a person. This allows a learner driver to demonstrate his or her driving skills

in the safety of a simulator before getting behind the wheel of a real car. Similarly, train

drivers and ship captains use simulators to learn and perfect their skills. The safety advantage

offered by simulators makes them a preferred choice for training and/or testing, especially for

a novice. This is because an operator can safely walk away even if she or he makes mistakes

in the simulator, whereas in the real world a mistake might lead to an unwanted incident or a

disaster. Hence, using simulators is beneficial, especially in a high-risk industry such as

transportation.

154

This is predominantly true for the aviation industry. Operating an aircraft requires

complex skills and knowledge that takes time for a pilot to learn. Student pilots use flight

simulators to practise the skills required to become a pilot. Licensed pilots and experienced

pilots use simulators to maintain their flying proficiency. They also use simulators to learn

and practise more advanced flying skills, particularly managing emergency scenarios that

might arise. Due to high cost and risk, it is not possible to learn these skills in the real world.

For example, an airline pilot cannot practise engine failure in a real aircraft, because it would

put the life of the pilot at risk and increase the chances of an accident. Hence, the aviation

industry has adopted the use of flight simulators extensively and they have become a

common asset for every airline and even flight training school. There are several types of

flight simulators that are used in the aviation industry, varying in almost every aspect, from

complexity and design to fidelity and cost. The main types of simulators used in the aviation

industry will be discussed in the next section.

Types of Simulators used in the Aviation Industry

Simulators in the aviation industry are used for numerous processes, including

simulating flight, aircraft design, and prediction and management of air traffic. The following

sections will discuss in detail simulators used for pilot training, also known as flight

simulators.

Flight simulators offer the user a replication of flying an aircraft in a virtual world.

Simulators can be used by a person in many ways, some of which have already been

155

discussed in the previous sections. A person can use it as a game, with no intention of

learning to fly. A person interested in flying can use it to enjoy a virtual flying experience.

Student pilots can use it to practise and perfect their skills, and experienced pilots can do the

same. Researchers can use it to conduct scientific experiments in a safe environment, to

improve understanding of how pilots fly an aircraft and improve aviation safety.

The two main components of flight simulators are the hardware and the software. The

hardware required to run a flight simulator can vary in complexity. It can start with a basic

personal computer, which includes the standard equipment like monitor, keyboard, etc.

Additional equipment can be purchased and added, such as screens, flight controls, and hard

switches. This additional equipment offers more realism to the flight simulator.

Apart from the hardware, it is necessary to have the appropriate software installed on

the computer. Flight simulator software is widely available for purchase from gaming stores.

One of the most common examples is Microsoft Flight Simulator (Microsoft © Flight

Simulator X, 2006). Over the past few years, other flight simulators have also gained

popularity, such as X-Plane (Laminar Research © X Plane, 2012), Lockheed Martin

Prepar3D (Lockheed Martin Corporation © Prepar3D, 2010), and Digital Combat Simulator

(Eagle Dynamics © DCS, 2008). Regardless of the manufacturer, the software provides a

similar product and offers the user the ability to fly an aircraft virtually.

156

Figure 48: Example of basic hardware and software required to operate a flight simulator.

Figure 48 shows a flight simulator set up using a personal home computer. This

simulator has minimal hardware and commonly available software. Such a basic set-up can

be used for several purposes, is cost-effective, and can be effective for training and research.

The flight simulator software includes a replica of the whole world, including all

major cities and towns, and all major landmarks such as roads, powerlines, and famous

buildings. Natural landmarks are also replicated accurately, including rivers, lakes, and

mountains. Variables such as weather, time of day, temperature and season can be modified

as required.

157

There is an extensive database of airports around the world, and most of the major

airports are included in the flight simulator. These airports are positioned in the correct

location and their layout is accurately replicated. Terminals, control towers and taxiways are

positioned and labelled correctly.

In the growing aviation industry, airports are constantly expanding and/or being

modified. If an airport is missing from the simulator or changes have been made to an airport

in the real world, flight simulator offers software tools to modify the virtual airport.

Similarly, such changes can be made to the landmarks in the virtual world.

Flight simulator offers a variety of aircraft for a user to operate. These include the

general aviation single-engine propeller aircraft, commercial passenger jet aircraft, historical

aircraft, and military fighter aircraft. Apart from these fixed-wing options, there are also

options for rotary wing counterparts. Once again, software tools allow for additional aircraft

to be created and installed.

158

Figure 49: A screenshot of Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

Figure 49 shows a screenshot of a Cessna 172 in a flight simulator, ready for take-off

on the runway. As seen in the figure, the simulator offers accurate representation of the real-

world aircraft, and the display of instruments and layout of information is an exact

representation of the real world.

There are many different types of flight simulators that are available and used in the

aviation industry. These vary in complexity and cost. Some simulators offer more realism and

replicate the aircraft more accurately than others. Today, it is also possible to install a flight

simulator on handheld tablets and smart phones; however, a flight simulator on portable

159

devices is mainly used for entertainment and might not be of educational benefit. Below are a

few examples of different types of flight simulators.

On the lower end of the scale is a home-built flight simulator on a personal computer.

This can be basic and may be installed on any computer, using standard computer equipment

like a keyboard and mouse to help operate the aircraft on the simulator. A home-built

simulator can be expanded by adding additional hardware and software. For example, a high

performance personal computer with three screens, a joystick, a throttle and rudder pedals

make a home-built simulator more immersive.

Figure 50 shows a flight simulator built using a personal computer and additional

hardware. Extra hardware such as a large television screen, joystick and speakers make this

flight simulator more engaging.

Such lower-end simulators are affordable and easily accessible. Individuals who have

an interest in flying invest in these simulators, and the educational benefits offered by such

simulators make them a preferred choice amongst student pilots. Despite being at the lower

end of simulators, appropriate use of such simulators does have positive impacts on real-

world flying skills. Skills and knowledge can be transferred from the simulator to the real

aircraft, which means that cost-effective home simulators can be a valuable learning device

for novice and expert pilots.

160

Figure 50: Example of a personal computer flight simulator, with extra hardware.

On the higher end, a high-fidelity flight simulator offers wrap-around visuals,

authentic flight controls and switches, high performing computers, motion platform and even

a mock-up cockpit shell. These simulators are custom-built for particular aircraft types and

use proprietary software. They are mainly used by airlines for training and testing their

aircrew.

The complexity of such high-end simulators makes them very expensive. They

require professional and dedicated employees to operate and maintain them, therefore only

airlines and larger flight training schools can afford them.

161

Figure 51: A full motion high-end Boeing 737 simulator.

Figure 51 shows the exterior view of a high-end flight simulator. This simulator has a

large footprint, therefore it requires a dedicated building to house it. It is installed on a full

motion platform, also known as a Gough Stewart Hexapod Platform. This platform has six

hydraulic jacks that offer six degrees of freedom (Gough, 1956; Stewart, 1965). It allows the

simulator to move forward or rearward, up or down, and left or right. At the same time, it also

offers the motion of pitch, yaw and roll. These movements provide the user with a sense of

motion while in the simulator.

162

Figure 52: Instructor station inside a high-end simulator.

163

As with most simulators, an instructor station is included, as shown in Figure 52. The

instructor station allows the instructor to perform several actions, such as positioning the

aircraft at the desired location, initiating emergencies, controlling the weather, or changing

the traffic.

An instructor managing a high-end simulator like this must also be a qualified pilot.

This helps in operating the simulator and applying the correct configurations and settings.

She or he can also monitor the performance of the pilots flying the aircraft and provide

guidance and training as required.

Figure 53 shows the cockpit view inside the simulator. All the instruments, flight

controls and systems are realistic in such a high-end flight simulator. Most of these parts have

been salvaged from decommissioned aircraft, therefore it offers greater realism.

Regardless of the simulator type, all can be used for several purposes. For example, as

already mentioned, the high-end Boeing 737 flight simulator can also be used to offer the

general public an experience of flying a 737.

The above description explains the main components of flight simulators. It also

provides examples of flight simulators at the extreme ends of budget and complexity, one at

164

the lower end and another at the higher end. Between these two options, there are several

types of flight simulators available.

Figure 53: Cockpit inside the Boeing 737 simulator with realistic controls, visual display,

flight instruments and other hardware.

A simulator can be custom-built for any budget. Most flight training schools invest in

a simulator between the two extremes mentioned above. Because the demand for flight

simulators has increased considerably over recent decades, several manufacturers are now

building flight simulators. In particular, there are several companies that manufacture

affordable simulators. At the same time, these simulators serve as a valuable training aid.

They are made affordable by using readily available software and hardware. Companies like

165

RedBird and FlyIt offer such simulators. These simulators have gained immense popularity

and are used all over the world. The simulators offered by these companies are discussed in

detail later in this chapter.

Because of the benefits offered by simulators, such as transfer of skills, the hours

spent in a simulator can be officially entered in a pilot’s logbook. In order to ensure accuracy

of simulator training and to maintain consistency, aviation regulatory authorities have

classified simulators.

Officially, there are two main categories of flight simulators. The first category is

called a flight training device. There are seven levels of complexity for flight training

devices, designated by numbers. The second category is called a full flight simulator. There

are four levels of fidelity for full flight simulators, designated by letter. Full flight simulators

are more advanced than flight training devices, and are more expensive and time consuming

to build and operate (FAA, 1992).

The main difference between the two categories is the existence of movement. The

complexity of the simulator increases as the number or the letter increases. For example, a

Level C full flight simulator is more sophisticated than a Level A full flight simulator. Each

level higher includes the features of the previous level along with additional features.

166

The first three levels of flight training devices are no longer being approved. These

levels consist of simulators that include personal computer simulators and advanced aviation

training devices. Although new simulators in these levels are no longer being approved,

simulators in these levels that were approved historically are still in existence. Level 4 flight

training devices include part-task training simulators. These are simulators which have a few

controls and few screens to simulate an aircraft. They are mainly used to replicate a particular

task or procedure, such as practising the procedures in the landing phase. Using a Level 4

simulator also offers a pilot the opportunity to practise checklists whilst rehearsing practical

skills. A Level 5 flight training device is dedicated to a particular type of aircraft. The

controls are more specific, therefore this level of simulator is used for more advanced training

for particular types of aircraft, and they are beneficial for a pilot who is making a transition to

that type of aircraft. Level 6 is the highest level of flight training device offered for fixed-

wing aircraft. A simulator at this level offers very accurate replication of the real aircraft, and

is also specific to an aircraft with exact flight controls and systems. The aerodynamic

modelling of the aircraft in the Level 6 simulator is also precise. Level 7 flight training

devices are available for rotary wing aircraft only, and have similar characteristics to Level 6

with the fixed-wing aircraft (FAA, 1992).

A full flight simulator offers four levels of movement, and the categories of these

levels are mainly defined by this motion. A Level A full flight simulator includes three

degrees of freedom, which means that the motion platform simulates pitch, yaw and roll. This

offers the pilot flying in a Level A simulator a greater sense of realism. A Level B full flight

simulator offers the same motion platform as the previous level, however the simulator can

either be a fixed-wing or rotary wing simulator. The aerodynamic modelling of the virtual

aircraft is also more realistic in Level B. A Level C full flight simulator offers six degrees of

167

freedom: yaw, pitch, roll, horizontal, lateral and vertical motion. It includes a Gough Stewart

Hexapod Platform, as previously discussed. Level D full flight simulator also includes six

degrees of freedom and also offers realistic aerodynamic modelling, sound, visual system,

etc. At the time of writing, a Level D full flight simulator is the highest level of simulator

available (FAA, 1992).

Usage of Simulators in the Aviation Industry

This section will discuss the usage of flight simulators in the aviation industry. As

mentioned in the previous section, simulators can be used for many purposes and, in the

aviation industry, they can be used for all the previously mentioned purposes. This section

will focus on three of the main uses of flight simulators: training, testing and research.

Pilot training in the aviation industry has evolved drastically over the past century.

The first decade required brave pioneering pilots to fly an aircraft. They were offered little, if

any, practical training before flying a real aircraft. As the demand for aviation increased,

more pilots were required to be trained, which led to the introduction of dual-seat aircraft

with synchronised dual flight controls. These aircraft allowed student pilots to be trained

safely and efficiently. In order to further improve training, simulators have become

extensively used.

168

Simulators complemented the theoretical classes and provided practical training to the

students. This benefited the students as they were able to practise skills before entering a real

aircraft. Simulator training gained further popularity as aircraft systems became automated

and complex, and operating these automated systems required a high level of knowledge and

skill. Pilots without any experience with these systems also find simulator training beneficial.

Instead of learning to use these systems while flying, simulators offer a perfect alternative for

training. This also increases safety while flying real aircraft.

Flight simulators are used for training by flight training schools, airlines and

individuals. They are popular for training as they offer a cheaper and safer alternative to the

real-world aircraft. Several skills can be practised and perfected in a simulator, and a student

pilot can practise circuit procedures in a flight simulator. This can even be practised in a

flight simulator installed on a basic home computer. Practising circuits in a flight simulator

allows a student to learn all the procedures that are used while performing circuits. For

example, they can practise when to turn crosswind, downwind, base and finals. They can also

practise when to deploy the flaps while coming to land. A challenge they might face on a

basic simulator is that the view can be limited, especially if only one monitor is being used.

This can be overcome by adding additional monitors, which will provide a much wider field

of view.

An example of regular training provided to airline pilots is called line-oriented flight

training (LOFT). This type of training requires airline pilots to complete a full flight in a

Level D full flight simulator. This training is not intended to assess individual pilots, rather to

help them improve their flying skills. Another common training provided to airline pilots is

169

called aircraft type rating, which equips a pilot with the skills and knowledge to fly a certain

type of aircraft. Large commercial aircraft, such as the Boeing 737, require a significant

amount of training before a pilot can fly them. It is not feasible to offer this training in a real

aircraft for several reasons, including the high levels of risk and cost, therefore a pilot is fully

trained in a simulator before flying a real aircraft.

Simulators can be used for testing pilots. Airlines test their pilots regularly to ensure

their proficiency has not deteriorated. This is performed not just to help a pilot, but also to

fulfil legal and insurance requirements. During such testing, a pilot is required to complete

normal flying tasks and exhibit the expertise to handle unexpected situations. The testing is

not necessarily conducted as an exam to be passed or failed; instead, it is to help the airline

identify weaknesses that a pilot might have and assist him or her to improve those

deficiencies. However, if significant weaknesses are found, it could lead to stronger actions.

Testing is also performed to determine whether a newly trained pilot is ready to fly

the real aircraft. As mentioned, a pilot who is transitioning to a Boeing 737 will be trained in

a flight simulator to learn how to fly the larger, heavier and more advanced aircraft. After

completing the training, a pilot will have to exhibit his or her skills in the flight simulator

before stepping into the real aircraft. This testing ensures that a pilot is able to fly the aircraft

whilst managing the systems.

Apart from training and testing, aircraft manufacturing companies and human factors

scientists use flight simulators for research purposes. For example, flight simulators offer a

170

safe way of conducting research on pilot interaction with the flight instruments and

automation. This helps to understand the problems a pilot faces with the design of the cockpit

and enables improvements to be made accordingly. Cockpits of new aircraft are first created

in flight simulators and flown by pilots. While they are flying in the simulator, data is

collected to understand whether performance is being affected due to changes in instrument

display or information layout. The results of such studies facilitate the design and

development of a pilot-friendly cockpit for the new aircraft.

A good example of using flight simulators for research, training and testing is the

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. This is a single-seat military aircraft, with a modern

cockpit that includes a touch-screen instrument display. Developing this cockpit required an

immense amount of research in flight simulators. Future F-35 pilots are trained and tested in

flight simulators (Starosta, 2013; Lockheed Martin, 2016).

Apart from development of the aircraft cockpit, research is also conducted to

understand the human factors challenges that a pilot faces in the cockpit. Areas of research

include novice versus expert performance, a pilot’s ability to acquire information during an

emergency, and a pilot’s ability to detect instrument failures. The next section will briefly

discuss the research conducted using simulators. Following that, the simulators that were

used in this thesis will be described.

171

Research Applications of Flight Simulators

Simulators are used in many industries to conduct research. They are used in the

medical industry to improve productivity and reduce costs (Jun, Jacobson, & Swisher, 1999)

while also offering students a secure environment to learn new skills (Jeffries, 2009;

McGaghie, Siddall, Mazmanian, & Myers, 2009; Cook et al., 2011). Simulators are used to

train students in other fields, for example astronomy (Shin, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003).

Literature suggests that simulator usage can also be beneficial for businesses, as they

can easily replicate challenging scenarios which cannot be easily replicated in the real world.

At the same time, there is potential to utilise simulators even more by businesses and analysts

(Mahboubian, 2010; Faria, 2014; Berends & Romme, 1999; Bonini, 1963). In the

transportation industry, simulators can be used to predict driver behaviour and traffic flow

(Gipps, 1981; Krajzewicz, Bonert, & Wagner, 2006). In a similar way, simulators can be used

to predict weather changes over a period of time (Richardson, 1981).

Simulators offer the advantage of finding out what might happen in certain situations

(Dooley, 2002). Hence, they are used in several other industries, including information

technology (Dooley & Mahmoodi, 1992; Law & Kelton, 1982), utilities management

(Williams, Nicks, & Arnold, 1985), social sciences (Axelrod, 1997; Axtell, Axelrod, Epstein,

& Cohen, 1996), and aviation (Caldwell, Caldwell, Brown, & Smith, 2004).

172

The introduction of flight simulators into the aviation industry has been beneficial.

One of the biggest advantages is in training pilots (Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenizer, 1998).

Personal computer flight simulators are popular among pilots for practising skills while

learning to fly and for maintaining skills after obtaining a licence (Beckman, 2009).

A pilot can learn several flying skills in a simulator. These skills include practising

circuit procedures, performing a post take-off checklist such as retracting flaps, cross-country

navigation, and understanding the instrument display and information layout. These skills can

be transferred to a real aircraft and help a pilot while flying in a real-world aircraft.

A pilot is not required to have a certain amount of real-world flying experience before

she or he can experience the transfer benefits. An individual does not even have to be a pilot

to start learning flying skills in a flight simulator. Obtaining a pilot licence requires the

completion of the minimum number of hours and displaying the competency and ability to

safely fly an aircraft. Ortiz (1994) conducted research on the skills-transfer effect of flight

naïve subjects, using flight simulator software on a personal computer. Half of the subjects

were trained in a simulator before flying in a real aircraft, and the other half flew in the real

aircraft without any simulator training. The results showed that prior simulator experience

improved performance in a real aircraft.

Another study conducted using a personal computer revealed similar results (Dennis

& Harris, 1998). This research involved three groups of student pilots who had no practical

flying experience. During the experiment two groups were trained in simulators and the last

173

group was not offered any simulator training before flying a real aircraft. Simulator training

was offered with either proper flight controls or with basic computer devices like mouse and

keyboard. The group that was trained in the simulator using proper flight controls

outperformed the other two groups while flying in the real aircraft. The group with simulator

training using basic computer devices also performed better than the group without any

simulator training. The transfer of skills from a simulator to a real aircraft has significant

implications as it offers several benefits, including reducing the time required to obtain a pilot

licence (Taylor et al., 1999).

Apart from offering benefits to a student pilot, simulators also offer benefits to a

licensed pilot. Pilot licensing is strictly regulated by government agencies. A licensed pilot is

required to pass regular checks or tests, conducted by senior instructors, to maintain their

licence. Certain checks, like instrument proficiency, can be tested in an approved high-

fidelity simulator rather than a real aircraft (FAA, 1991b). Simulators installed on home

computers can also be beneficial for several tasks (Talleur, Taylor, Emanuel, Rantanen, &

Bradshaw, 2003).

A pilot who is preparing to take his or her check flight can find training in a personal

computer simulator to be beneficial (Talleur et al., 2003; Emanuel, Taylor, Talleur, &

Rantanen, 2003; Koonce & Bramble, 1998). Performing an instrument flight is demanding.

Due to the immense realism offered by simulators, a pilot feels similar pressures and stresses

to those that are associated with the instrument conditions in the real world. This requires a

pilot to use real-world skills in the simulator, which helps her or him perform more accurately

(Morris, Hancock, & Shirkey, 2004). Apart from training student pilots and testing licensed

174

pilots, simulators are also used in the aviation industry to teach employed pilots new skills

(Bürki-Cohen, Soja, & Longridge, 1998). An example of such skills is learning how to handle

an abnormal situation in a new type of aircraft.

Managing an in-flight emergency, such as engine failures or unusual attitudes, is a

major challenge for novice pilots. This is because it takes time to learn how to properly

diagnose and recover from such a situation. Proper techniques are acquired by practising such

scenarios regularly, but some scenarios are challenging to practise in a real aircraft due to

safety concerns. Hence, flight simulators offer a highly suitable alternative. A novice pilot

can learn how to manage and deal with such situations properly, by spending time in

simulators. These skills are transferred to the real-world aircraft and also help reduce

workload and emotional stress in a pilot when he or she experiences such events (Koglbauer,

Kallus, Braunstingl, & Boucsein, 2011; NTSB, 2010).

Apart from flying skills, simulators can also be used to learn higher-level thinking

skills (Dahlström, 2008). Achieving and maintaining situational awareness is an important

skill for a pilot to learn and master. This then leads to good decision making and reduces a

pilot’s workload. The importance of these skills was discussed in Chapter 2.

Other than flight simulators, computer programs designed to assess a pilot’s

situational awareness can also be valuable. These software programs can be used to help a

pilot learn good situational awareness skills. Student pilots were tested on basic skills, such as

completing all items on a checklist, as well as more advanced skills, such as multi-tasking.

175

This was done by using a computer program that simulated various scenarios. The results

confirmed an improvement in a pilot’s situational awareness level after using such programs

(Bolstad, Endsley, Costello, & Howell, 2010).

Modern aircraft are complex, especially a large commercial jet which has several

crew members. Not only are simulators beneficial to teach individual pilots valuable skills,

they can be used to teach flight crew to work together as a team. Well-developed scenarios

that simulate multi-crew operations help in enhancing team environment skills (Baker,

Prince, Shrestha, Oser, & Salas, 1993). Research also shows that training on a personal

computer can improve multi-crew skills of pilots (Brannick, Prince, & Salas, 2005).

Other domains in the aviation industry are also investing in simulators, such as

military aviation. Military operations tend to be more complex than the commercial aviation

industry. Subjective data reveals that military aviators also feel that simulators can offer

positive training advantages (Bell & Waag, 1998). A study conducted by Sullivan (1998) is

an example of the benefits offered by using flight simulators for military use. Similar to the

above-mentioned research on the transfer of skills, Sullivan (1998) concluded that pilots who

received simulator training performed better than those who did not receive any simulator

training. As a result, this study also recommends the incorporation of flight simulators into

training schedules.

The above literature shows that a pilot can learn and transfer skills from a simulator to

a real aircraft. These skills include technical skills and non-technical skills, such as

176

maintaining straight and level flight, situational awareness, and instrument proficiency.

Simulators have become commonly used equipment in the aviation industry. When properly

designed and used, they can offer a pilot financial and educational benefits (Dahlstrom,

Dekker, Van Winsen, & Nyce, 2009), regardless of the complexity of the simulator (Salas et

al., 1998). As mentioned earlier, a home computer simulator can be beneficial in preparing

for flight exams (Talleur et al., 2003).

It is important that simulators are designed with collaboration from engineers, pilots,

scientists, and other key groups. This ensures well-developed flight simulator software and

hardware that incorporate knowledge from various fields. It will also ensure success of the

equipment, which will make it cost-effective and affordable for individual pilots. As a result,

pilot performance will improve, which increases the safety of the aviation industry.

Advances in modern computing technology have made it possible to own a high-end

personal computer at a relatively low cost. This allows a pilot to run sophisticated flight

simulator software on their personal computer, providing the pilot with a highly capable

simulator that has comparable performance to higher-end simulators owned by training

schools (Reweti, 2014). By investing in a flight simulator, a pilot can save money while

flying a real aircraft and reduce the time taken to get his or her licence (Roscoe, 1991).

Apart from home simulators, training schools and universities are investing in

simulators to help their students (Macchiarella, Arban, & Doherty, 2006). This is because of

177

the benefits they offer, such as learning and improving flying skills in the safety of a

simulator (Preudhomme & Martinez, 2012).

Simulators are considered as gaming technology by many people. The results of these

and several other studies show that if flight simulators are properly used, they can offer

suitable and cost-effective training solutions (Jentsch & Bowers, 1998; Gawron, Bailey, &

Lehman, 1995). Hence, they are extensively used by scientists to conduct human factors

research, the results from which improve safety in the aviation industry.

The above literature highlights the importance of flight simulators and shows that they

assist in collecting data while conducting research. As a result, they were used in this

research to conduct experiments. The simulators used for this research are discussed in the

next section.

178

Flight Simulators Used in this Research

Two flight simulators were used in this research. The fixed-wing flight simulator used

was the Redbird FMX Flight Simulator, and the rotary wing flight simulator used was the

FlyIt Professional Helicopter Flight Simulator. Both these simulators, shown in Figure 54, are

described in detail in this section, along with a brief overview of the company that

manufactures them.

Figure 54: The fixed-wing and rotary wing simulators used to conduct experiments.

179

Redbird FMX Flight Simulator

The Redbird FMX flight simulator was made by the Redbird Flight Simulation

Incorporation, which is based in Austin, Texas, USA. This company was formed in 2006, and

its mission is to provide affordable flight simulators for flight training purposes.

Redbird makes several simulator products for the general aviation industry. At the

time of writing this thesis, the simulators offered by Redbird include the MCX, FMX, AMZ,

MX2 and SD. Until recently they mainly offered fixed-wing simulators only, although they

have recently included the option of rotary wing simulators. All of their simulators offer fully

enclosed mock-up cockpits. Some offer the option of being installed on a motion platform,

whereas others have a fixed base to reduce cost. A simulator like the MCX offers dual

controls in the cockpit, which facilitates student and instructor training. It also offers the

option to train pilots for multi-crew operations.

Most of the Redbird simulators are certified for flight training. This certification is

valid in several countries including United States of America, Canada, Europe, Australia,

New Zealand, Mexico and Brazil. This means that a pilot who spends time in the simulator

can enter it in his or her logbook. This offers an additional incentive on top of the existing

benefits.

180

The Redbird FMX, as used in this research, is a Level B full flight simulator. It is

equipped with a full motion platform, which offers a realistic flight environment as it

replicates the pitch, roll and yaw of an aircraft. For example, when a pilot pulls back on the

yoke the motion platform pitches up, giving a realistic sense of climbing; when turning, the

motion platform banks to the left or right, providing a sense of rolling.

The simulator offers a wide-angle visual display, with a pilot having 200° vision

while flying. This offers great benefits while flying in the simulator. When in circuits, a pilot

can see the view on the left and right-hand side. This helps him or her make decisions about

when to turn on the base or crosswind leg while in the circuit. This improves the training

capabilities offered by the simulator and makes the time spent in it more valuable. A good

visual display also helps a pilot learn good scanning patterns. In the wide angle visual display

of this simulator, a pilot also can practise looking for traffic while flying.

The Redbird FMX offers many different aircraft to choose from. Not only does it

simulate the aircraft realistically, but the flight controls and hard switches are also accurate.

When changing the aircraft type in this simulator, the instrument panels and the flight

controls are also changed. For example, it is possible to change from a Beech Baron twin-

engine aircraft to a single engine Cessna. The yoke, rudder pedals and switches are standard

for all the simulated aircraft. The throttle and the instrument panel are the only two items that

require changing. This is performed by replacing the dual-engine throttle controls with

single-engine throttle controls, and swapping the instrument panel with another panel that

includes the instruments that is in a single-engine Cessna.

181

During the simulator start-up, the hardware automatically communicates the correct

aircraft type to the software. Apart from changing the type of aircraft, it is also possible to

only change the type of cockpit instrument display. The display can either be the traditional

round dial flight instruments (analogue cockpit) or the modern digital flight instruments

(glass cockpit).

There are several types of aircraft that can be simulated in the Redbird, including

Cessna 172, Cessna 206, Piper PA28, Diamond DA20 and Cirrus SR22. The time required to

change the cockpit display and the flight controls is a few minutes. This can be performed by

an individual and does not require any tools.

The Redbird FMX also offers additional hardware and software that assist in learning.

For example, the flight data can be recorded and played back to analyse the flight, which

helps a pilot assess her or his performance and assists with identifying challenges faced by

the pilot and areas for improvement.

The Redbird FMX has a small footprint. Despite this, it has a large number of

features. Its power supply is from a standard cable connected to a power outlet in the wall.

The main computer of the Redbird FMX is located next to the simulator. This is a custom-

built computer that operates the hardware and the software required for the simulator. The

hardware controlled by the computer includes the motion platform, flight controls, cockpit

instruments, and visual display. The software operated by the computer is the standard

182

Microsoft Windows Operating System (Microsoft © Windows 7, 2009) and the flight

simulator software, Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

Once the computer is started, it automatically enters the flight simulation software.

The motion platform is started separately, and moves horizontally to initialise itself. Once the

motion platform setup is complete, the simulator is ready to be used. It is also possible to use

the simulator without the motion platform.

The user has the option to select the location, weather conditions and time of day to

begin the flight. This selection is made from a pre-defined list of options. Further

customisation is also possible, if required. The aircraft appears in a virtual world, parked in

the location selected by the user.

The simulator offers a pilot the opportunity to start the engines as she or he would in

the real world. This can be performed realistically by following the checklist. He or she also

has the option to perform normal procedures used in the general aviation industry, such as

completing run-up checks. These steps allow a pilot to practise the correct skills, as used in

the real world, before and after starting the aircraft’s engine.

The Redbird FMX does not offer the option to talk to a virtual air traffic control.

Instead a pilot can talk to another person, who acts as an air traffic controller, outside the

simulator. This allows a pilot to also practise their communication skills.

183

The simulator also requires a dedicated universal serial bus (USB) device to operate.

This key is unique and can record individuals’ preferences and flight data. A pilot can be

assigned a personal USB device to keep track of his or her training progress.

A laptop can be connected to the simulator to change various settings. Through the

laptop, any location in the world can be selected. Various weather conditions can be

replicated, along with the option to have real-time weather. This provides more options than

the default pre-defined options. It also enables users to initiate failing instruments or any

other failures. There is also an option to view the aircraft’s parameters and flight route.

Entry and exit from the moving flight simulator can be dangerous during operation.

Hence, a pilot can pause the flight in order to enter or exit the simulator. The simulator also

has an emergency stop button that can be used if a pilot wants to stop for any reason and at

any time. Doing so will allow a pilot to exit the simulator promptly and safely.

Figure 55 shows a view of the aircraft’s cockpit and outside world taken from the

pilot’s seat in the Redbird FMX simulator.

184

Figure 55: Image taken inside the Redbird FMX flight simulator.

185

FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator

The FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator was made by the FlyIt Simulators

Incorporation, which is based in Carlsbad, California, USA. This company was formed in

1993. They design and build helicopter and fixed-wing flight simulators, catering for several

purposes, including personal use, military use and commercial use.

Although FlyIt simulators offer fixed-wing and rotary wing simulators, their focus is

on helicopter simulators. Each FlyIt simulator can simulate several different aircraft. The

simulators offer a realistic cockpit shell in which a pilot sits. This cockpit shell is a

replication of the real aircraft’s fuselage. A motion platform is not an option for these

simulators, although the helicopter simulator has the option to include an airframe vibrator.

This allows a pilot to feel the skids of the helicopter touching down on the ground. Apart

from these simulators, they also offer custom-built simulators. These simulators include the

Eurocopter AS350, Sikorsky S333, and de Havilland Canada Twin Otter. The custom

simulators offer a specific aircraft type, and the controls and cockpit shell accurately

represent the chosen type.

The simulators offered by FlyIt are certified for flight training under the Federal

Aviation Administration in the United States of America. It is a Level 7 flight training device.

This assists a pilot to learn skills, such as instrument flying, in a cost-effective way. Pilots can

186

also enter the time in their logbooks as time spent in a training simulator towards their

instrument rating.

The simulator used in this study is the FlyIt Professional Helicopter Simulator, which

is a dedicated helicopter simulator. The simulator is built inside a trailer and offers the

flexibility of being mobile. It can be towed to any location using a car, just like a holiday

campervan trailer. This simulator also offers the option of buying the cockpit shell only,

which reduces the footprint of the simulator and reduces the cost.

The simulator does not have the option to be installed on a full motion platform.

However, it does offer a large 280° visual display. The main front display uses a projector to

show the image on a 78" x 93" screen. This large display also offers a pilot a view of the

ground beyond her or his feet, which is vital in rotary wing operations. The side views are

shown using two 80" monitors, placed on the left and right side of the cockpit. The excellent

visual display of this simulator helps a pilot maintain good situational awareness, and helps

him or her improve other skills, such as scanning for traffic in the area.

The FlyIt simulator offers a choice of several rotary wing aircraft. The flight controls

and instrument display accurately replicate each helicopter. The standard cyclic, which is

between the feet of the pilot, is included, and this can also be replaced with a Robinson style

cyclic. The collective and rudder pedals are the same for all the helicopter models. The

instrument panels are replicated on the monitor in front of the pilot. The aircraft that can be

simulated are the R22, R44, Bell 206, AS350 and MD500. Since the cyclic is the only

187

physical component to change when flying a Robinson helicopter, the time required to

change aircraft type is minimal, requiring only a selection in the software at the instructor

station.

The FlyIt simulator has a large footprint since it is installed in a trailer. The trailer

includes two doors for entry. The forward door allows a pilot to access and maintain the

projector, when required. The rear door allows a pilot to enter the main simulator area where

the cockpit shell and the instructor station are included.

Figure 56: Image taken inside the FlyIt Simulator.

188

The cockpit shell is a standard helicopter shell. It is shaped as a helicopter fuselage,

which offers a realistic airframe impression. Two seats are included in the cockpit along with

dual controls. The controls are linked with each other; that is, if the cyclic is moved from one

side, the other cyclic will also move. This offers great training benefits. A monitor displaying

the flight instruments is located at the front of the cockpit in the middle. This display is

shown in Figure 56. A radio stack along with other switches is located below the instrument

display. This allows a pilot to change the frequencies and toggle the system or lighting

switches. An overhead panel is also included, which provides additional controls like the

circuit breakers and generator switch.

Figure 57: Close up of the monitors in the instructor station in the FlyIt Simulator.

189

The instructor station is located behind the cockpit shell, as shown in Figures 57 and

58. This provides an instructor with several facilities, including three monitors and even a

printer. The right monitor shows the main outside view of the aircraft, the centre monitor

duplicates the instrument display from the cockpit, and the left monitor allows an instructor

to change several settings. The weather can be changed while the aircraft is flying—clear

skies can be turned into an overcast sky instantly. An instructor can also initiate failures with

or without a pilot’s knowledge. For example, while a pilot is flying, an instructor can initiate

an engine failure, which will require a pilot to respond instantly and land the helicopter

immediately.

The simulator offers the option for a pilot and an instructor to communicate using

headsets. The instructor station also shows a radar map with all the traffic in the area. An

instructor can use this information to help a pilot navigate safely to the destination.

The hardware required for this simulator is placed in the cockpit shell. The computer

used is a custom-built computer with high-end hardware specifications. This allows the

hardware to cope with the complexity of several displays while also running the software.

The software used in this simulator is the standard operating system, Microsoft Windows,

and flight simulator, Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

The start-up procedure requires the computer to be started, which displays the

standard Windows home screen. The flight simulator software has to be executed to start the

190

flight simulator program; it does not start automatically. The software places the helicopter

on the runway at McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California, USA. This is the default

airport, as it is near to the headquarters of FlyIt Simulators. The flight controls are activated

separately using different software, before starting the flight simulator software. Once the

flight simulator software is running, a pilot is required to test the flight controls.

Once the above process is complete, a pilot can select any airport, season and

meteorological condition using the instructor station. The simulator starts the helicopter’s

engines automatically. If a pilot wants to perform an engine start-up, then it requires him or

her to turn the engine off first.

This chapter highlights the different uses and benefits of flight simulators. They are a

valuable research tool and are extensively used to conduct human factors research. They offer

a controllable, reliable and reproducible environment in which to conduct research. Hence,

flight simulators were used in this research to conduct experiments in a low risk environment.

191

Figure 58: Instructor station inside the FlyIt simulator.

Chapter 4

Eye Tracker Overview and Usage

193

Introduction to Eye Trackers

Human Senses

Humans gather information from the world using their senses. Humans possess five

senses: hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste.

The sense of hearing uses the ears to help a human perceive audio signals. The ears

interpret vibration, which the brain converts to information. The sense of sight uses the eyes

to enable a human to see and detect images. The eyes interpret the image created by light,

which the brain converts into meaningful information. The sense of touch uses the skin to

help a human perceive information. The brain interprets pressure changes to understand the

surrounding environment. The sense of smell helps a human perceive information using the

nose. Chemical changes are detected by the nose, and this information is then converted by

the brain to understand what is occurring in the surroundings. The sense of taste uses the

tongue to help a human perceive information. The tongue detects changes in taste using the

taste buds, which is understood by the brain and converted into useful information.

The five senses play an important role in the aviation industry. Hearing helps a pilot

to listen to many different cues from the outside world, which helps him or her understand

what is happening around an aircraft. Historically, a pilot primarily flew using the sense of

sound. She or he heard the sound of an aircraft’s engine and judged the power setting based

194

on that. The engine power was adjusted based on the phase of the flight by listening to the

engine’s sound. Take-off required full power, which was denoted by a high-pitched sound

from the engine. Cruise required approximately two-thirds power, depending on the aircraft,

and a pilot made the necessary adjustments. Finally, landing required a pilot to adjust the

power to maintain the glide, slope and speed required to land on the runway.

The sense of touch helps a pilot feel the controls in an aircraft. Older aircraft have

mechanical controls and the control surfaces are linked to the flight controls in the cockpit

using cables and wires. A modern aircraft, on the other hand, has the control surfaces

electronically linked to the flight controls. A pilot has to use slightly more physical effort to

manoeuvre an older aircraft than a modern aircraft. This comparison is similar to driving cars

with and without power steering.

The sense of smell assists a pilot during normal and emergency situations. An aircraft

has a neutral smell during normal flight operations. However, in the event of an emergency,

there can be different smells, including the smell of smoke or fuel (especially in a small

aircraft). These smells can direct the attention of a pilot and let him or her know that there is a

potential problem with an aircraft, and the pilot can act accordingly to avoid a disaster.

The sense of taste does not have a direct impact on a pilot while flying. In larger

commercial jet aircraft, the cabin pressurisation can change the sense of taste. For example,

in-flight meals can taste different to the same food on the ground.

195

The sense of sight is a very important sense for a pilot. While flying an aircraft, a pilot

is presented with a lot of visual information. This information is in the aircraft and also in the

outside world. The information inside an aircraft includes the display of the flight parameters

on the flight instruments, which help a pilot to understand the performance of an aircraft and

make necessary adjustments to achieve the desired result.

A pilot also has to get information from the outside world, especially when flying in

daytime visual flight rules condition. This includes terrain awareness. A pilot has to use maps

and follow landmarks in the outside world to navigate from the departure airport to the

destination airport. She or he also has to monitor the weather and avoid flying into

deteriorating conditions. Once again, for daytime visual flight rules condition the best way

for a pilot to monitor the weather is to look outside.

Finally, in all flying conditions a pilot needs to look outside and keep an eye on the

traffic in the area. Such monitoring helps a pilot to fly safely to the destination and is the

prime task of a pilot. He or she acquires all the above-mentioned information through the

sense of sight.

Perceiving this information forms the first stage of maintaining good situational

awareness. It helps a pilot know what is going on around the aircraft. Of all the senses, sight

plays the most vital role in aviation safety. Historically, a pilot who had poor vision and wore

glasses was limited in his or her ability to fly an aircraft. Today, with advances in technology,

196

poor vision is no longer an issue as a pilot can use appropriate methods to overcome this

problem. However, this may not be true for military aviation.

Perception not only helps in gathering information from various sources, it also lays

the foundation for processes such as decision making, performing actions, and managing

workload. Since vision plays such a significant role in the aviation industry, understanding

where a pilot looks while flying is an important task for human factors researchers.

Collecting data on where a pilot is looking can be performed objectively or

subjectively. A questionnaire can provide subjective data on where a pilot is looking while

performing a task. This data can be collected by asking a pilot questions about how he or she

obtained the information while performing a task.

Objective data can be collected by using devices such as an eye tracker. Data

collected from this device provides indisputable evidence of where a pilot is looking. It can

collect data continuously and provides an accurate picture of where the pilot is looking during

all phases of flight.

Additional data is also collected, such as duration of fixation, number of times an area

was scanned, and whether or not an area was scanned. For these reasons, an eye tracker is a

valuable tool that helps human factors researchers understand how pilots gather data from the

available sources.

197

Types of Eye Trackers

There are several types of eye trackers, including head-mounted, virtual reality head-

mounted, eye and head movement tracker, fixed-head, and fixed-base eye tracker.

Each device tracks the movement of the eye of the person wearing it. The hardware

and software vary between the different types of device. They can have binocular eye

tracking, in which the movement of both eyes is tracked, or monocular eye tracking, in which

the movement of only one eye is tracked. As a result, the data collected by various devices

can also be slightly different.

Each type of eye tracker has its own advantages and disadvantages. A head-mounted

eye tracker is mounted on the head of a person and is worn in a similar manner as a pair of

glasses. The device includes hardware to record the scene in front of a person as well as the

movement of the eye. The data analysis software overlays eye movement data on top of the

recorded scene. This device provides flexibility for the person wearing it, as she or he is free

to move around. Hence, it can record data in real time without any restrictions, while a person

is scanning for the information he or she requires.

198

A disadvantage is that the analysis of data from such a device can require expensive

software. If the software is not obtained, then the analysis has to be manually completed. This

device might not be suitable when time is a constraint.

An eye and head movement tracker is similar to a head-mounted eye tracker. This

device includes an additional hardware component that also collects head movement data.

The benefits of this are mainly in the analysis phase, as the device makes it easy to

automatically analyse the data. The software is more complex and automatically shows the

areas that were scanned most and how a person’s eyes moved around during the experiment.

It also shows the scan paths that a person used while searching for information. The

disadvantage of this device is that the person cannot look at anything that is outside the range

of the head tracker.

A fixed-head eye tracker is similar to the above devices, the main difference being

that a person is not able to move his or her head once it is positioned in the device. This

means that a person can only look forward and, as a result, this device has limited uses. It

offers great benefits for researchers into human-computer interactions. This is because a

person has to look at the computer screen only, which is always in forward view. However, in

a more dynamic environment such as an aircraft’s cockpit, this device has limited uses.

A fixed-base eye tracker offers similar functionality to the fixed-head eye tracker.

Such trackers are normally used for research performed in human-computer interaction. This

eye tracker is placed under the main computer screen, and tracks a person’s eye movement

199

without being intrusive. One of the biggest advantages of a fixed-base eye tracker is that the

device is not placed on a person’s head. This can make the data collected more reliable as a

person might forget the presence of the eye tracker once the experiment has started.

A virtual reality head-mounted eye tracker includes an additional virtual reality

component. This component virtually simulates or shows a scenario for a person to look at

and records the person’s scanning patterns in the virtual world. This device helps study a

person’s eye movements in an environment that cannot be easily replicated, such as

simulating a war scene and studying where a soldier looks during combat.

An eye tracker can either be purchased as a ready-to-use device or constructed by

scientists. A self-built eye tracker requires basic engineering and technical knowledge. The

main benefit offered by this device is a significant saving in expenses. Knowledge of

software development helps an individual to design analysis software. A do-it-yourself

project can offer further flexibility because scientists can design and develop a device based

on their needs, and will be able to modify it further for specific research projects.

Custom design and construction is not an option for everyone. For most people,

buying an eye tracker from a manufacturer is the easiest solution. There are several

companies around the world that specialise in making eye trackers, offering several different

products with similar features at competitive prices. These products offer all the required

items to start data collection straight out of the box, including all required hardware, software

200

and manuals. There are several other uses of an eye tracker, which are discussed in the next

section.

Eye Tracker Usage

An eye tracker is mainly used for scientific purposes, and can be used for training,

research, testing and development. It is used in many industries as it offers objective data of

where a person is looking, allowing scientists to collect data and understand human

behaviour. Such data is utilised for safety improvements and several other things.

An eye tracker can be used to train novices. Gathering information from available

sources efficiently and quickly is a skill that is acquired through time and experience. As a

result, a novice might spend a considerable amount of time searching for information and

might focus attention on a particular source of information. It is not easy to detect this

behaviour, therefore using eye trackers during training is advantageous. It allows the novice

to analyse his or her information-gathering strategies. Any weaknesses can be highlighted in

an attempt to improve information acquisition skills. At the same time, novices can be shown

strategies used by experts, which will further assist them in learning effective ways to gather

information from available sources.

Manufacturing companies can use eye trackers while testing and developing new

products. For example, an aircraft manufacturer can use eye trackers to understand how pilots

201

interact with a new cockpit design. This will highlight any strengths and weaknesses in the

design and allow manufacturers to further modify the design based on the results. The data

collected can also be matched against scanning patterns from existing aircraft cockpits. Such

a comparison will help manufacturers understand if the new design will present any issues

when a pilot is making a transition to the new aircraft.

Finally, eye trackers are used for research purposes. This is one of the most common

uses of an eye tracker. Eye tracking research helps scientists understand how information is

acquired, which is useful in many industries that rely on information acquisition.

Marketing research is conducted using eye trackers, to understand consumer

behaviour. For example, business analysts can use eye trackers to study how customers

browse products and select based on available options. This helps the department stores or

supermarkets promote and stock products accordingly, and helps in increasing profit through

appropriate placement of products.

Eye trackers are used in the computing industry to understand human interaction with

computers. There have been several studies conducted in many different areas of human-

computer interaction. A webpage developer can use eye trackers to understand how users

scan and gather information from the pages on the internet, which allows for better design of

webpages. A software designer can use this equipment to understand how users interact with

the software interface, leading to user-friendly design.

202

In the transportation industry, an air traffic controller has to be vigilant and constantly

scan the radar to maintain separation between aircraft in the sky. Human factors scientists can

use eye trackers to understand the way a controller acquires information from the radar and to

analyse his or her ability to detect potential hazards. The results of such research help in

training and improving safety.

Finally, in the transportation industry, eye trackers are valuable as they help scientists

understand how a pilot or a driver scans the instruments and the outside world to safely

operate a vehicle.

While flying, a pilot is provided with an immense amount of information. She or he

has to choose and gather the most appropriate information. This can depend on several

factors, such as phase of flight and status of aircraft. These factors are also affected by a

pilot’s training and experience. Once this information has been obtained, it is then processed,

which assists in decision making, performing actions and managing workload.

Information acquisition is a vital skill, particularly in the aviation industry. It is a

high-risk industry where it is important to achieve and maintain safety. This is done by

scanning and gathering information accurately, quickly and regularly. An eye tracker helps

scientists understand pilot’s scanning strategies. As a result, it is used extensively by

scientists to conduct human factors research and improve aviation safety. The research

applications and the eye tacker used in this research are discussed in the following sections.

203

Research Applications of Eye Trackers

Eye trackers have been used extensively in many different industries that involve

human monitoring. The information provided by the eye tracking device shows scientists

how a human acquires information. Information acquisition is an important step before

decisions can be made, and requires a human to search for the most relevant information from

all the available sources. If the information is not correctly obtained, then it leads to wrong or

incomplete decisions. This can result in wrong actions, which can lead to errors being made

by a human and, consequently, to a disaster.

Conducting eye tracker research is valuable, as the objective data shows exactly

where a person is looking. It also provides additional information such as the duration and

number of times that each item was scanned. Such data helps scientists understand if

individuals are well trained (Wetzel, Krueger-Anderson, Poprik, & Bascom, 1996).

Furthermore, when errors are made it helps in determining the source of the error. As a result,

eye tracking research is beneficial and conducted in many high-risk industries to improve

safety (Glöckner & Herbold, 2011; Boussemart, Las Fargeas, Cummings, & Roy, 2009;

Morrison, Marshall, Kelly, & Moore, 1997; Brown, Bautsch, Wetzel, & Anderson, 2002;

Hayashi, 2004; Moore & Gugerty, 2010). They are used to conduct research in many fields,

including psychology, physiology, neuroscience and human factors (Duchowski, 2002;

Salojärvi, Puolamäki, & Kaski, 2004; Pfeiffer, Clark, & Danaher, 1963).

204

The health industry benefits from eye tracking research, because it analyses how a

doctor or a nurse gathers information and makes decisions (McCormack, Wiggins, Loveday,

& Festa, 2014). Eye tracking also shows how a task is shared amongst different people in

order to successfully complete it (Seagull, Xiao, MacKenzie, Jaberi, & Dutton, 1999). Being

a safety-critical industry, eye trackers are beneficial for training novices and also examining

experts (Hermens, Flin, & Ahmed, 2013; Tien et al., 2014; Matsumoto, Terao, Yugeta,

Fukuda, & Emoto, 2011).

Eye tracking research also helps create good interfaces for humans. This is widely

used in making computers more user-friendly (Strandvall, 2009; Jacob & Karn, 2003). Apart

from user-friendliness, eye trackers can also be used to improve efficiency. For example,

there are many ways to select an item on a computer screen, including using a mouse or a

keyboard. An eye tracking feature can also be utilised in order to make the selection quicker

(Ware & Mikaelian, 1987).

Eye tracking studies also reveal that users adapt well to the display and design on a

computer screen, such as websites. This means that it opens up a wide variety of layout

options for website developers (McCarthy, Sasse, & Riegelsberger, 2004). Apart from proper

design, Djamasbi, Siegel and Tullis (2010) also showed that age-specific design might be

effective for some websites. For example, websites aimed at younger people might require

media-rich content with less text. In a similar way, product placement in supermarket shelves

is important to help the consumer choose the item they want to purchase (Reutskaja, Nagel,

Camerer, & Rangel, 2011).

205

Search engine design and layout has also been examined using eye trackers. A study

by Guan and Cutrell (2007) showed that users put a lot of trust in a search engine and expect

to see the most relevant results at the top of the page. Such strategies can be utilised by

businesses in order to promote their products more effectively. However, the disadvantage is

that users might not take time to examine results that are not displayed first or at the top.

Business analysts use eye trackers to understand a consumer’s behaviour. In similar findings

to those of Guan and Cutrell (2007), Lohse (1997) found that consumers’ scanning is highly

selective; hence, proper design and placement of advertisements is vital to gathering

consumer’s attention.

One of the benefits of eye tracking research is being able to teach a novice to acquire

information accurately. This is performed by researching and understanding how a novice’s

information acquisition skill differs from an expert. The results help a novice learn good

information-gathering skills during training (Law, Atkins, Kirkpatrick, & Lomax, 2004;

Underwood, 2007; Mourant, & Rockwell, 1972; Roca, Ford, McRobert, & Williams, 2011).

In the transportation industry, eye tracking research helps understand how operators

interact with a vehicle (Groeger, Bradshaw, Everatt, Merat, & Field, 2003; Naweed, 2013). It

is used in the rail industry to understand how drivers look at important cues while operating a

train. For example, gathering information from signals is a vital part of a train driver’s role. A

study by Luke, Brook-Carter, Parkes, Grimes and Mills (2006) showed that expectations of

what to expect from the signals also determine their scanning strategies. For example, if a

206

green signal was expected for an extended period of time, then the driver might also scan

other items. This is because they spent less time focusing on the signal due to their

expectation, which resulted in spare time available for other scanning.

In the road transport industry, eye trackers can be used to train novice drivers in an

attempt to keep them safe on the road and reduce accidents (Fisher, Pollatsek, & Pradhan,

2006; Mourant & Rockwell, 1972). As with other industries, objective data from eye trackers

shows where the driver is looking, and also shows the importance of the information that he

or she obtained based on the driving conditions (Shinar, 2008).

Even the space flight industry uses eye trackers to improve safety. Operating a space

vehicle is a complex task, and an eye tracking study shows that where an astronaut looks

depends on the phase of flight (Moore et al., 2008). In addition, if an abnormality was

present, then the normal scan was changed in order to deal with the abnormality and resolve

it. This behaviour was exhibited by both novices and experts, although experts displayed

higher skill in their performance (Valerie et al., 2005; Hayashi, Beutter, & McCann, 2005).

Understanding the scanning patterns of operators is important even if the human is not

physically present in the vehicle. Tvaryanas (2004) found that the scan can differ in vehicles

in which the operator is not physically present, and that this can change the way he or she

interacts with the vehicle and can have safety implications.

207

In the aviation industry, scanning instruments and the outside world is important to

maintain flight safety. A pilot is trained to develop and maintain a good scan pattern from his

or her first hour of pilot training. The importance of proper scanning has been researched

using eye tracking equipment since the 1950s. These studies show where the pilot looks and

for how long, and the scanning pattern they use to gather information. They also show the

important instruments based on the number of times and the duration that they were looked

at. For example, the heading indicator is more important than the vertical speed indicator,

because the heading indicator was scanned five times more than the vertical speed indicator

(Milton, Jones, & Fitts, 1949). However, it is also important to note that such research has

been conducted on specific phases of flight, such as instrument landing (Fitts, Jones, &

Milton, 1950; Jones, Milton, & Fitts, 1949), and that scanning strategies change according to

the phase of flight and other conditions, such as abnormalities.

The studies mentioned in the previous paragraph also show the importance of the four

primary instruments that are scanned regularly. The results of the above-mentioned research

help in determining the best layout of the most frequently scanned instruments. Today, these

instruments are also known as the ‘T’ instruments, as they are displayed in a ‘T’ layout. As

discussed in Chapter 2, they are the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator

and the heading indicator.

Since the above mentioned pioneering studies, scientists have continued to conduct

such research to study and understand a pilot’s scanning patterns and scan paths. Results of

such research helps scientists gather information about how a pilot acquires information from

the instruments and which instruments they scan most (Harris, Glover, & Spady, 1986). It

208

also helps to understand the training strategies that are in place and to improve them as

required (Wetzel et al., 1996). Such research not only improves aviation safety, it also helps

aircraft manufacturers in designing the best instrument layout in cockpits.

The attitude indicator is one of the primary flight instruments (Huettig et al., 1999),

and is scanned regularly in all phases of flight (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris &

Christhilf, 1980). Obtaining information from this instrument reduces the amount of time a

pilot has to spend on other instruments (Harris & Christhilf, 1980). One of the reasons for the

importance of this instrument is the information it provides. The attitude indicator provides

direct information about an aircraft’s pitch and roll. This also provides secondary information

to a pilot: if an aircraft is pitching up, the airspeed is also affected, and if an aircraft is rolling,

the altitude is also affected.

A pilot has to maintain the scanning pattern skill for as long as he or she holds a pilot

licence and flies an aircraft. In a single pilot operation, a pilot is responsible for gathering all

the information required to safely fly an aircraft. He or she does this by obtaining all the

necessary information from the available sources. A commercial pilot who is flying in a

multi-crew environment, such as in a Boeing 737, can share the scanning with other crew

members. During the take-off phase, the captain can choose to only monitor the runway and

the primary flight instruments, and can assign monitoring of the engine and other systems to

the first officer. This will also reduce the workload of a crew member during critical phases

of flight in a complex aircraft, and encourages collaborative decision making.

209

While flying an aircraft, a pilot has to obtain information from several different

sources. These include the instruments inside the aircraft, as well as the cues available from

the outside world. Scanning the outside world is important, because it helps with processes

such as traffic detection, obtaining navigation information, and maintaining awareness of

weather changes. A study by Wickens, Xu, Helleberg, Carbonari and Marsh (2000) found

that a pilot spends approximately 37% of her or his time scanning the outside world. The

scanning strategies for the outside world can vary. One strategy is to divide the outside world

into several areas vertically and individually scan each area. This provides a pilot with the

opportunity to spend enough time in each area to acquire information, and helps with

detecting traffic in the outside world (Talleur & Wickens, 2003). The amount of time spent

scanning the outside world is affected by traffic density, with higher traffic levels resulting in

more time spent scanning the outside world (Colvin, Dodhia, & Dismukes, 2005).

While scanning inside the aircraft, the pilot can scan the primary flight instruments,

the system status instruments or miscellaneous instruments. Anders (2001) conducted a study

using an Airbus A330 flight simulator, and collected pilots’ scanning data during the

approach and landing phases of the flight. The results showed that the pilots scanned the

primary flight display in a glass cockpit more than any other instrument. The automation

configuration or mode was mainly scanned when altitude or heading changes were required

as a result of instructions from the air traffic controller. A similar study conducted in a

Boeing 747 simulator found that the pilots scanned the primary flight display more than the

other instruments (Mumaw et al., 2000).

210

Research conducted on pilots performing an instrument landing in a Boeing 737

simulator showed that pilots scan several instruments together. They obtain a cluster of

information by scanning these instruments. These instruments are often related, such as

airspeed and engine instruments (Dick, 1980). For example, some of the instruments a pilot

monitors during landing are the airspeed indicator and altitude indicator. The airspeed

information is vital to obtain during landing, because flying above or below the prescribed

airspeed can lead to disaster. At the same time, changes in the aircraft’s speed will result in

variation in the altitude. Hence, altitude has to be monitored at the same time to prevent any

unwanted deviations.

The group of instruments scanned and the information obtained also depend on the

phase of the flight (Diez et al., 2001). For example, the instruments scanned during the

landing phase will differ from the cruise phase. This is because the priority during landing is

to obtain the airspeed and altitude information regularly and to make necessary adjustments

to maintain them. However, during the cruise phase, it is important to regularly acquire

altitude information and heading information, to maintain the assigned altitude and

navigational track.

As in commercial jet aircraft, regular scanning of the primary flight instruments and

the outside world is also important in general aviation. Different studies reveal different

amounts of time spent on the primary flight instruments. It is recommended that a pilot

should spend 25–30% of her or his time scanning the instruments (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA,

1998; AOPA, 1993, 2001; FAR/AIM, 2003).

211

Objective empirical measurements of the percentage of time spent scanning the

primary flight instruments vary widely and differ from the recommended time. One study

found that the primary flight instruments were scanned around 35% of the time during a

flight (Mumaw et al., 2001); Huettig et al. (1999) stated that they are scanned around 40%;

Wickens et al. (2000) suggested that they are scanned around 60%; and Dubois, Blättler,

Camachon and Hurter (2015) also showed that they are scanned 60% of the total time. The

latter study showed that this dropped to less than 50% when they were prompted to scan the

outside world.

Technology also plays an important role in a pilot’s scanning pattern, as it has

changed the way humans perform tasks. In today’s automated world, a pilot is required to

monitor the systems or equipment rather than manually operate them. Failure to monitor can

lead to missing important information. Hence, it is important to understand how a pilot

monitors an automated device or a system (Stern, Boyer, Schroeder, Touchstone, &

Stoliarov, 1994).

There is a difference in scanning patterns when a pilot is flying manually compared to

when automation is used (Diez et al., 2001). A pilot’s scanning patterns correlate with his or

her workload. While using autopilot, a pilot mainly monitors the instruments and verifies the

flight parameters. This reliance on automation reduces instrument scanning during phases

such as the cruise phase. However, landing is still performed manually by most pilots and this

phase sees an increase in the scanning of instruments (Haslbeck, Schubert, Gontar, &

212

Bengler, 2012). In this phase, not only is a pilot monitoring the instruments, she or he is also

actively maintaining the flight parameters.

Automation reliance reduces the scanning pattern of a pilot. Human factors scientists

are yet to understand how a pilot scans the instruments in a modern automated glass cockpit

aircraft. Some studies suggest that a pilot has trouble maintaining a good scanning pattern in

the automated cockpit. Results from another study reveal that there is inconsistency among

pilots’ scanning patterns in an automated cockpit (Sarter et al., 2003). Björklund, Alfredson

and Dekker (2006) also found that pilots failed to check the autopilot mode regularly,

contrary to recommendations made by manufacturers and airlines. Sarter, Mumaw, and

Wickens (2007) found similar results, with pilots failing to regularly monitor the automation

settings. However, the results also showed that pilots still regularly scan the primary flight

instruments. This is because these instruments provide a pilot with information about the

basic flight parameters, which helps her or him to prioritise the task of flying the aircraft over

everything else.

The aviation industry is benefiting from the rapid development of technology. Today

many of the primary flight parameters are displayed on the head up display (HUD). This

addition changes the scanning patterns of a pilot (Wickens & Ververs, 1998) and provides

important information at eye-level in front of a pilot. This helps a pilot maintain a high level

of situational awareness, without having to scan many different instruments. However, this

also raises other issues, such as switching attention between the display and the outside world

(McCann, Foyle, & Johnston, 1993).

213

Understanding scanning patterns can also help aircraft manufacturers design flight

instruments appropriately, whether it is automated systems or head up displays. On a larger

scale, new cockpits can also be designed. A common example is the glass cockpit, which

replaced the analogue cockpit. Rabl, Neujahr, Zimmer and Möller (2014) suggested that

finding consistency in scanning patterns can help identify new ways of displaying

instruments.

While manufacturers are taking advantage of computer technology and designing new

systems, it is also important to consider some of the human factors challenges associated with

automation. Humans have a limited attention span, and Yerkes and Dodson (1908) showed

that humans require a certain amount of workload in order to achieve and maintain their

optimal performance. Too little work might result in boredom, while too much can result in

stress or burnout. This is an important consideration when designing highly automated

aircraft.

Northwest Airlines flight NW188 (NTSB, 2010) provides an example of a problem

that pilots can face in a highly automated cockpit. In this incident, the pilots’ trust in

automation was so high that they failed to regularly monitor it and, as a result, they overflew

their destination airport by more than 250 kilometres. Over-reliance on automation results in

complacency, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Singh et al., 1993). Hence, a certain amount of

workload is necessary to maintain involvement in the task being performed. This can be

achieved by implementing adaptive automation (Di Nocera et al., 2007), which allows a pilot

214

to distribute her or his workload evenly through different phases of flight. This ensures that

he or she is actively involved in flying an aircraft throughout the flight, and helps in

monitoring the instruments.

Scan patterns can also be interrupted due to distractions, such as a radio message.

Regaining a good scan pattern after a distraction can take some time and it is imperative that

a pilot achieves it as soon as possible. A result of poor scanning pattern is deviations from the

assigned heading or altitude, which can lead to hazardous situations if not detected and

corrected quickly.

Understanding disruptions and deviations and learning how to maintain good scan

patterns can be improved through experience and training. A pilot can improve his or her

scanning patterns by practising them in a simulator. In addition, while conducting simulator

training, eye trackers can be used to enhance training (Dixon, Rojas, Krueger, & Simcik,

1990; Flight Safety Foundation, 2014). As mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, data

from eye trackers helps in training and improving safety. Expected scanning strategies that

have been objectively obtained from experts can be documented and utilised to train novices

(Flight Safety Foundation, 2014; Wetzel et al., 1996).

The information that has been presented thus far highlights the importance of

scanning patterns while flying. It is important to understand the challenges and how

technology can be utilised to improve safety. Scanning patterns lay the foundation of

situational awareness. As discussed in Chapter 2, it is important for a pilot to achieve good

215

situational awareness, which lays the foundation for decision making. Good awareness is

maintained by acquiring information from sources through regular scanning. Eye tracking

studies reveal that understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns is important, as it allows

scientists to also understand his or her level of situational awareness (Yu, Wang, Li, &

Braithwaite, 2014; Alexander, & Wickens, 2005; Schriver, Morrow, Wickens, & Talleur,

2008; Wanga, Li, Dongb, & Shu, 2015). This has a direct effect on the workload that a pilot

experiences.

Understanding a pilot’s workload through eye movements also helps human factors

scientists learn how a pilot uses automation. Research shows that a pilot’s scanning patterns

vary based on the workload and that a pilot has a more organised scan when his or her

workload is not high (Camilli, Nacchia, Terenzi, & Di Nocera, 2008; McCarley & Kramer,

2007).

Eye tracking studies also reveal differences between experts and novices in factors

such as situational awareness and decision making. Studies conducted by Roca et al. (2011)

and Schriver et al. (2008) examined scanning strategies and detection of failures by experts

and novices. Experts were able to acquire more information regarding a failure and make

correct decisions. A study by Yu, Wang, Li, Braithwaite and Greaves (2016) reached a

similar conclusion, finding that experts were able to maintain a higher level of situational

awareness by scanning the head up display more regularly. An individual’s performance

improves through practice and experience, because the same task is performed repeatedly.

This repetition improves a pilot’s monitoring and information acquisition skills (Stern et al.,

1996).

216

A pilot who maintains a good scan pattern is also able to detect any abnormalities that

arise during flight, which reduces the chance of an accident. This is particularly true when

there is a change in the instrument display and information is presented in a different way on

the flight instruments (Thomas & Wickens, 2004). A pilot must be familiar with such

changes. An instrument such as the attitude indicator is prominent and scanned regularly,

regardless of cockpit type (glass or analogue) or flying condition (normal flight or abnormal

flight), because it is a primary instrument that provides vital flight information to a pilot

(Gainer & Obermayer, 1964). However, other instruments such as the engine temperature

indicator might not be easy to detect and scan in an unfamiliar layout. British Midlands flight

BD 92 (AAIB, 1990), as discussed in Chapter 2, provides a good example of the

consequences of such changes.

Objective data obtained from studies using eye trackers shows that there is a close

connection between a pilot’s monitoring ability and performance. Furthermore, a pilot’s

situational awareness, decision making and workload are directly linked to his or her

scanning strategies. Eye tracker studies also show the ability of a pilot to interact with the

cockpit (Glaholt, 2014; Anders, 2001; Wanga et al., 2015).

There is limited objective data on pilot scanning patterns. Most of the studies

discussed above explore the scanning patterns of a pilot in a particular phase of flight, and

further study is required to understand pilot scanning patterns in all phases of flight.

217

Furthermore, there are no studies comparing the pilot scanning patterns between a

glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. This further highlights the gap in the literature. As a

result, this thesis compares the scanning patterns of pilots between a glass cockpit and an

analogue cockpit. Data was collected for the full flight, in all phases. In addition to collecting

data during a normal flight, scanning pattern data was also collected during instrument flying

conditions and abnormal situations, in both types of cockpit. Empirical studies were

conducted in flight simulators that were discussed in the previous chapter.

Understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns is extremely important, particularly when

making a transition to an aircraft with an unfamiliar cockpit layout. The instruments in an

unfamiliar cockpit might be differently displayed and information presentation can vary. An

unfamiliar cockpit might also include additional instruments to provide more information. As

such, it is important for human factors scientists to understand how pilots scan and acquire

information after making the transition. This research also uses an eye tracking device to

collect objective data which is discussed in the next section.

218

Eye Tracker Used in this Research

Arrington Research Eye Frame Scene Camera Systems

Arrington Research Incorporation offers several eye tracker products. Arrington is

based in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, and has been making eye trackers since 1995. They make

affordable eye trackers to help scientists conduct research. This equipment is popular and has

been used by many industries to conduct research in areas such as consumer behaviour,

human-computer interaction, and aviation human factors.

Arrington offers several products including head mounted eye trackers, fixed-head

eye trackers, scene camera eye trackers, and head and eye trackers. All these systems offer

similar functionality and can be used for many research purposes. For example, the fixed-

head eye tracker is used for research that does not require the person to move their head, such

as human-computer interaction research. This is because the computer screen is always in the

same position and the person’s head can be stationary while viewing it.

The eye tracker used in this study was the Arrington Research Head Mounted Eye

Tracker. This is a head-mounted lightweight eye tracker, worn in a similar way to a pair of

glasses. The eye tracker can be worn on top of a person’s prescription glasses if required. The

eye tracker includes several different components. The main component is the frame, which

holds all the parts together. A high definition scene camera is installed on top of the frame.

219

This camera records the view that is in front of the person wearing the glasses. There are two

eye cameras that point towards a person’s eyes, one for each eye, and record the movement of

the eyes. There are also two infrared lights which point towards a person’s eye, one for each

eye. These illuminate the pupils, allowing the eye camera to capture the movement of the eye

in dark conditions. Figure 59 shows the head mounted eye tracker used in this research.

Figure 59: Arrington Research head-mounted eye tracker.

The eye tracker is equipped with a ten-meter cable, which allows a person wearing the

eye tracker to freely move around. The cable connects the eye tracker to a laptop or

computer, with the help of a four-channel frame grabber. The laptop or computer has the

220

software required for calibration, data capture and data analysis. The laptop setup is shown in

Figure 60.

Figure 60: Computer with eye tracker calibration and data collection software.

Calibration of the eye tracker requires the person wearing the eye tracker to keep his

or her head temporarily still. This calibration ensures precise data collection. A person is

required to look at sixteen points or numbers on a white board without moving her or his

head. The sixteen numbers are in the form of a rectangle, in four rows and four columns (see

Figure 61 for image of layout). The software selects the numbers to look at, and the

researcher informs the person of the numbers. While a person is looking at the number, the

researcher calibrates every point.

221

Figure 61: Sixteen points used for calibration of the eye tracker.

The data is recorded on the laptop as a video file and a text file. The video file records

a movie clip of the scene that is in front of the person who is wearing the eye tracker, and the

text file includes coordinates of where a person looked during a particular time and data on

how long a person looked at each point for. The text file contains raw data that is difficult to

comprehend without analysis.

222

Figure 62: Example of the data captured by the eye tracker.

The data analysis software, which is different to the data capture software, reads the

video and text file and combines them. It plays back the video file while overlaying the eye

movements on top of the video. The playback shows every fixation of a subject along with

her or his eye movement. Two circles show the eye movement, one for each eye. There is

also a trailing line which temporarily shows the movement of the eye. Figure 62 shows an

example of the captured data played back using the data analysis software. The larger green

and blue circles show where a person was looking, and the smaller red and pink circles show

the movement of the eye.

223

Figure 63: Example of the raw data saved in text format.

Figure 63 shows an example of the raw data in the text file. This data can be

converted to another comprehensible text file, using the data analysis software, which allows

the researcher to understand the data.

Figure 64 shows the raw data file converted into an understandable text file. This file

shows the data in several columns, with data for every point for the duration of the recording.

The first column shows the time (in seconds) at which the data was captured. The

second column shows whether the data point was a fixation (for example, a person looking at

an instrument in an aircraft) or saccade (a person moving his or her eye to search for the

information). The third column shows the coordinates of where a person was looking.

224

Figure 64: Example of raw data converted into a comprehensible text file.

Being a head-mounted eye tracker, it allowed a person to move his or her head to look

around. Hence, the data collected as X and Y coordinates could not be mapped onto a static

image. In the experiments, pilots constantly moved their heads while flying in the simulator.

This is because she or he had to look at the instruments and also at the outside world to

acquire the required information to safely fly the aircraft. This meant that two data points

with the same coordinates did not mean that a pilot was looking at the same instrument or

even the same area.

225

The data was entered into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft © Excel for Windows, 2010)

spreadsheet for analysis. This allowed the data to be converted into an easy-to-understand

table. Since the X and Y coordinates were not consistent throughout the recording, data could

not be automatically analysed and each point had to be individually examined.

Figure 65 shows the data file after it was entered into an Excel spreadsheet. It shows

approximately 50 data points and where a pilot looked for each of those points. This dataset

is from the last few seconds before landing the aircraft. The data shows that a pilot looked

mostly at the outside world, because landing an aircraft a few feet above the ground is mainly

a visual task. When a pilot looked at the instruments, the airspeed indicator was the only

instrument scanned. In this case, knowing the speed of the aircraft is important a few seconds

before landing.

This dataset of 50 points shows where one pilot looked during a few seconds of flight.

The experiments collected data from more than thirty pilots, each undertaking two repetitions

of a 30-minute flight. This generated more than four hundred thousand data points from all

the subjects. Each of these points had to be analysed to obtain an overall table of a pilot’s

scanning patterns. Analysis of all the points was time-consuming, but automation of this

process was not possible due to the nature of the eye tracker.

226

Figure 65: Example of data points being analysed in Excel.

The above process allows objective data to be collected and analysed using the eye

tracker. The eye tracking device, along with flight simulators, offers a safe and reliable

method of collecting data. As a result, they were used in this research to compare pilot

scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

Chapter 5

Visual Flight Rules Study

228

Introduction

Flight instruments in an aircraft’s cockpit can be displayed in two different types: a

glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. These are described in detail in Chapters 1 and 2. The

glass cockpit was introduced in the commercial passenger aircraft and has gained immense

popularity over recent decades. Pilots prefer it, due to the benefits it offers. As a result, it has

become a standard option in the aviation industry, and any new aircraft purchased today,

including recreational aircraft, comes equipped with a glass cockpit. An analogue cockpit is

still available as an option when purchasing a new aircraft.

A transition between the two types of cockpit can raise several human factors issues,

as mentioned in the previous chapters. A pilot’s situational awareness is affected and the way

she or he acquires information from the flight instruments can be different. As such the

decision-making skills and workload are also impacted after making a transition.

Traditionally, a pilot made a transition from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. In

other words, a pilot learnt to fly in an analogue cockpit and then made a transition to a glass

cockpit during his or her career. This is because glass cockpit aircraft were previously only

available in the commercial airlines. Due to their increased availability, in recent years even

general aviation aircraft are equipped with glass cockpits.

229

Chapters 1 and 2 highlighted the current problem the aviation industry is facing, in

that an increasing number of pilots are making a transition from a glass cockpit to an

analogue cockpit. There are several reasons for making such a transition. One reason is that,

due to their popularity, glass cockpit aircraft are being used for flight training and a student

pilot might not encounter an analogue cockpit at all. At the same time, regulatory

requirements do not impose a restriction on the type of cockpit a person can fly in after

obtaining a pilot licence. Hence, not only does a pilot make a transition from a glass cockpit

to an analogue cockpit, this transition can be made with no prior experience in an analogue

cockpit.

Transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit is a recent issue. As discussed

in Chapter 2, considerable research was conducted to understand the effects of a transition

from an analogue cockpit to a glass cockpit. However, there are few empirical studies that

have studied the transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. Hence, there is a gap

in the literature, and this study is part of a number of studies that addresses that gap.

This visual flight rules study compared pilot scanning patterns between a glass

cockpit and an analogue cockpit. Three research questions were asked. First, were a pilot’s

scanning patterns different for the full flight? Second, did a pilot scan the instruments inside

the aircraft differently for the full flight? Third, were there differences in the scanning

patterns for the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight?

230

Method

Subjects

The experiment for this study was conducted at Swinburne University of Technology.

Subjects recruited were primarily university students who were enrolled in the Bachelor of

Aviation program. The subjects were recruited through an advertisement sent out via

university’s internal student email service. The email was sent to all students enrolled in the

aviation program.

A description of the study and the requirements to participate in the experiment were

provided in the email. It was essential that individuals participating in the experiment had a

current pilot licence. Such a qualification was necessary to obtain reliable data.

In addition to recruiting students, a small number of experienced industry pilots were

also recruited, using a similar recruitment approach to the university students. The email

advertisement was sent to industry professionals who were on the university’s mailing list.

The advertisement consisted of text-only content, shown in Appendix A. It was

included in the body of the email, as it had no images or extra files. This made it easy for the

receiver to open and read it instantly, because it did not require any additional download.

231

Twelve fixed-wing pilots participated in this study, comprising nine male and three

female subjects. There was an imbalance in the number of male and female subjects;

however, this imbalance was not considered to be an issue and was not expected to affect the

results of the study.

Due to the mix of university students and pilots from the industry, the demographics

of the subject group also varied. The age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of

33 years and standard deviation of ± 13 years.

All subjects had a current pilot licence when they participated in this study. Students

from the university who were obtaining their CPL were at the lower end of the experience

scale. Subjects from the industry who were employed as pilots were at the higher end of the

experience scale.

The experience of these subjects ranged from 115 hours to 3,250 hours; the average

flight time was 460 hours and standard deviation was ± 1,111 hours. Participation in this

study was voluntary and no compensation was provided.

It is important to note that at the time of the study all subjects had recent experience

flying in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. Subjects from the university were learning

232

to fly in an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit, and subjects from the industry were also

flying an aircraft with a glass cockpit.

This research study was approved by the Swinburne University’s Human Research

Ethics Committee, Protocol Number 2012/256; refer to Appendix B. The study was

conducted within the guidelines of the ethics protocol.

Equipment

Redbird FMX Flight Simulator

The Redbird FMX flight simulator, as described in Chapter 3, was used to conduct the

experiment. The twin engine Beechcraft Baron 58 aircraft was used. This aircraft has the

option of a glass cockpit or an analogue cockpit flight instrument display.

Arrington Research Scene Camera Eye Tracker

The eye tracker, as described in Chapter 4, was used to conduct the experiment. Each

subject wore this device for the duration of the experiment. It collected objective data on a

pilot’s scanning pattern in the two types of cockpit.

233

NASA Task Load Index

A workload questionnaire was used in this study. The questionnaire that was used was

the NASA TLX, as described in Chapter 2. The questionnaire is attached in Appendix J. This

provided subjective data of a pilot’s workload perception in both types of cockpit.

Demographic Questionnaire

Finally, a demographic questionnaire was used in this study. This included five

questions, as shown in Appendix I.

Procedure

Each subject was given a detailed explanation of the study before he or she

participated in the experiment. The subject was provided with the flight plan, maps, airport

diagrams, frequencies, checklists, and other information required to complete the flight (refer

to Appendix F).

She or he was also provided with a written Information Statement and a Consent

Form (refer to Appendix C). The Information Statement provided details of the purpose,

scope and expected outcomes of the study. The subject read the Information Statement and

234

then signed the Consent Form, which confirmed his or her agreement to participate in the

study. The subject was also allowed to withdraw from the study at any time, without

providing an explanation. If a subject did decide to do that, his or her data would have been

immediately discarded. However, all subjects completed the entire study.

For the purpose of this experiment, the subject wore the eye tracker instead of the

headset. As a result, she or he was not required to make any radio calls and was asked to

ignore the airspace requirements.

The eye tracker device was worn by the subject and calibrated before beginning the

simulator experiment. A good calibration was necessary to ensure accuracy of data collection.

Once the eye tracker was calibrated, it stayed on the subject’s head for the duration of the

experiment. If the subject chose to remove it for any reason, then it had to be recalibrated. All

subjects left the eye tracker on their heads for the duration of the experiment.

The calibration process was completed outside the simulator, and the subject stepped

into the flight simulator after calibration was complete. Extra care was taken while stepping

into the flight simulator, to ensure that the eye tracker did not move, as that would have

required recalibration. Once in the simulator, the subject performed a simple calibration

check with the researcher. This involved the subject looking at random instruments and the

researcher pointed out which instruments the subject was looking at. This ensured that the

calibration was still maintained after entering the simulator.

235

The flight was conducted in day visual flight rules (VFR) condition. This means that

the visibility outside the aircraft was greater than ten nautical miles. The weather included a

few clouds at high altitude and there was no wind, which allowed the subject to fly directly to

the destination. They did not have to change course to avoid clouds or to account for the wind

strength and direction.

The flight route was in the city of Melbourne, Australia. This area was selected since

most of the subjects were from Melbourne and were familiar with the airspace. This avoided

any unwanted navigational challenges, which might have risen had the airport been in an

unfamiliar area. The flight was conducted from Moorabbin airport to Essendon airport.

Moorabbin airport is the local general aviation airport, where most of the subjects, including

all the university students, were trained. Essendon airport is also a local airport used for

general and commercial aviation. Most of the subjects were familiar with both the airports, as

they flew in and out of these airports during their flight training. The total distance between

the two airports was approximately twenty nautical miles, and the average time taken to

complete the flight was approximately thirty minutes. This time included the engine start-up

sequence and also the engine shut down.

The above factors made it easier for the subjects to fly the aircraft. At the same time,

it did not affect the way the subject scanned the instruments and the outside world during a

normal day VFR flight.

236

Figure 66: Flight route for the VFR experiment.

237

Figure 66 shows the route that was flown during the experiment. The simulator started

with the aircraft positioned on the ramp at Moorabbin airport. The subject was required to

start the engines using the checklist provided. Engine run-ups were ignored, and the subject

was asked to taxi to Runway 35L using taxiways Alpha and Alpha 7 (refer to Appendix F for

airport diagram). Data collection commenced while the aircraft was taxiing to the runway.

Once at the runway threshold, the aircraft entered the runway and started the take-off roll.

After take-off the aircraft maintained runway heading until it reached five hundred

feet above ground level. At this point, the aircraft turned towards the city of Melbourne while

climbing to the assigned cruising altitude. Being a VFR flight, the aircraft visually tracked

towards the city of Melbourne, as the skyline was visible immediately after take-off. The

subject was also allowed to use the GPS or the maps provided, if required.

The aircraft maintained a low cruising altitude of two thousand feet. This low cruising

altitude was chosen as the distance between the two airports was approximately twenty

nautical miles. A low cruising altitude also made it easy for the subject to follow the

landmarks in the outside world to navigate between the two airports.

When the aircraft reached the city centre of Melbourne, the destination airport was

visible. The subject was asked to land the aircraft on Runway 26, which is the east-west

runway at Essendon (refer to Appendix F). Hence, the subject turned the aircraft to the north

to enter the circuit pattern on the base leg for Runway 26, and started the descent just prior to

238

entering the circuit pattern at Essendon airport. A normal landing was conducted into

Essendon. Once on Runway 26, the subject performed a full stop landing.

After the landing, the researcher stopped the data recording and gave the subject the

workload questionnaire and the demographic questionnaire. The subject completed the two

questionnaires while remaining in the simulator.

While the subject was answering the questionnaires, the researcher changed the

aircraft’s cockpit. The change of the cockpit display took a few minutes and did not disrupt

the subject. The flight was also reset to Moorabbin airport, so that the subject could fly the

same flight again.

The flight was flown again by the subject in the different type of cockpit. Apart from

the cockpit change, everything else was exactly the same as the first flight. All subjects flew

twice, once in a glass cockpit and once in an analogue cockpit. The order in which the

cockpits were chosen and flown was randomised; that is, some subjects flew in a glass

cockpit first, whereas others flew in an analogue cockpit first.

The subjects were also allowed to take a break between the flights. However,

everyone chose to continue with the second flight immediately after completing the first

flight. This is mainly because the duration of the flights was not long. Finally, the subjects

were asked to fly the aircraft manually, without using autopilot.

239

Statistical Analysis

The data captured by the eye tracker was downloaded and tabulated into a PC-based

spreadsheet program, Microsoft Excel. Once the final table was prepared, it showed the

fixation time for the duration of the flight, expressed as a percentage of the total flight time.

Scanning pattern was represented by fixation time. This table displayed the average time for

all the subjects combined. Data was separated for glass cockpit and analogue cockpit fixation.

Fixation time for the entire flight was divided into three main categories: the saccade,

outside aircraft and inside aircraft. Saccade is referred to as the eye movement, and occurs

when a person is transferring his or her gaze from one fixation point to another fixation point.

Outside aircraft consists of any time spent looking at the outside world, including landmarks,

terrain, traffic, and weather. Inside aircraft refers to the time spent looking at the flight

instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit.

After analysing the data for the full flight, inside aircraft data was divided into two

sub-categories and analysed further. These subcategories are the primary flight instruments

and aircraft system status instruments. The primary flight instruments are the six main

instruments in the cockpit: the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator,

heading indicator, vertical speed indicator, and turn and bank indicator. The aircraft system

status instruments include the GPS and the engine instruments. These instruments have been

240

discussed in Chapter 2. The six individual primary instruments were also analysed further for

the full flight.

For the purpose of this study, only flight instruments scanned inside the aircraft were

examined; switches and controls that were looked at were ignored. As mentioned in Chapter

2, the flight instruments are different between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit, but

the switches and controls are similar and in the same location.

Finally, the six individual primary instruments were further analysed for the different

phases of the flight. The full flight was divided into five different phases: take-off, climb,

cruise, descent and landing.

The take-off phase started when the subject applied full power to begin the take-off

roll. This phase included the aircraft accelerating down the runway and rotating for take-off.

It ended once the aircraft was airborne and the main landing gear was off the runway. The

climb phase started immediately after the take-off phase, and included the aircraft climbing to

the assigned cruising altitude. The cruise phase started once the aircraft was at the assigned

cruising altitude and navigating towards the destination airport. The descent phase started as

soon as the aircraft reduced power and began its approach into the destination airport. The

landing phase started when the aircraft was five hundred feet above the airport’s elevation

and ended once the aircraft touched down on the runway.

241

For the purpose of this study, pre-take-off and post-landing phases were not analysed.

Only the above phases were analysed to find out if there were any significant differences

between fixation times in a glass and analogue cockpit.

Apart from collecting data on the scanning patterns, workload data was also collected

for the entire flight using the subjective questionnaire. The workload data was compared

between an analogue and a glass cockpit on the six individual scales described in Chapter 2:

mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration. The

scores on the six individual scales were used to calculate an overall weighted workload score,

and this was also compared between the two types of cockpit.

The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 20, IBM Corp, New York,

NY) software tool. ANOVA was used, and an alpha level of p < .05 was used to represent a

significant difference in scanning patterns between a glass and an analogue cockpit.

242

Results

This section displays the data in the form of a bar graph for each of the analyses

conducted. These graphs also include error bars, which show the standard error. The graphs

show the average time for all the subjects combined, and the amount of time spent scanning

in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. An asterisk indicates a significant difference (p <

.05) between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

Figure 67: Scanning pattern for the full flight in visual flight conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 67 shows the scanning pattern for the entire flight in the two types of cockpit.

While flying in visual conditions, the subjects spent most of their time looking outside the

243

aircraft. This was true in both types of cockpit. The subjects scanned the outside world

11.23% more in an analogue cockpit than glass, which was significantly different; F (1, 118)

= 17.97, p < .05. The subjects’ saccade rate was 21.93% higher in an analogue cockpit, which

was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 7.99, p < .05. The inside instruments were scanned

70.53% more in a glass cockpit, which was also significantly different; F (1, 118) = 26.89, p

< .05.

Figure 68: Instrument scan breakdown for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 68 shows the scanning pattern inside the aircraft. While scanning inside the

aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments. These

instruments were scanned 73.20% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was

significantly different; F (1, 118) = 32.46, p < .05. There was no difference in scanning of the

244

aircraft system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 118) = 2.01, p >

.05.

Figure 69: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight (Figure

69) show that the instruments were scanned more in a glass cockpit than an analogue cockpit.

The airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument for the full flight. The turn and bank

indicator was not scanned in either cockpit during the full flight.

The airspeed indicator was scanned 80.78% more in a glass cockpit than analogue,

which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 14.83, p < .05. The attitude indicator was

245

scanned 87.51% more in a glass cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) =

15.32, p < .05. The altitude indicator was scanned 45.44% more in a glass cockpit, which was

significantly different; F (1, 118) = 4.93, p < .05. The heading indicator was scanned

115.30% more in a glass cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 118) = 11.18, p <

.05. There was no difference in scanning of the vertical speed indicator between the two types

of cockpit; F (1, 118) = 0.21, p > .05.

Figure 70: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the take-off phase, * indicates p < .05.

While discussing the six primary instruments’ scans in the different phases of flight,

only the most scanned and the least scanned instruments will be discussed, and any

significant differences for those instruments will be presented. In addition, any other

instrument with significant differences will be highlighted.

246

During the take-off phase, only the airspeed indicator was scanned, as shown in

Figure 70. It was scanned 125.88% more in a glass cockpit than analogue, which was

significantly different; F (1, 22) = 13.37, p < .05.

During the climb phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight

instrument (Figure 71). However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F

(1, 22) = 1.63, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument, and was not scanned at

all during the climb phase.

There were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in the amount of

time spent scanning the airspeed indicator and the attitude indicator (Figure 71). The airspeed

indicator was scanned 64.89% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.94, p < .05. The attitude

indicator was scanned 67.13% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.34, p < .05.

247

Figure 71: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the climb phase, * indicates p < .05.

During the cruise phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight


(1, 22) = 1.53, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator and the vertical speed indicator were the least scanned

instruments during the cruise phase (Figure 72), and were not scanned at all.

248

Figure 72: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the cruise phase, * indicates p < .05.

As with the climb phase, in the cruise phase there were significant differences

between the glass and analogue cockpits in the amount of time spent scanning the airspeed

indicator and the attitude indicator. The airspeed indicator was scanned 73.34% more in a

glass cockpit than analogue; F (1, 22) = 5.69, p < .05. The attitude indicator was scanned

85.61% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.31, p < .05.

During the descent phase (Figure 73), the altitude indicator was still the most scanned

primary flight instrument in the glass cockpit. It was scanned 96.27% more in a glass cockpit

than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 22) = 8.39, p < .05.

249

Figure 73: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the descent phase, * indicates p < .05.

In an analogue cockpit, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned primary flight

instrument. However, it was still scanned 48.13% more in the glass cockpit than analogue,

which was significantly different; F (1, 22) = 4.33, p < .05.


all during the descent phase.

Finally, during the landing phase (Figure 74) the airspeed indicator was the most

scanned primary flight instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types

of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 2.56, p > .05.

250

Figure 74: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the landing phase, * indicates p < .05.

The turn and bank indicator and the vertical speed indicator were the least scanned

instruments during the landing phase; neither was scanned at all.

The amount of time spent on the attitude indicator and the heading indicator was

significantly different between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The attitude indicator

was scanned 198.64% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 7.79, p < .05. The heading

indicator was scanned 1417.22% more in a glass cockpit; F (1, 22) = 13.88, p < .05.

251

Figure 75: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 75 shows the workload scores on the six scales for the full flight.

There was no difference in the scores of mental demand between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.39, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of physical demand

between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.16, p > .05. There was no difference in the

scores of temporal demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.24, p > .05. There

was no difference in the scores of performance between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) =

0.82, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of effort between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 22) = 1.57 p > .05. Finally, there was no difference in the scores of frustration

between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.14, p > .05.

252

The average overall weighted workload in a glass cockpit was 53.27, with a range

from 13.33 to 87.33 and a standard deviation of ± 21.55. The average workload in an

analogue cockpit was 59.83, with a range from 27.33 to 88.67 and a standard deviation of ±

18.99. There was no difference in the overall weighted scores between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 142) = 0.63, p > .05.

253

Discussion

This study was conducted to compare pilot scanning patterns between a glass cockpit

and an analogue cockpit in visual flight rules condition. Literature suggests that examining a

pilot’s scanning patterns after he or she makes a transition is important (Hayashi et al., 2003;

Hayashi, 2003), because there are differences between the two types of cockpit. Hence, it is

necessary to understand if a pilot is able to acquire the information from the flight

instruments in the same way in both cockpit types. Not only will a scanning pattern allow a

pilot to acquire the information, it will also help in performing timely actions.

The difference between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit is in the instrument

display and information layout. Apart from this difference, the controls and switches are

similar and in the same location. During the experiment, the flight route, weather and traffic

density were the same for the two flights conducted in the two cockpit types. Hence, any

differences in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit were attributed to the

change in the scanning pattern due to different instrument display and information layout.

This study asked three research questions. The first was whether pilots’ scanning

patterns were different for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that there were

significant differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit for the full flight.

This supports the conclusions of previous studies, which found that the scanning patterns

between the two types of cockpit are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015;

Anders, 2001; Van de Merwe et al., 2012).

254

In daytime VFR conditions, the subjects spent most of their time scanning the outside

world. This was consistent in both types of cockpit for the full flight. The time spent looking

at the outside world was greater in an analogue cockpit than a glass cockpit. The results of the

current experiment also revealed a much higher percentage of time spent scanning the outside

world than in empirical research conducted by Wickens et al. (2000). Their study revealed

that less than 40% of the time was spent scanning the outside world, whereas the present

experiment found that subjects spent more than 65% of their time looking at the outside

world. This could be due to visual conditions.

The flight was conducted in good outside visibility conditions. As a result, the

subjects spent most of their time looking at the outside world, which provided them with the

required information to safely fly the aircraft. This information includes the navigation

information, terrain information and weather information. Literature also suggests that

scanning the outside world is necessary to obtain important information, such as detecting

other aircraft in the area (Talleur & Wickens, 2003).

During the full flight, the subjects had a higher saccade rate in an analogue cockpit.

Saccade relates to eye movement, and measures the amount of time subjects spent moving

their eyes from one area of fixation to another. This could also indicate the time subjects

spent searching for information. As mentioned above, the only difference between the flights

in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit is the change in instrument display. As a result, the

255

higher saccade in an analogue cockpit could be due to more time being spent searching for

the required information (Goldberg & Kotval, 1999).

While comparing the instruments, the subjects spent more time scanning them in a

glass cockpit. This may be due to their familiarity with a glass cockpit because, at the time of

the experiment, all subjects had recent flying experience in a glass cockpit. Another reason

may be the visually appealing displays in a glass cockpit. Andraši et al., (2016) stated that the

information layout in a glass cockpit has to be attention-capturing. A glass cockpit offers

larger displays and the layout makes it easier for the subjects to acquire information.

In VFR conditions, it is also possible to fly an aircraft just by listening to the ‘sound

and feel’ of the engine. In particular, in a propeller-engine aircraft a pilot can judge the

throttle setting and engine performance by listening to the engine. Additionally, a pilot is able

to fly between two locations by obtaining navigation information from the outside world and

following landmarks. Relying on the outside world to gather the information can reduce the

scan inside the aircraft in visual condition. The results of this experiment could also be a

result of such a phenomenon. In an analogue cockpit, the unfamiliarity with the display

resulted in a higher saccade rate. Unfamiliarity with the instruments could also explain why

they were scanned less in an analogue cockpit and why more time was spent looking at the

outside world.

The second research question was whether there were any differences in the scan

patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft for the full flight. This question was divided into

256

two sub-parts. First, the inside instruments were divided into two categories, as discussed on

page 239, and a comparison was made for any differences in primary flight instruments (PFI)

and aircraft system status instruments (ASSI). Second, the six individual primary flight

instruments were analysed for any differences. The results of the experiment show that there

were significant differences in the fixation times for some of the instruments between the two

types of cockpit for the full flight.

The PFI were scanned more than the ASSI. The PFI were also scanned more in a

glass cockpit than an analogue cockpit. This could be due to the reasons discussed previously.

Additionally, the PFI may have been scanned more because of the essential information they

provide. The results also support the conclusions of the existing literature, that the PFI are the

most scanned instruments in an aircraft (Anders, 2001; Mumaw et al., 2000). However, the

result of this experiment contradicts the existing literature regarding the amount of time a

pilot should spend on the PFI. They were scanned more than 10% of the time in an analogue

cockpit and more than 20% in a glass cockpit, whereas literature recommends that these be

scanned at least 25% of the time (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 1993, 2001;

FAR/AIM, 2003). Other empirical studies found between 35% and 60% of the time was spent

on these instruments, which is greater than in this study (Mumaw et al., 2001; Wickens et al,

2000; Dubois et al., 2015). The time spent scanning the PFI in a glass cockpit was closer to

the recommended time than an analogue cockpit.

Of the six individual primary flight instruments, the airspeed indicator was the most

scanned instrument, followed by the altitude indicator. This was true in both types of cockpit

for the full flight. These results contradict the results of existing literature, which suggests

257

that the attitude indicator is one of the most important instruments to scan during flight

(Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). This instrument

is important due to the information it provides, i.e. the aircraft’s orientation to the outside

world. Once again, being visual conditions, this information was obtained by looking at the

outside world instead of the instrument. While this is possible in VFR conditions, pilots

should be cautious of over-depending on the outside world for cues on an aircraft’s

orientation. For example, if the terrain is uneven then the horizon might not be an accurate

indication of straight and level flight. At the same time, over-reliance can be a problem if

there are clouds present. VFR conditions normally consist of good weather, although it is

possible to have one or two clouds in the area. In such instances, the attitude indicator will

provide the most reliable source of information.

There were also significant differences between four of the six primary flight

instruments. These four instruments are also the ‘T’ instruments, as discussed in Chapters 2

and 4. Once again, these were scanned significantly more in a glass cockpit. This highlights

the differences in acquisition of the vital data from the primary flight instruments between the

two types of cockpit. In particular, it shows that not enough time is spent looking at the

primary instruments when flying in an aircraft equipped with an analogue cockpit.

The third research question was whether there were any differences in the scan

patterns of the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight. The

results of the experiment show that there were significant differences in fixation times

between the two types of cockpit for some of the instruments based on the phase of flight.

258

The results are similar to the existing literature, which suggests that the instruments scanned

vary based on the phase of flight (Diez et al., 2001).

All the instruments were scanned more in a glass cockpit than analogue. The relative

level of scanning of instruments differed based on the phase of flight. Some instruments were

not scanned at all in some phases of flight. For example, the turn and bank indicator was not

scanned at all in any phase of flight. On the other hand, the airspeed indicator was the only

instrument scanned during the take-off phase; this was true in both types of cockpit.

The instruments scanned during a phase show the importance of acquiring particular

flight parameters for that phase. For example, during the take-off phase, the airspeed

indicator is one of the most important instruments to scan, because the aircraft requires

sufficient speed to take off. The aerodynamic design of an aircraft prevents it from

successfully taking off before reaching the take-off speed. If a pilot forces the aircraft to take

off before reaching the required speed, then it could stall the aircraft. At the same time,

staying on the runway when the aircraft exceeds the take-off speed can result in structural

difficulties, including excessive vibrations of the airframe. Similarly, in the landing phase, the

airspeed indicator is again one of the most important instruments to scan. During this phase,

managing the speed of the aircraft is vital: flying too fast or too slow could result in incidents

or accidents. Flying too fast can result in a rough landing, where the aircraft’s landing gear

could be damaged or other structural damage can occur. The aircraft could also take a longer

distance to slow down on the runway, which can result in the aircraft touching down short of

the runway. This can be potentially disastrous and lead to an accident. Clearly, it is vital that

the speed of the aircraft is managed properly.

259

The results of this experiment show that the airspeed indicator was the most scanned

instrument during the take-off phase and landing phase. It was also scanned significantly

more in a glass cockpit during the take-off phase. This further emphasises the challenge of

obtaining this vital information in an analogue cockpit. As a result, some of the problems

mentioned above, such as stalling the aircraft, could be faced by a pilot who makes a

transition to an analogue cockpit. This has safety implications, as it can result in an incident

or an accident.

While the airspeed indicator is one of the most important instruments to be scanned

during the take-off and landing phases, it is not the most important. Previous studies have

stated that the attitude indicator is the most important instrument to scan during flight (Gainer

& Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). This is true for the full

flight and for all the different phases of flight. As such, the results of this experiment were

not consistent with the existing literature. The observed trend in this study was consistent in

both types of cockpit, and can be attributed to the condition of the flight. Being VFR flight,

the attitude information was obtained by scanning the outside world, as discussed earlier. The

significant differences in most phases of flight also indicate that, in an analogue cockpit, this

information was obtained from the outside world even more than in a glass cockpit. However,

the lack of a significant difference in the descent phase shows that the attitude indicator was

scanned in the same manner in both types of cockpit.

260

Analysing the workload data showed that there were no significant differences in the

subjective workload ratings. This result is also similar to previous empirical studies. For

example, results from Wright and O’Hare’s (2015) study revealed that subjects had

significantly different performance between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

However, when it came to subjective ratings, there was no difference between the two types

of cockpit. This highlights the disassociation between preference and performance, which

states that subjective opinions can differ from objective performance (Roberts et al., 2016;

Andre & Wickens, 1995).

In conclusion, the results of this VFR study showed that there were significant

differences between the two types of cockpit in the scanning patterns for the full flight. While

comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft for the full flight, there were significant

differences between cockpits only for some of the instruments. Further analysis of the

individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight also revealed that the

scanning patterns of only some instruments were significantly different between cockpits.

To further compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit, the next

chapter investigates the scanning patterns in instrument conditions.

Chapter 6

Instrument Flight Rules Study

262

Introduction

A flight can be conducted in two different types of conditions: visual flight rules

(VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR). A flight can only be conducted in visual conditions

if the visibility in the outside world is good. This helps a pilot navigate and fly to the

destination by obtaining information from the outside world.

Flight instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit help a pilot with navigation. However, it is

possible for a pilot to safely fly the aircraft and navigate using the cues obtained from the

outside world only. Early aviators used this method to fly an aircraft, mainly because the

instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit were not well developed. The need to continue flying

despite poor visibility conditions was high in the early days of aviation. This encouraged the

introduction of instruments in the aircraft’s cockpit that would provide navigational

information and allow a pilot to fly to the destination just by relying on the instruments. This

is the source of the term instrument flight rules. Conducting a flight in instrument conditions

requires additional training, which is normally commenced after obtaining the initial licence.

The differences in the instrument display and information layout can affect a pilot’s

ability to fly in poor visibility conditions. It is important to understand how a pilot acquires

information in the different types of cockpit while flying in IFR condition. Failure to properly

acquire information can result in an incident or an accident.

263

The previous chapter compared pilot scanning patterns between the two types of

cockpit in visual conditions. This chapter follows on from this and compares pilot scanning

patterns between the two types of cockpit while flying in instrument conditions. One of the

main differences between the two conditions is the visibility in the outside world.

The previous study was conducted in visual conditions, with good visibility in the

outside world, whereas the present study is conducted in instrument conditions, with poor

visibility in the outside world. In these conditions, a pilot is not able to obtain information

from the outside world and only has the instruments to rely on to safely fly the aircraft. This

is the second experiment conducted to address the literature gap that was mentioned in the

previous chapters.

This instrument flight rules study compared pilot scanning patterns between a glass

cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The same three research questions as the previous

experiment were asked. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns different for the full flight?

Second, did a pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft differently for the full flight?

Third, were there differences in the scanning patterns for the six individual primary flight

instruments based on the phase of flight?

264

Method

Subjects

Subjects were recruited in a similar method as the previous study. The only difference

was that all pilots who participated in this study were required to have an instrument flight

rules rating.

Nine fixed-wing pilots participated in this study, comprising six male and three

female subjects. There was an imbalance in the number of male and female subjects;

however, this imbalance was not considered to be an issue and was not expected to affect the

results of the study.

Due to a mix of university students and pilots from the industry, the demographics of

the subject group was varied. The subjects’ age ranged from 21 to 48 years, with an average

of 30.67 years and standard deviation of ± 10.70 years.

All subjects had a current pilot licence with instrument rating when they participated

in this study. Students from the university who were obtaining their CPL were at the lower

end of the experience scale, and subjects from the industry who were employed as pilots were

at the higher end of the experience scale.

265

The experience of these subjects ranged from 200 hours to 5,200 hours; the average

flight time was 1557.78 hours and the standard deviation was ± 1964.70 hours. As in the

previous study, the subjects were not reimbursed for their time.

It is important to note that at the time of the study all subjects had recent experience

flying in aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.


Ethics Committee, Protocol Number 2012/256; refer to Appendix B.

Equipment

The equipment used for this study was similar to the previous study. The same flight

simulator, eye tracker, workload questionnaire and demographic questionnaire were used.

These helped in collecting subjective and objective data.

Procedure

The procedure was also similar to the previous study. The experiment started with the

subject being provided with all the information (refer to Appendices F, G and H) and then

266

signing the consent form (refer to Appendix C). As in the previous study, he or she was

provided with the necessary materials, the eye tracker was calibrated before the subject

stepped into the simulator, and they were free to withdraw from the study at any time. Unlike

the previous study, this flight was conducted in day instrument flight rules (IFR) condition,

which means that the visibility outside the aircraft was very poor. Visibility was set to 1 mile

(1.6 kilometres) for this flight, therefore a pilot was unable to follow landmarks in the outside

world and only had the instruments to rely on to navigate to the destination. There was no

wind during this flight.

The flight route was in in the city of Melbourne, Australia. As in the previous study,

this area was selected because the subjects were recruited from Melbourne and were familiar

with the area. The flight was conducted from Moorabbin airport to Essendon airport. The

total distance for this flight was approximately twenty-three nautical miles, and the average

time taken to complete it was approximately thirty-five minutes.

The simulator started with the aircraft positioned on the ramp at Moorabbin airport.

As in the previous study, the subject was required to start the engine and taxi to Runway 35L

for take-off, at which point data collection began. Being an IFR flight, this flight required

additional steps to be completed after starting the engine. The pilot had to enter the

instrument landing system (ILS) frequency for Runway 26 (R26) at Essendon Airport. He or

she also created a flight plan using the GPS, which showed a path on the GPS to help in

navigation. These steps were crucial to flying in poor visibility conditions.

267

Figure 76: Flight route for IFR experiment.

268

Figure 76 shows the flight route during the experiment. The starting and destination

airport are the same as the previous experiment. However, the route varied as navigation aids

had to be followed.

Once at the runway threshold, the aircraft entered the runway and started the take-off

roll. After take-off the aircraft maintained runway heading until it reached five hundred feet

above ground level. It then turned towards the first waypoint, Plenty non-directional beacon

(Plenty NDB). The aircraft climbed to a cruising altitude of three thousand feet.

The aircraft flew towards Plenty NDB until the glideslope and the localiser for

Essendon airport R26 became active. Once they were active, the pilot utilised that

information to navigate to Essendon airport and perform an ILS landing on R26. The

localiser provided lateral navigation information to the pilot, which showed whether the

aircraft was lined up with the runway. The glideslope provided vertical navigation

information to the pilot, which showed whether the aircraft was on the correct rate of descent

to land on the runway.

The ILS information was used until approximately five hundred feet above the

ground. Below this altitude, the pilot was able to see the ground and the approach lights for

R26. They still used the ILS information until the aircraft reached an altitude of

approximately 200 feet above ground. At this height the runway was visible, and the pilot

could look outside at the runway and land the aircraft.

269

After the landing, the researcher changed the cockpit type and the subject flew the

flight again in the different cockpit. As in the previous study, the subjects filled out the

workload index and the demographic questionnaire while the cockpit was being changed. The

order in which the cockpits were chosen and flown was randomised.


The data was analysed using the same methodology as the previous study.

270

Results

All the figures present the information in the same way as the previous chapter.

Figure 77: Scanning patterns for full flight in instrument flight conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 77 shows the scanning patterns for the entire flight in the two types of cockpit.

While flying in instrument conditions, the subjects spent most of their time looking inside the

aircraft. This was true in both types of cockpit. There was no difference in scanning of the

inside instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.31, p > .05. There was no

difference in scanning of the outside world between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) =

271

0.15, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types

of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 3.30, p > .05.

Figure 78: Instrument scan break down for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.


aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments. There

was no difference in scanning of these instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1,

88) = 0.38, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status

instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.03, p > .05.

272


The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight is shown

in Figure 79. The attitude indicator was the most scanned instrument for the full flight, and

the turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument for the full flight. This was true

in both types of cockpit.

The airspeed indicator was scanned 38.78% more in a glass cockpit, which was

significantly different; F (1, 88) = 6.38, p < .05. There was no difference in scanning of the

attitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.74, p > .05. There was no

difference in scanning of the altitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) =

3.93, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the heading indicator between the two

types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 0.12, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the vertical

273

speed indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 88) = 2.01, p > .05. There was no

difference in scanning of the turn and bank indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1,

88) = 0.63, p > .05.

During the take-off phase, only the airspeed indicator was scanned, as shown in

Figure 80. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) =

0.37, p > .05.


274

During the climb phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight


(1, 16) = 0.20, p > .05.

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument. However, there was no

difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 3.56, p > .05.


275


During the cruise phase, the attitude indicator was the most scanned primary flight


(1, 16) = 0.10, p > .05.



During the descent phase, the attitude indicator was still the most scanned primary

flight instrument (Figure 83). However, there was no difference between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.72, p > .05.

276




277

Figure 84: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the landing phase, * indicates p < .05.

Finally, during the landing phase, the attitude indicator was the most scanned primary

flight instrument (Figure 84) in the analogue cockpit. However, there was no difference


In a glass cockpit, the heading indicator was the most scanned primary flight

instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) =

0.01, p > .05.


all during the descent phase.

278

The amount of time spent on the altitude indicator was significantly different between

a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. The altitude indicator was scanned 104.42% more in

a glass cockpit than analogue, which was significantly different; F (1, 16) = 10.11, p < .05.

Figure 85: Workload rating in each of the six scales for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 85 shows the workload scores on the six scales for the full flight. There was no

difference in the scores of mental demand between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.59,

p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of physical demand between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.36, p > .05. There was no difference in the scores of temporal demand

between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 1.75, p > .05. There was no difference in the

279

scores of performance between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.10 p > .05. There was

no difference in the scores of effort between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.08, p >

.05. Finally, there was no difference in the scores of frustration between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 16) = 0.00, p > .05.

The average overall weighted workload in a glass cockpit was 55.83, with a range

from 39.33 to 76.67 and a standard deviation of ± 14.34. The average workload in an

analogue cockpit was 63.21, with a ranged of 35.34 to 86.00 and a standard deviation of ±

18.75. There was no difference in the overall weighted scores between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 106) = 2.05, p > .05.

280

Discussion


and an analogue cockpit in instrument flight rules condition. Literature suggests that due to

the poor visibility in the outside world, flying in instrument conditions requires a pilot to

maintain good scanning patterns (Tole & Harris, 1987). This helps in maintaining situational

awareness, which allows a pilot to safely fly the aircraft.

Similar to the experiment in the previous chapter, the only difference between the two

flights flown by each subject was in the instrument display and information layout. Unlike

the experiment in the previous chapter, this flight was conducted in instrument conditions. As

a result, the visibility outside the aircraft was very poor and the subjects had to rely only on

the instruments and scan them regularly (Rinoie & Sunada, 2002; Saleem & Kleiner, 2005).

This changes the scanning patterns of a pilot, as they scan the instruments often to obtain the

necessary information to safely fly the aircraft. This highlights the difference in operations

between visual flight and instrument flight (Russi-Vigoya & Patterson, 2015).

Three research questions were asked in this study. The first was whether pilot

scanning patterns were different for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that

there were no significant differences in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit

for the full flight. This contradicts the conclusions of previous studies, which found that the

scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright &

O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001; Van de Merwe et al., 2012).

281

In IFR conditions, the subjects spent most of their time scanning the flight

instruments, followed by the outside world. This is because, being instrument conditions, the

visibility in the outside world was limited. The only times that subjects could obtain cues

from the outside world was during the take-off phase and the last few moments of the landing

phase. As a result, the amount of time spent scanning the outside world was less than 20%,

which is much lower than the 40% suggested by empirical literature (Wickens et al., 2000).

The outside world is also monitored regularly to undertake several tasks, such as traffic

detection (Talleur & Wickens, 2003). In IFR conditions, such a task is supplemented by

information from alternative sources, such as radio communications.

Most of the pilots’ time in both cockpits was spent scanning the instruments inside the

aircraft. There were no significant differences in the scanning patterns between the two types

of cockpit. This is because, in IFR conditions, the only way to obtain vital information about

the flight parameters was by scanning the instruments regularly. This was true regardless of

the type of cockpit. This shows that in poor visibility conditions the scan pattern was adjusted

to ensure the required information is obtained and the aircraft is safely flown.


patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft for the full flight. As in the previous chapter,

this question was divided into two sub-parts. The only significant difference between the two

types of cockpit in the fixation times for the full flight was for the airspeed indicator.

282

As in the VFR study, in this study the primary flight instruments were the most

scanned instruments. These provide the main flight parameters that are required to fly the

aircraft. With poor visibility in the outside world, the subjects had to maintain a good

scanning pattern of the primary flight instruments to safely fly the aircraft. This result is

consistent with previous studies that have found that the PFI are the most scanned

instruments inside an aircraft (Anders, 2001; Mumaw et al., 2000). However, the scanning

pattern of the PFI was not significantly different between the two types of cockpit.

The primary flight instruments were scanned over 65% of the time. This is very high,

because of the instrument conditions. This is much greater than the recommended rate of at

least 25% of the time (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 2001; AOPA, 1993;

FAR/AIM, 2003). However, this result is closer to empirical data, which showed the time to

be 60% (Dubois et al., 2015).

Of the six individual primary flight instruments, the attitude indicator was scanned the

most in both types of cockpit. This result is different to the VFR experiment. At the same

time, this result is consistent with existing literature that states that the attitude indicator is the

most important instrument to scan during flight (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris &

Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). This is due to the vital information it provides. In

instrument conditions, the aircraft’s orientation to the outside world could only be judged by

scanning the attitude indicator, because the horizon in the outside world was not visible. As a

result, the subjects had to scan this instrument regularly. The fixation time on this instrument

was not significantly different between the two types of cockpit. This has safety implications

283

for any pilot making a transition to an analogue cockpit, because she or he can still scan and

acquire vital information about the aircraft’s pitch and roll regardless of the type of cockpit.

The only instrument that showed a significant difference in fixation time for the full

flight was the airspeed indicator, which was scanned more in a glass cockpit. Failure to

obtain information about this crucial parameter can have safety implications while making a

transition to an analogue cockpit (as discussed in the previous chapter). There was no

significant difference in any other instrument between the two types of cockpit. This shows

that subjects were able to scan the remaining primary flight instruments and acquire the vital

information in a similar way in both types of cockpit.

The third research question was whether there were any differences in the scan

patterns of the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight. The

results of the experiment show that only one instrument was significantly different between

the two types of cockpit in the landing phase.

In most of the phases, and in both cockpit types, the attitude indicator was scanned the

most. The reason for this was mentioned above. As in the VFR experiment, during the take-

off phase only the airspeed indicator was scanned. The only significant difference between

the two types of cockpit was in the altitude indicator during the landing phase, when it was

scanned more in a glass cockpit. Not obtaining this vital information in an analogue cockpit

during an important phase can have safety implications. Monitoring the altitude information

during the landing phase is crucial, because it provides a pilot with the altitude of the aircraft

284

above sea level. Due to poor visibility, a pilot cannot judge the aircraft’s height by looking at

the outside world and she or he has to rely on the altitude indicator. Since this instrument was

scanned less in an analogue cockpit, it can affect a pilot who makes a transition to an

analogue cockpit. For example, he or she might enter an unstable approach due to the failure

of obtaining the altitude information. The aircraft might be too high and unable to descend in

time to land on the runway, or the aircraft might be too low. Both could lead to an accident.

By obtaining the altitude information, a pilot who makes a transition to an analogue cockpit

will be able to avoid an unstable approach and safely land.

There are a few reasons for most of the results in this experiment being non-

significant. An important contributor is the scanning technique that a pilot uses in instrument

conditions (Jones, 1985; Pennington, 1979). A pilot is taught how to scan the instruments

when flying in poor visibility conditions. The primary flight instruments are displayed in a

‘T’ layout, therefore one of the most recognised scanning techniques in poor visibility

conditions is the ‘T’ scan path. The ‘T’ scan path requires a pilot to scan four of the six

primary instruments: the airspeed indicator, the attitude indicator, the altitude indicator and

the heading indicator. Scanning these instruments regularly helps a pilot maintain awareness

of the vital flight parameters, and helps a pilot stay on the navigational track while

maintaining airspeed and the assigned altitude. The attitude indicator is the most scanned

instrument during this scanning technique, as it is at the centre of the ‘T’ and is also of prime

importance. Another reason for the lack of significant differences could be the recent

experience of the subjects. At the time of the study, the subjects were flying both glass

cockpit and analogue cockpit equipped aircraft.

285

Analysing the workload data showed that there were no significant differences in the

subjective workload rating of subjects. This result is also similar to the previous study.

In conclusion, the results of this IFR study showed that overall there were no

significant differences in the scanning patterns for the full flight between the two types of

cockpit. While comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft for the full flight, there was a

significant difference only for one flight instrument. Further analysis of the individual

primary flight instruments, based on the phase of flight, also revealed that the scanning

patterns of only one instrument was significantly different between cockpit types.


chapter investigated the scanning patterns in abnormal conditions.

Chapter 7

Unusual Attitude Recovery and

Failed Instrument Detection Study

287

Introduction

An aircraft can experience two main flying situations. One is the normal flight that the

aircraft is designed for, during which the aircraft is operating within the recommended flight

envelope. The other situation is abnormal flight, during which the aircraft is outside its

recommended flying envelope. An abnormal situation, if not managed properly and promptly,

can lead to further complications.

While learning to fly, a pilot learns to operate an aircraft within the aircraft’s

limitations. These limitations are generally prescribed by the aircraft manufacturer. To fully

understand and appreciate these limitations, a student is also taught to experience some

abnormal flying situations. While training for these situations, the aircraft is put in a non-

normal flying condition. By encountering such a scenario, a pilot learns how to recover from

an abnormal situation and how to recognise the cues that indicate the aircraft is entering an

abnormal situation. Even after obtaining a pilot licence, these skills are regularly checked to

ensure proficiency is maintained and vital skills are not forgotten.

The differences in the instrument display and information layout can also affect a

pilot’s ability to recover from abnormal conditions. Hence, it is important to understand how

a pilot acquires information in the different types of cockpit while encountering an abnormal

situation. This is because failure to properly acquire information can result in an incident or

an accident.

288

The previous two chapters made a comparison of pilot scanning patterns between the

two types of cockpit in normal flying situation. This chapter follows on from the previous

chapters and compares pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit while

encountering an abnormal situation. Unlike the previous studies, in this study an unusual

attitude (UA) was presented and the pilot was required to recover from the UA as soon as

possible. This study was conducted in both visual conditions and instrument conditions. In

visual conditions, a pilot had the outside world and the instruments inside the aircraft to

obtain information from. In instrument conditions, a pilot only had the instrument inside the

aircraft to obtain information from. Finally, this study also introduced an instrument failure.

This was done without warning to the pilot and was initiated after the UA recovery. In other

words, it was introduced in normal flying situation. This is the third experiment conducted to

address the literature gap mentioned in the previous chapters.

This UA recovery and failure detection study compared pilot scanning patterns

between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit. Three research questions were asked. The

first two questions are similar to the previous experiments, and the third is specific to this

experiment. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns different during recovery? Second, did a

pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft differently during recovery? Third, was the

instrument failure recognised in normal flying situation?

289

Method

Subjects

The same subjects from the visual flight rules and instrument flight rules studies were

used to conduct the unusual attitude recovery study. The UA study included two parts,

recovery in VFR conditions and recovery in IFR conditions. Subjects who took part in the

VFR experiment in Chapter 5 also took part in the VFR UA recovery experiment, and

subjects who took part in the IFR experiment in Chapter 6 also took part in the IFR UA

recovery experiment.

Subjects from the previous studies only flew in the same condition for normal and

abnormal scenarios. That is, subjects who flew in VFR normal scenario only took part in

VFR abnormal scenario and did not participate in the IFR part. In the same way, subjects

only flew IFR normal and abnormal scenarios. Subjects were given the option to take part in

the abnormal scenario on a different day, however all subjects completed the abnormal flight

immediately after the respective normal flight.

All subjects had the option of only flying one of the experiments. All subjects from

Chapters 5 and 6 were asked to also participate in this study; although they had the option to

not participate, all subjects agreed to participate. Subjects were not recruited just for this

study—they were recruited for the previous studies and asked to participate in this study.

290

Because the subjects were the same, the demographic data which were provided in

Chapters 5 and 6 apply and will not be repeated here.

Equipment

The equipment used in this study was the same as the previous studies.

Procedure

The overall process was similar to the previous studies, although the flight path was

different. The flight route for both the parts (VFR and IFR) was the same, and the experiment

was conducted in daytime, as with the VFR and IFR studies.

The previous studies started at Moorabbin airport and ended at Essendon airport.

Since this study continued on from the previous study, Essendon airport was chosen as the

starting point. All the subjects chose to complete this study immediately after their respective

previous study. As a result, the eye tracker was already on the subject’s head and was

calibrated.

291

Figure 86: Flight route for the abnormal scenario experiment.

292

The visual flight was conducted in VFR conditions, similar to Chapter 5, and the

instrument flight was conducted in IFR conditions, similar to Chapter 6. The total distance for

the flight was approximately twenty nautical miles, and flight duration was approximately

twenty minutes.

Figure 86 shows the route flown during the experiment. The simulator started with the

aircraft positioned on the runway at Essendon airport. The subject started the aircraft and

took off on Runway 26 (R26). After take-off, the aircraft turned north towards a heading of

the subject’s choice. The heading of the aircraft was not important for this experiment, as the

aircraft was going to be pointing at a random heading after the subject recovered from the

UA. The important instruction given to a pilot was that the aircraft should climb to an altitude

of five thousand feet. This was important, as the aircraft needed sufficient height to perform

UA recovery safely.

Once the aircraft was at the altitude of five thousand feet, the aircraft maintained a

straight and level flight. The subject was required to hand over the control of the aircraft to

the researcher, once it was in a straight and level flight. The researcher was sitting next to the

subject, in the same way a copilot sits next to a pilot. Hence, all the flight controls were also

present in front of the researcher. While the researcher was in control of the aircraft, the

subject had his or her eyes shut, to prevent her or him from seeing the unusual attitude that

the aircraft was entering.

293

The UA was consistent for all subjects in both flight conditions. The aircraft was put

in a nose-high attitude, with a shallow bank to the right. The aircraft was pitched up, as the

sky provided very few cues about the aircraft’s orientation. This made the recovery

challenging. If the aircraft was pitched down, the subject could have recovered easily by

using the cues in the outside world. Such cues, such as the horizon, were only available in the

visual conditions.

Once the aircraft was in an unusual attitude, the researcher handed back control of the

aircraft to the subject by saying ‘handing over’. The subject responded by saying ‘taking

over’ and opening his or her eyes. She or he was required to recover and return to straight and

level flight as soon as possible. After recovering, the subject was also required to return to the

assigned altitude of five thousand feet.

Once the aircraft was back at the assigned altitude, the subject was instructed to fly

towards Bolinda NDB (BOL) and descend to three thousand feet. Once near Bolinda NDB

the aircraft flew towards Rockdale NDB (ROC), at the same time descending to fifteen

hundred feet. From Bolinda NDB, the subject visually tracked towards Runway 16 (R16) at

Tullamarine International Airport. In the IFR flight, the aircraft intercepted the localiser and

glideslope for R16.

At fifteen hundred feet above the runway, the researcher failed the heading indicator.

This failure was introduced without the subject’s knowledge. If the subject recognised the

failure, the researcher reset the failure and the instrument was active again. However, if the

294

subject did not recognise the failure, then the researcher did not intervene or make any

comments. This failure was initiated in both types of flight and in both cockpit type.

As in Chapters 5 and 6, all subjects flew in both types of cockpit. There was no

questionnaire completed between flights.


The previous experiments analysed the scanning patterns for the full flight and during

different phases of flight. Hence, for this experiment only the unusual attitude recovery phase

was analysed. The data was analysed using the same methodology as the previous study.

This study also collected qualitative data during the instrument failure. This data was

collected as a yes/no answer, converted into percentages and tabulated. Data was also

separated for glass cockpit and analogue cockpit, along with VFR flight and IFR flight, and

analysed using a chi-square test.

295

Results

All the figures present the information in the same way as the previous chapters.

Figure 87: Scanning pattern during recovery in visual conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 87 shows the scanning pattern for the UA recovery in visual flight rules

conditions in the two types of cockpit. In this condition, and in both types of cockpit, subjects

spent most of their time looking outside the aircraft. There was no difference in scanning of

the outside world between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.22, p > .05. There was no

difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.15,

296

p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the inside instruments between the two types

of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.11, p > .05.

Figure 88: Instrument scan breakdown during recovery, * indicates p < .05.

While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the

primary flight instruments (Figure 88). However, there was no difference between the two

types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.01, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft

system status instruments between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.68, p > .05.

297

Figure 89: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during recovery, * indicates p < .05.


in Figure 89. The attitude indicator was the most scanned instrument, while the vertical speed

indicator and turn and bank indicator were not scanned at all in either cockpit during the full

flight.

There was no difference in scanning of the airspeed indicator between the two types

of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 1.21, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the attitude

indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 1.18, p > .05. There was no difference

in scanning of the altitude indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.01, p >

.05. There was no difference in scanning of the heading indicator between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 22) = 0.46, p > .05.

298

Figure 90: Scanning pattern during recovery in instrument conditions, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 90 shows the scanning pattern for the UA recovery in instrument flight rules

conditions in the two types of cockpit. While flying in instrument conditions, the subjects did

not look outside the aircraft. This was due to poor visibility and was true in both types of

cockpit. There was no difference in scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.17, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the inside


299

Figure 91: Instrument scan breakdown during recovery, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 91 shows the scanning pattern inside the aircraft during the UA recovery.

While scanning inside the aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary

flight instruments. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1,

14) = 0.11, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status



in Figure 92. The attitude indicator was the most scanned instrument for the full flight, and

the turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument during the full flight; this was

true in both types of cockpit.

300

Figure 92: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during recovery, * indicates p < .05.






cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.64, p > .05. There was no difference in scanning of the vertical speed


in scanning of the turn and bank indicator between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 1.98,

p > .05.

301

Table 1: Failure detection in different types of cockpit, in visual and instrument conditions.

After the UA recovery had been completed, the instrument failure was introduced. It

was initiated in the landing phase. In visual conditions, only 8% of the subjects detected the

instrument failure in an analogue cockpit, whereas 100% of the subjects detected the

instrument failure in a glass cockpit. While flying in visual conditions, the instrument failure

detection was significantly dependent on the type of cockpit; X2 (1, N = 12) = 20.31, p < .05.

In instrument conditions, the failure detection rate increased to 75% in an analogue cockpit

and remained at 100% in the glass cockpit. In instrument conditions, the instrument failure

detection was not significantly dependent on the type of cockpit; X2 (1, N = 9) = 12.03, p >

.05. Regardless of the failure detection rate, the failed instrument was scanned by all the

subjects in a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in both flying conditions.

Cockpit Type Not Detected Detected Not Detected Detected

Glass Cockpit 0% 100% 0% 100%

Analogue Cockpit 92% 8% 25% 75%

Instrument Flight Rules ConditionVisual Flight Rules Condition

302

Discussion


and an analogue cockpit during unusual attitude recovery. Literature suggests that the

scanning patterns between a normal flight and an abnormal flight are different (Russi-Vigoya

& Patterson, 2015). The change is primarily due to the nature of the flight. Being an

abnormal situation, the scanning patterns change to ensure vital information is acquired

quickly. This will allow a return to normal flight as soon as possible.


scanning patterns were different during recovery. The results of the experiment show that

there were no significant differences in the fixation times between the two types of cockpit

during recovery. This was true in visual and instrument conditions. The results contradict the

conclusions of previous studies, which state that the scanning patterns between the two types

of cockpit are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001; Van de

Merwe et al., 2012). The results also contradict the conclusions in the existing literature on

UA recovery in the two types of cockpit; for example, Hiremath et al., (2009) concluded that

recovery in an analogue cockpit differed to a glass cockpit and that pilots took longer to

recover in a glass cockpit.

In both VFR and IFR conditions, recovery from UA is of prime importance. It

becomes a pilot’s priority to bring the aircraft back to normal flight, because failure to do so

could result in an accident. Hence, the critical nature of the situation is why the scanning

303

patterns were similar in both types of cockpit. This meant that the information was obtained

in a similar method in both types of cockpit and the aircraft was returned to straight and level

flight. The results of the experiment also showed that, while flying in VFR conditions, the

outside world was scanned to obtain the necessary information. However, in IFR conditions,

it was not scanned at all due to the lack of cues in the outside world. This was true in both

types of cockpit. In VFR conditions, the outside world was scanned around 50% of the time,

which is just above the 40% suggested by empirical research (Wickens et al., 2000). As a

result, the amount of time spent scanning inside the aircraft varied between the two

conditions. Despite this, there were no differences in fixation times between the two types of

cockpit, during recovery, for both the conditions.

The second research question asked was whether there were any differences in the

scan patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft during recovery. Once again, the results of

the experiment show that there were no significant differences in the fixation times for the

inside instruments between the two types of cockpit during recovery. This was true in visual

and instrument conditions.

As in the previous chapters, in this chapter the primary flight instruments were

scanned the most, in both types of cockpit. In VFR conditions they were scanned around 35%

and in IFR conditions they were scanned over 75%. These percentages were between the

recommended time and conclusions made by empirical data (i.e. 25% and 60% respectively;

Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 2001; AOPA, 1993; FAR/AIM, 2003; Dubois et al.,

2015). The variation between the VFR and IFR flight is due to the lack of cues in the outside

world. Regardless, there were no differences between a glass an analogue cockpit.

304

Of the six individual primary flight instruments, the attitude indicator was scanned the

most. This was true in both types of cockpit and in both conditions. As in the IFR study, this

result is consistent with findings in the existing literature, which state that the attitude

indicator is the most scanned instrument (Gainer & Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf,

1980). Other studies mention the importance of the attitude indicator in abnormal situations

and recommend that it be scanned most due to the valuable information it provides (Beringer

& Ball, 2009; Lee & Myung, 2013; Braithwaite et al., 1998). This information will assist in

recovery and prevent an accident (Davenport, 2000).

The lack of a significant difference between the two types of cockpit for both flying

conditions has safety implications. A pilot who is making a transition from a glass cockpit to

an analogue cockpit can maintain safety when he or she encounters an abnormality in the

different cockpit type. Due to the critical nature of the flight, pilots adjusted their scanning

patterns to ensure the required information was obtained and the aircraft returns to normal

flight as soon as possible.

The attitude indicator is an important instrument, therefore it was scanned the most in

both types of cockpit, in both flying conditions, during recovery. This shows that, regardless

of the type of cockpit or visibility in the outside world, a pilot scanned and acquired vital

information about the aircraft from this instrument. The attitude indicator also provides

reliable information about an aircraft’s orientation in relation to the outside world and can be

relied on to bring the aircraft back to safety regardless of flying conditions. Apart from

305

visibility differences in the outside world during daytime, recovery at night can also be a

challenge. It might be difficult to obtain horizon information and other cues from the outside

world, therefore depending on the attitude indicator will ensure accurate information

acquisition.

The third research question asked was whether the instrument failure was recognised

in the normal flying situation. The results show that in VFR conditions there was a significant

difference in the ability to recognise the failed instrument between the two types of cockpit.

However, in IFR conditions, there was no significant difference in the ability to recognise the

failed instrument between the two types of cockpit. Regardless, this instrument was scanned

by everyone in both flying conditions.

The results show that in visual conditions less than 10% of the subjects detected the

instrument failure in an analogue cockpit, but that all the subjects detected the failure in a

glass cockpit. One of the main reasons for this is the information layout in the two types of

cockpit, as described in Chapter 2. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the information layout in an

analogue cockpit and a glass cockpit respectively. A working heading indicator in an

analogue cockpit is shown in Figures 4, 14 and 15, and a working heading indicator in a glass

cockpit is shown in Figures 16 and 17.

Figure 21 shows how the failure of the heading indicator is displayed in an analogue

cockpit. The only difference between a failed and a working instrument is a small red flag in

the top-right corner of the instrument. In a glass cockpit a failure is displayed with a large red

306

cross with the letter ‘HDG’ on it, and the numbers on the compass are removed (Figure 22).

This failure display is attention grabbing and can be difficult for a pilot to overlook, which

could be the reason for everyone recognising the instrument failure in a glass cockpit.

Additionally, it could also be a result of unfamiliarity with an analogue cockpit. At the time

of the study, all the subjects were familiar with a glass cockpit, therefore they might not have

been aware of how the heading indicator failure is displayed in an analogue cockpit.

The lack of a significant difference between cockpit types in IFR conditions can be

credited to good scanning patterns. The heading indicator is part of the ‘T’ scan path, as

discussed in previous chapters. Due to limited visibility in instrument conditions, the ‘T’ scan

path was used to safely land the aircraft. This scanning technique acquires the necessary

information and helps in detecting any problems (Thomas & Wickens, 2004). Another reason

for the lack of a significant difference could be that, at the time of the experiment, all subjects

had recent experience in both types of cockpit.

The difference in instrument failure recognition between the two types of cockpit has

safety implications and highlights the importance of transition training. This is particularly

true for VFR pilots, because relying on the outside world to obtain navigational information

might not always be possible. For example, a pilot may be unfamiliar with the area and might

assume that he or she is flying in the correct direction based on the information provided by

the heading indicator. However, she or he might not realise that the heading indicator has

failed and that the aircraft has deviated from the flight plan. This could potentially lead to an

incident, such as failure to reach destination due to fuel starvation.

307

Familiarity with the layout of information in a cockpit is vital to detecting an

instrument failure; hence, transition training is necessary. This is also supported by findings

in the literature that state that differences between the two types of cockpit need to be

understood by pilots (as discussed in Chapter 2). This will help in dealing successfully with

any abnormality (Hiremath et al., 2009).

In conclusion, this study found no significant differences in the scanning patterns

during recovery between the two types of cockpit. When comparing scanning patterns inside

the aircraft during recovery, there were still no significant differences. Finally, analysis of the

instrument failure recognition in normal flying situation revealed that there was a significant

difference in VFR conditions only.


chapter investigated the scanning patterns in rotary wing aircraft.

Chapter 8

Rotary Wing Aircraft vs

Fixed-Wing Aircraft Study

309

Introduction

Aircraft are divided into two main categories, fixed-wing and rotary wing. The

experiments conducted in the previous chapters have focused on the fixed-wing category.

This chapter focuses on rotary wing aircraft and compares them with the fixed-wing

counterpart. Rotary wing operations differ from fixed-wing operations, because they have a

different aerodynamic design. This design allows a rotary wing aircraft to perform

manoeuvres that a fixed-wing aircraft cannot, such as hovering. This means that the skills

required to fly a rotary wing aircraft are different to those for a fixed-wing aircraft.

The cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft is slightly different to a fixed-wing aircraft, due

to additional information required by a pilot that is specific to rotary wing operations. Figure

56 in Chapter 3 shows an analogue cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft. When compared to an

analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft (Figure 14 in Chapter 2), differences can be seen.

The primary ‘T’ instruments are the same between the two types of cockpit, and the

instrument display and information layout of these ‘T’ instruments are also similar. However,

differences lie in most of the other instruments. While the instruments offer the same

information between the two types of cockpit, their location is different. In particular, a pilot

sits on the right side in a rotary wing aircraft, compared to left side in a fixed-wing aircraft.

This change means that the ‘T’ instruments are positioned on the right side of the cockpit in a

rotary wing aircraft, and on the left side in a fixed-wing aircraft. The radio stack (Figure 11 in

Chapter 2) is positioned under the instruments in a rotary wing aircraft. The GPS is

positioned above the cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft (Figure 56), whereas in a fixed-wing

aircraft it is positioned on the left of the primary ‘T’ instruments. Finally, there are also a

310

number of additional instruments in rotary wing aircraft that are specific to helicopter

operations, including the torque indicator, turbine power and gas producer.

Given the above-mentioned differences, this study assumes that an analogue cockpit

in a rotary wing aircraft is different to an analogue cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft.

Consequently, the differences in the instrument display and information layout can affect a

pilot’s ability to fly in a different type of aircraft or in two types of cockpit. As discussed in

Chapter 2, most of the empirical studies of scanning patterns in rotary wing aircraft have been

conducted in the military, and limited research exists on the scanning patterns of civilian

rotary wing pilots. At the same time, there are no studies that compare the scanning patterns

between fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft. The unique operations of a rotary wing aircraft

can impact scanning patterns, therefore this study compared scanning patterns between the

two types of cockpit. This was the final study conducted to address the literature gap outlined

in the previous chapters.

This study compared pilot scanning patterns between an analogue cockpit of a rotary

wing aircraft and an analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft. The same three research

questions from the VFR experiment were asked. First, were a pilot’s scanning patterns

different for the full flight? Second, did a pilot scan the instruments inside the aircraft

differently for the full flight? Third, were there differences in the scanning patterns for the six

individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight?

311

Method

Subjects

Subjects for this experiment were recruited using a similar method to the first two

studies. To participate in this study, it was essential for a subject to have a rotary wing (or

helicopter) pilot licence. This study was advertised to undergraduate and postgraduate

students enrolled in the aviation course at Swinburne University.

There are few aviation students learning to fly in a helicopter, therefore industry pilots

who were on the university’s mailing list were also sent the advertisement. Most of the

subjects who participated in this were from the industry.

Eight rotary wing pilots were recruited to participate in this study, seven male and one

female. There was an imbalance in the number of male and female subjects; however, this

imbalance was not considered to be an issue and was not expected to affect the results of the

study.

The subjects’ age ranged from 28 to 60 years, with an average age of 40.43 years and

a standard deviation of ± 10.92 years. At the time of the experiment, all subjects had a current

helicopter pilot licence. Several subjects also had a fixed-wing pilot licence, and some

subjects regularly flew both rotary wing and fixed-wing aircraft.

312

The subjects’ experience in rotary wing aircraft varied from recreational flying to

commercial flying. The experience of these subjects ranged from 420 hours to 8,000 hours;

the average flight time was 3,114.29 hours with a standard deviation of ± 2,858.36 hours.

This study only recruited rotary wing pilots. The results of this study were compared

to the results of the analogue cockpit fixed-wing study from Chapter 5. To obtain equal

sample sizes, the results for eight subjects were randomly chosen from the VFR study. Of the

eight randomly chosen subjects, two were female and six were male. The subjects’ age

ranged from 22 to 48 years, with an average age of 32.25 years and a standard deviation of ±

10.73 years. The experience of these subjects ranged from 120 hours to 1,000 hours; the

average flight time was 426.88 hours and the standard deviation was ± 334.57 hours.


Ethics Committee, Protocol Number 2013/121; refer to Appendix D.

Equipment

The equipment used in this study varied slightly from the previous experiments.

Being a rotary wing study, the FlyIt helicopter flight simulator (as described in Chapter 3)

was used. The same eye tracker and demographic questionnaire were used.

313

Procedure

The procedure was similar to the visual flight rules study conducted in Chapter 5. The

subject was provided with all the necessary information and completed the formalities

(Appendix E). She or he wore the eye tracker and the researcher performed the calibration.

Once calibration was complete, the subject stepped into the flight simulator.

The helicopter flight was conducted in day VFR conditions only and in normal

situations only. Details such as the flight route, altitude and weather were identical to the

VFR study (shown in Figure 66). Being a helicopter flight, there were some minor

differences, such as take-off and landing occurring on helipads rather than runways.

This flight was conducted in an analogue cockpit only, therefore subjects did not have

to fly the scenario twice, as in the previous chapters. At the end of the flight, the subjects

completed the demographic questionnaire.


The data was analysed in the same way as in Chapters 5 and 6.

314

Results

All the figures present the information in the same way as the previous chapters.

Figure 93: Scan pattern comparison between aircraft types for full flight, * indicates p < .05.

Figure 93 shows the scanning pattern for the entire flight in the two types of cockpit.

As with the VFR study, the subjects spent most of their time looking outside the aircraft. This

was true in both types of cockpit. There was no difference in scanning of the outside world

between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.80, p > .05. There was no difference in

scanning of the saccade rate between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.02, p > .05.

315

There was no difference in scanning of the inside instruments between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.61, p > .05.

Figure 94: Instrument scan breakdown for the full flight, * indicates p < .05.


aircraft, the subjects spent most of their time looking at the primary flight instruments.

However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.82, p > .05.

There was no difference in scanning of the aircraft system status instruments between the two

types of cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.23, p > .05.

316


The breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments is shown in Figure 95.

The only exception was the airspeed indicator, which was also the most scanned instrument

in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit. However, in a rotary wing aircraft the altitude indicator

was the most scanned instrument. In both types of cockpit, the turn and bank indicator was

the least scanned instrument; it was not scanned at all.






317

cockpit; F (1, 78) = 0.68, p > .05. The vertical speed indicator was scanned 1324.82% more

in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 78) = 38.20, p < .05.


During the take-off phase, the airspeed indicator was the only instrument scanned in

both types of cockpit. No other instrument was scanned in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit,

(Figure 96). In contrast, five of the six instruments were scanned in a rotary wing aircraft.

The airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument in both types of cockpit. It was

scanned 154.36% more in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F

(1, 14) = 4.14, p < .05.

318

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument in both types of cockpit;

it was not scanned at all.

There were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in the amount of

time spent on several other instruments. The attitude indicator was scanned 2097.19% more

in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 5.10 p < .05.

The altitude indicator was scanned 2267.77% more in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which

was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 17.01 p < .05. The heading indicator was scanned

373.19% more in rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) =

3.18 p < .05. The vertical speed indicator was scanned 650.83% more in rotary wing

aircraft’s cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 3.54 p < .05.

In the climb phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned instrument (Figure

97). This was true in both types of cockpit. However, there was no difference between the

two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.55, p > .05.



319


The vertical speed indicator was scanned 793.22% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s

cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 7.30, p < .05.

During the cruise phase, the altitude indicator was again the most scanned instrument

in both types of cockpit (Figure 98). However, there was no difference between the two types

of cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.01, p > .05.

320




Again, the amount of time spent on the vertical speed indicator was significantly

different between the two types of cockpit. It was scanned 1757.96% more in a rotary wing

aircraft’s cockpit; F (1, 14) = 13.17, p < .05.

321


During the descent phase, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned instrument in

both types of cockpit (Figure 99). However, there was no difference between the two types of

cockpit; F (1, 14) = 0.16, p > .05.



Again, the time spent on the vertical speed indicator was significantly different

between the two types of cockpit. It was scanned 475.30% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s

cockpit; F (1, 14) = 9.25, p < .05.

322

Figure 100: Individual instruments’ scan patterns during the landing phase, * indicates p <

.05.

Finally, during the landing phase, the altitude indicator was the most scanned

instrument (Figure 100) in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit. However, there was no difference


In a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit, the airspeed indicator was the most scanned

instrument. However, there was no difference between the two types of cockpit; F (1, 14) =

0.99, p > .05.

323

The turn and bank indicator was the least scanned instrument; it was not scanned at all

during the descent phase.

Again, the amount of time spent on the vertical speed indicator was significantly

different between aircraft types. It was scanned 1438.30% more in a rotary wing aircraft’s

cockpit, which was significantly different; F (1, 14) = 10.48, p < .05.

324

Discussion

This study was conducted to compare pilot scanning patterns between an analogue

cockpit in a rotary wing aircraft and an analogue cockpit in a fixed-wing aircraft. It was

conducted as there is limited literature that makes a comparison between analogue cockpits in

the different types of aircraft.

As in the VFR experiment, this experiment was conducted in normal visual flying

conditions. Hence, a pilot had the instruments inside the aircraft, as well as cues from the

outside world to rely on to safely fly an aircraft.


scanning patterns were different for the full flight. The results of the experiment show that

there were no significant differences in fixation times between the two types of cockpit for

the full flight. The results of the experiments in the previous chapters were compared with

existing literature related to scanning patterns in different types of cockpit. Previous scientists

have suggested that the scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit in

a fixed-wing aircraft are different (Diez et al., 2001; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Anders, 2001;

Van de Merwe et al., 2012). However, this literature is specific to fixed-wing aircraft,

therefore a reasonable comparison between the results of this experiment and other studies in

the literature cannot be made. This is because the two types of cockpit are primarily different

due to a change in aircraft, i.e. fixed vs rotary. In addition, more than one variable has been

changed—both the cockpit type and the aircraft type. Nevertheless, the results of this

325

experiment provide an initial comparison between the two types of cockpit in different

aircraft types, and reveal that fixation times for the full flight are similar.

Being VFR flight, the subjects spent most of their time scanning the outside world.

This was consistent in both types of cockpit. A high fixation time in the outside world can be

attributed to the visual flying condition (as discussed in Chapter 5).


patterns of the instruments inside the aircraft for the full flight. The results of the experiment

show that there was a significant difference in the fixation times between the two types of

cockpit for only one instrument for the full flight.

The primary flight instruments were the most scanned instruments in both types of

cockpit. However, there were no significant differences in the fixation times. The primary

flight instruments were scanned approximately 10% of the total time, which was much lower

than the recommended percentage (Colvin et al., 2005; FAA, 1998; AOPA, 1993, 2001;

FAR/AIM, 2003; Anders, 2001). Note, however, that the recommended percentage is for a

fixed-wing aircraft. The results of this experiment show that, even in a fixed-wing aircraft,

the time spent scanning the PFI was low; this can again be attributed to the flying condition.

Further breakdown of the individual primary flight instruments for the full flight

reveal that the VSI pattern was significantly different. It was scanned more in a rotary wing

326

cockpit compared to a fixed-wing cockpit, which can be attributed to the unique operations of

a helicopter. This is discussed further below.

Regarding the most scanned instrument during the full flight, the findings varied from

other studies. As discussed in the previous chapters, previous studies found that the attitude

indicator is the most scanned instrument in a fixed-wing aircraft’s cockpit (Gainer &

Obermayer, 1964; Harris & Christhilf, 1980; Huettig et al., 1999). In this study, the attitude

indicator in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit was the third-most important instrument scanned

for the full flight. Again, this can be attributed to the differences in helicopter operations.

The third research question was whether there was a difference in the scan patterns of

the six individual primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight. The results of the

experiment showed that there were significant differences in fixation times between the two

types of cockpit for some of the instruments based on the phase of flight.

Again, the VSI showed significant differences in all phases of flight. All instruments

except the turn and bank indicator showed a significant difference in the take-off phase.

Finally, the attitude indicator was not the most scanned instrument in each phase; again, this

can be attributed to the differences in helicopter operations.

The differences in scanning patterns can be credited to the differences in rotary wing

aircraft operations. For example, a helicopter takes off from a helipad, climbs to an initial

327

altitude and hovers. During this critical phase, a pilot monitors more instruments than in a

fixed-wing aircraft. This difference is highlighted in the results of this experiment. While

taking off in a fixed-wing aircraft, the airspeed indicator is one of the main instruments to

scan, as seen in the results. The airspeed was scanned significantly more in a fixed-wing

aircraft during take-off, whereas in a helicopter almost all the instruments were scanned more

during the take-off phase.

The vertical speed indicator scanning was also significantly different between the two

types of cockpit. This indicator was scanned more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit than in a

fixed-wing, in the full flight and in each individual phase of flight. Again, the reason can be

due to the differences in operations. As shown in Figure 5 and discussed in Chapter 2, the

VSI provides information about an aircraft’s rate of climb or descent per minute and is prone

to constant changes, unlike the altitude indicator. In other words, the VSI can be considered

as ‘leading’ whereas the altitude indicator can be considered as ‘trailing’. This means that if

there is any change in an aircraft’s pitch, it instantly shows up on the VSI. The information

on the VSI indicates that the aircraft is about to either climb or descend, which will result in a

change in the aircraft’s altitude.

In a fixed-wing aircraft, a pilot has the assistance of ‘trim’ to manage the aircraft’s

VSI. Once a fixed-wing aircraft has been ‘trimmed properly’, a pilot can expect the aircraft to

maintain its altitude, and he or she need not check the VSI regularly to confirm that the

altitude is not increasing or decreasing. In a rotary wing aircraft, a pilot does not have the

assistance of ‘trim’, therefore he or she has to rely more on the VSI and constantly check it to

ensure that the helicopter is not climbing or descending. This difference in aircraft design and

328

the unique aerodynamic characteristics of a rotary wing aircraft make it more important to

scan the VSI. Hence, the results of this experiment show that the VSI was indeed scanned

more in a rotary wing aircraft’s cockpit compared to a fixed-wing.

The results of this experiment provide an initial comparison between the two types of

cockpit in the different aircraft types. This is valuable as there is little literature comparing

the scanning patterns in the cockpits of fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft. As discussed in

the introduction of this chapter, there are slight differences between the analogue cockpits in

the two types of aircraft. Hence, they can be considered to be two different types of cockpit.

The results also have safety implications for any pilot who is making a transition to a

helicopter, because a pilot has to learn the differences in the cockpit layout and scanning

patterns.

The results compare the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit. They

also reveal the unique operations of a rotary wing aircraft—as discussed above, there are

differences in the take-off phase and in the importance of the VSI. This could indicate that

the scanning patterns in a rotary wing aircraft are different to a fixed-wing aircraft because

they were adjusted to suit the helicopter-specific operations. However, this is a preliminary

conclusion only, with some caveats. One caveat is that the experiment conducted in this study

included rotary wing flights only and did not include a fixed-wing flight. The results obtained

from this study were compared with the fixed-wing counterpart; that is, they were compared

with the data obtained in the visual fixed-wing analogue cockpit. This means that the

comparison between the two types of cockpit in the two types of aircraft has not been made

for the same subjects.

329

A future study is required to further understand the scanning patterns between the two

types of cockpit in the two types of aircraft. Regardless, the results of the present experiment

provide an initial comparison between the two types of cockpit. The preliminary conclusion

is that the scanning pattern in a rotary wing aircraft could also be adjusted to suit the specific

operations. If this is true, then the scanning patterns are not only adjusted based on the flying

condition or situation encountered (as previous chapters showed), but also in response to a

change in operations.

In conclusion, the results of the rotary wing study showed that there were no

significant differences in the scanning patterns for the full flight between the two types of

cockpit. While comparing scanning patterns inside the aircraft for the full flight, there was a

significant difference for only one of the flight instruments. Further analysis of the individual

primary flight instruments based on the phase of flight also revealed that the scanning

patterns of only some instruments were significantly different between cockpit types. At the

same time, the results highlight the differences in operations.

Chapter 9

Overall Discussion

331

Discussion

The aim of this thesis was to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of

cockpit. The literature review in Chapter 2 identified that it is important to understand the

human factors issues that arise when a pilot makes a transition between different types of

cockpit (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Lindo et al., 2012). The

inclusion of a new instrument display or changing the layout of information on an existing

display can affect a pilot’s performance (Andre et al., 1991; Self et al., 2003; Williams,

2002). As such, it is vital to study and understand the human factors issues that arise, when

the entire cockpit is changed.

Historically, a pilot learnt to fly in an analogue cockpit and made a transition to a

glass cockpit during her or his career. This transition resulted in an initial decrease in

performance, which included changes to scanning patterns (Chidester et al., 2007). However,

research in the field ensured that the transition was understood, and the required training

programs were set up. Similarly, it is important to research the transition from a glass cockpit

to an analogue cockpit (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011; Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Lindo et al.,

2012). The need for such research is driven by a gap in the literature and by an increasing

number of pilots making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit.

There is insufficient empirical research examining the human factors issues that arise

when pilots make a transition between the two types of cockpit (Whitehurst & Rantz, 2011;

Whitehurst & Rantz, 2012; Haslbeck & Hoermann, 2016; Whitehurst, 2014). Furthermore,

332

there are no studies that objectively compare pilot scanning patterns between the two types of

cockpit (Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Lindo et al., 2012). This is despite there being differences

in the instrument display and information layout of the cockpit types that could result in a

pilot having difficulty scanning and obtaining the required information.

Four experiments were conducted as a part of this thesis. An eye tracking device was

used during the experiments to collect objective data that showed where a pilot looked while

flying. The experiments were conducted in a flight simulator, which offers a safe, reliable and

reproducible platform for data collection. Hence, all the subjects were exposed to the same

conditions during the respective experiments.

The scanning patterns for the full flight were analysed. The results of the experiment

showed that overall there were significant differences in the scanning patterns in VFR

conditions. When flying in normal visual conditions, there were significant differences

between the two types of cockpit. However, as the condition changed to poor visibility, there

were no overall differences between the two types of cockpit. This means that when the

visibility in the outside world was limited, the scanning patterns of pilots became similar.

Additionally, as the situation changed from normal to abnormal, again there were no

differences in the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit.

These results show that the scanning patterns of pilots were significantly different

during normal daytime visual flight. However, as the condition changed due to poor

visibility, or an abnormal situation was encountered, the scanning patterns were modified.

333

This adjustment in scanning patterns allowed the flight to safely continue, regardless of the

type of cockpit.

The scanning patterns for the instruments inside the aircraft were examined. In VFR

conditions, there were significant differences between the two types of cockpit in scanning of

several instruments inside the aircraft. While in IFR conditions, there was a significant

difference between the two types of cockpit in only one of the instruments inside the aircraft.

Finally, when an abnormal situation was encountered, there were no significant differences

between the two types of cockpit for any instruments inside the aircraft.

These results again show that there were some significant differences in the scanning

patterns of pilots in different cockpit types during normal daytime visual flight. As the

condition changed to reduced visibility or an abnormal situation was encountered, the

scanning patterns were modified.

The primary flight instruments’ scanning patterns were investigated for each phase of

flight. In the VFR conditions, there were several significant differences between the

instruments in the two types of cockpit. These differences depended on the phase of flight. In

IFR conditions, there was a significant difference between the types of cockpit in only one

instrument. Yet again, these results show that as the conditions changed from visual to

reduced visibility, the scanning patterns were modified to cope with the condition.

334

The analysis assessed the most important primary flight instrument scanned during

the different phases of flight. This varied according to visual conditions, instrument

conditions and whether there was an abnormal situation. This was true in both types of

cockpit. In visual conditions, the most important primary instrument changed based on the

phase of flight. In contrast, in instrument conditions and abnormal situations, the most

important primary instrument scanned was more consistent and changed less in different

phases. This change in the most important primary flight instrument was necessary for the

pilots to obtain the relevant information and to maintain safety. This highlights the

modification of scanning patterns as the condition or situation changed.

A comparison was also made between the analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft

and the analogue cockpit of a rotary wing aircraft. There were no overall significant

differences in the scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit for the full flight.

However, when considering the instruments inside the aircraft, there was a significant

difference between the two types of cockpit for the full flight. In addition, there were several

differences between the two types of cockpit based on the phase of flight. While these results

compared two different types of cockpit, it is important to note that there were also

operational differences between the two types of aircraft. The preliminary conclusion from

this initial comparison is that the scanning patterns could be modified to suit the unique

rotary wing operations.

Summarising all the above, the results show that in normal daytime visual conditions

there were differences in the scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue

cockpit. However, as the condition deteriorated due to poor visibility or the situation became

335

critical due to an abnormality, the scanning patterns were modified and any differences

between the two types of cockpit were reduced to almost zero.

The results have safety implications for a pilot who is making a transition from a glass

cockpit to an analogue cockpit. It shows that he or she is still able to continue flying an

aircraft safely, regardless of the type of cockpit. This is mainly because a pilot can adjust his

or her scanning patterns to cope with changes in condition or situation. In normal visual

conditions, information can be obtained from several sources. Because of the available

options, the scanning patterns were different between the two types of cockpit. In instrument

conditions, the information required to safely fly is almost reduced to a single source,

therefore all the pilots were forced to rely on the instruments and scan them in the same way

in the two types of cockpit. Finally, in an abnormal situation, the information was available

from several sources in a visual abnormal situation but from only one source in an instrument

abnormal situation. Regardless of the visibility conditions in the outside world, the scanning

patterns during an abnormal situation were not different between the two types of cockpit.

This is mainly due to the serious nature of the situation. In such a situation, the instruments

offer the most reliable source of information, therefore even when cues were available in the

outside world the instruments were scanned in a similar way in both types of cockpit.

The above results show the pilot scanning patterns between the two types of cockpit.

Proper scanning patterns help a pilot maintain good situational awareness. Obtaining the

information from the available sources lays the foundation for achieving and maintaining

situational awareness (Endsley, 1995a). As a result, he or she can also make relevant

decisions and execute appropriate actions. This helps in reducing the likelihood of making

336

errors and encountering an incident or accident (Wright et al., 2004; Uhlarik & Comerford,

2002). On the other hand, failure to have good scanning patterns can result in a pilot missing

vital information. This, in turn, can result in an incident or an accident. Examples of such

accidents were discussed in Chapter 2.

Information can be acquired from several sources, including instruments, the outside

world, other crew members and flight manuals (Stanton et al., 2010). A pilot’s ability to

interact with and obtain information from these sources is crucial. The results of the present

study show that pilots were able to scan and obtain the information from the relevant sources

in both types of cockpit.

Regular scanning helps in making appropriate decisions (FAA, 1991b). Decision

making is an important task for every pilot to perform. Failure to do so can result in an

incident or an accident (Simpson, 2001; Detwiler et al., 2008). Previous studies also suggest

that poor understanding of a situation, such as deteriorating weather, can affect a pilot’s

decision-making skills (Wiegmann & Goh, 2003). The results of the present study show that

scanning patterns were adjusted to acquire the information needed for decision making. This

can particularly be seen in the abnormal situations, where such a task was performed in both

visual and instrument abnormal conditions. The abnormal situation offered greater difficulty

to a pilot, therefore scanning patterns were changed compared to a normal flight. This

adjusted scan allowed the required information to be obtained, which enabled appropriate

decision making and recovery to normal flight. This was true in both types of cockpit.

337

Achieving situational awareness and making good decisions also allow a pilot to

manage his or her workload. A higher or lower workload can negatively affect a pilot’s

performance (Morris & Leung, 2006; Svensson et al., 1997). Hence, it is important to

understand workload when a pilot is making a transition between two types of cockpit. The

results of this study show that there were no differences between the workload of the two

types of cockpit. This was true for the full flights in visual and instrument conditions. This

shows that it did not affect a pilot when she or he made a transition from a glass cockpit to an

analogue cockpit.

Automation technology affects a pilot’s workload (Billings, 1991), decision-making

skills, and situational awareness. As discussed in Chapter 2, the modern automated glass

cockpit offers many benefits, but it can also negatively affect a pilot’s performance. For

example, it can result in automation-induced complacency (Mosier et al., 1998; Bowers et al.,

1995), particularly when the autopilot is used. The experiments conducted in the present

study required the pilot to manually fly the aircraft.

One of the main reasons the autopilot was not used in this study was because it affects

a pilot’s scanning patterns (Diez et al., 2001; Endsley & Kiris, 1995). Due to the challenges

of automation, such as the potential for over-reliance, a pilot uses different scanning patterns

(Endsley, 1996; Endsley & Kiris, 1995). In a glass cockpit aircraft, scanning patterns change

during manual flying; for example, more time is spent scanning the instruments during

manual flying (Haslbeck et al., 2012). Hence, the autopilot was not used in both types of

cockpit during the experiments, to ensure that the data was not skewed due to the use of

automation.

338

The significant challenges of making a transition between different types of cockpit

are highlighted during an emergency. A pilot must handle an emergency with priority and

exceptional skills, and must scan and obtain information from the instruments precisely to

have accurate situational awareness. This will help her or him make appropriate decisions. It

will also help a pilot manage the workload and bring the aircraft to safe normal flight as soon

as possible. Furthermore, a pilot might use different scanning patterns during an emergency

(Thomas & Wickens, 2004; Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Pennington, 1979; Jones, 1985;

Russi-Vigoya & Patterson, 2015). Consequently, understanding a pilot’s scanning patterns

during an emergency is crucial.

The results did not show differences in scanning patterns during abnormal situations.

Pilots adjusted their scanning pattern based on the situation. While flying in normal visual

conditions, there were significant differences in the scanning patterns between cockpit types.

However, once an abnormal situation was encountered, the scanning patterns changed and,

because of the serious nature of the situation, were similar in the two types of cockpit. This

allowed a pilot to promptly recover to normal flight, regardless of the cockpit type. This has

safety implications, as it ensures incidents and accidents are reduced.

Understanding the transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit is

important (Sarter & Alexander, 2000). This will also highlight any errors that are made in the

different types of cockpit. It is not possible to expect humans to perform without making any

errors (Shappell & Wiegmann, 1997), whether it is in a familiar cockpit or an unfamiliar

339

cockpit. The results of this study provide valuable data about the effects on a pilot’s scanning

patterns due to the transition.

Aviation accidents occur for several reasons. One of the main reasons is human error

(Sarter & Alexander, 2000; Endsley & Rodgers, 1994; Endsley, 1995a, 1995b), therefore

steps are taken to investigate accidents and improve safety, and to prevent them from

recurring (Helmreich, 2000). Such a process of improving safety is a reactive approach

(Reason, 1997; Strauch, 2002; Dekker, 2002), in that the causes of an accident or incident are

researched after the event. British Midlands flight BD 92 (as discussed in Chapter 2) is an

example of this (AAIB, 1990). Of the many causes of this accident, the change to a new

cockpit type and lack of transition training were two of the main reasons.

Preventing accidents or incidents and creating a safe flying environment are major

tasks of aviation human factors scientists. This can be achieved by taking a proactive

approach (Kontogiannis & Malakis, 2009; Aurino, 2000; Liou, Tzeng, & Chang, 2007;

Helmreich, Merritt, & Wilhelm, 1999; Netjasov & Janic, 2008). Such an approach studies

potential issues through research.

A good example is this present study, which has identified an issue that exists in the

industry. Hence, it aimed to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit.

The results of this study provide valuable data, identify safety implications and suggest

recommendations to maintain safety in the aviation industry. This will allow pilots to make

an efficient transition between a glass cockpit and an analogue cockpit.

340

Such research is required, given the fast-evolving nature of the aviation industry. The

evolution of the aviation industry was discussed in Chapter 2, and Figure 43 shows that the

evolution has not ended and is ongoing. In the next decade, cockpits will become more

interactive (Castillo & Couture, 2016; Avionics 2020, 2015), which means that even more

proactive research will be required to ensure that the transition to the newer types of cockpit

is made successfully.

341

Transition Training Recommendation

In the aviation industry, proper training is necessary to teach a pilot how to fly an

aircraft (Robson, 2008). The review of literature in Chapter 2 identified the importance of

transition training. A lack of training can result in accidents, as illustrated with the example

of BD 92 (AAIB, 1990). The results of this study highlighted several implications in the

discussion sections of Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. Because of those implications, transition

training is recommended for any pilot who is flying in a different type of cockpit. The

reasons for making this recommendation are based on the following points:

i. While flying in visual flight rules conditions, there were significant differences

between the scanning patterns in the two types of cockpit. Most of the pilots spend

time flying in visual conditions, therefore the differences in the two types of

cockpit can have safety implications. As shown in Chapter 5, a pilot who is flying

in an analogue cockpit relies more on the outside world to obtain cues and less on

the flight instruments. While the outside world might provide the required

information for most of the flights, it might not always be reliable. For example, if

flying over water or a desert, there may be very few cues to provide information.

ii. Despite showing few significant differences in the instrument conditions,

transition training is still required. The results show that in the crucial stages of

flight there was a difference between cockpit types in obtaining the information

from the primary flight instruments. As discussed in Chapter 6, the altitude

342

indicator was scanned more in a glass cockpit than in an analogue cockpit during

the landing phase. Being instrument conditions, there is limited visibility in the

outside world to obtain accurate altitude information, and reliance on the

instrument is important. However, the results show that a pilot who makes a

transition to an analogue cockpit might have difficulty obtaining this vital

information. This could be a problem, as the aircraft may be too low and could

have an impact with trees or terrain. Other scientists have also suggested that the

landing phase has one of the highest number of accidents (AOPA, 2006, 2007).

Hence, it is important that a pilot be trained to properly obtain the vital primary

flight parameters information from the instruments in an analogue cockpit.

iii. As discussed in Chapter 7, the inability to detect instrument failure in an analogue

cockpit in visual conditions could also lead to an incident. In the example

discussed, an aircraft can deviate from its intended flight path and become lost.

Training will help a pilot learn how failures are displayed on the instruments and

how to detect them before it is too late.

iv. Training is also recommended for any pilot making a transition between a fixed-

wing and a rotary wing aircraft. While the cockpits are different, there are also

operational differences. Hence, a pilot has to learn and appreciate these changes to

maintain safe flying skills. This shows that transition training is not only required

between a glass and an analogue cockpit, but also between aircraft types.

343

v. Finally, transition training will help in avoiding any unnecessary complications.

For example, in the real world there are several jurisdictions in place, with strict

rules and regulations that a pilot must follow. This is not only required by the

authorities, it is also necessary to maintain safety. A pilot who is making a

transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit might have to deal with

more factors than just a change in the instrument display and information layout.

Proper training will ensure that she or he is not overloaded with tasks while trying

to fly an aircraft. For example, maintaining altitude in a controlled airspace is a

challenging process. When a pilot makes a transition to an analogue cockpit and

then flies in a controlled airspace, he or she should not be distracted by the

unfamiliarity of the cockpit, as this could result in more time being spent trying to

understand how the information is being displayed rather than focusing on safely

flying the plane. Training will help in such a situation, as it will eliminate the

chances of not understanding the information presented in the cockpit. This will

allow a pilot to focus on the flying task.

Such training will teach a pilot the differences in instrument display and information

layout, to ensure that safety is not risked.

344

Additional Recommendations

A glass cockpit has become a standard option in the aviation industry. The evolution

of a glass cockpit is ongoing and will bring further changes in the future. Hence, transition

issues need to be resolved today and in the future. The following recommendations have been

made to assist a pilot who is making a transition between different types of cockpit.

The first recommendation is from a design perspective. A combination of tape display

and dial display should be used for information layout on the instrument displays. Other

studies in the literature also support this and suggest that a combination of dials and numbers

(or text) can be an effective way of designing instruments (Curtis et al., 2010; Hiremath et al.,

2009; O’Hare & Waite, 2012). This can be achieved in either type of cockpit. The results of

this study support this recommendation. In particular, such a method of instrument display

and information layout will be beneficial in an emergency. A dial display will help a pilot

build an overall representation of the flight parameter in relation to the full range of that

parameter. A number or text display will allow a pilot to quickly scan and acquire the

information, and will therefore allow a pilot to scan, acquire and understand the information

from the instruments quickly.

The second recommendation is from a regulatory perspective. Flight training should

be conducted in both types of cockpit. This recommendation is made because there are no

limitations on the cockpit type that can be flown in after training. There are also no

restrictions on the cockpit type used for training, and most operators are using a glass cockpit

345

aircraft for training (Wright & O’Hare, 2015; Whitehurst & Rantz, 2012; FAA, 2011).

Training in both cockpit types will not only expose a student pilot to an analogue cockpit and

a glass cockpit, it will also help him or her learn the differences in instrument display and

information layout.

The third recommendation is from an individual pilot perspective. Home flight

simulators should be used more extensively, especially by low-hour pilots, to practise flying

in a different type of cockpit. Performing such a task can offer a cost-effective solution, and

also help in learning the instrument display and information layout before making a

transition. Chapter 3 discussed the benefits of simulator training. Simulators can be used,

regardless of experience level, to learn and maintain proficiency. Research has proven that

there is a successful transfer of skills from a simulator to a real aircraft (Beckman, 2009;

Ortiz, 1994; Koonce & Bramble, 1998). Simulators offer a safe and cost-effective alternative

to real-world training (Jentsch & Bowers, 1998; Gawron et al., 1995).

The fourth recommendation is from an academic and industry perspective. Eye

trackers should be incorporated into flight simulators. This will allow a novice pilot to

compare his or her scanning patterns against the correct technique. Performing such a task

will help in objectively assessing their scanning patterns and in learning the accurate patterns

(Law et al., 2004; Underwood, 2007; Mourant & Rockwell, 1972; Roca et al., 2011). Such a

task can be performed in simulators, and universities and industries could also collaborate to

develop and implement affordable eye tracking devices in training aircraft. This will further

enhance training and aviation safety.

346

Limitations

There are some limitations in this study, and these are discussed below. Regardless of

these limitations, the experiments conducted still provide valuable results and have safety

implications for anyone who is making a transition from a glass cockpit to an analogue

cockpit.

Sample Size

The first limitation is the small sample size. The number of subjects recruited for the

VFR study was 12 and the number in IFR study was 9. The same subjects were used in the

UA study, so the sample sizes were again 12 for the VFR and 9 for the IFR. In the rotary

wing study, 8 subjects were recruited.

The sample size could have been improved by also recruiting from several other

sources. In addition to recruiting using the university’s internal mailing list, the study could

also have been advertised in flying clubs and other training schools. Nevertheless, the current

sample size is consistent with existing studies in the literature.

Previous studies that were conducted to collect objective data on pilot scanning

patterns varied in the number of subjects that were recruited. A comparison is made below of

sample sizes in several existing studies.

347

Ziv (2016) conducted an extensive literature review of fifty existing studies. All these

studies were related to the visual scan of a pilot in the aviation industry. According to this

article, approximately half of the studies included a sample size of less than twelve subjects.

This is consistent with the experiments conducted in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.

For example, in a study conducted by Huettig et al. (1999), the sample size was less

than 5 subjects. This study, as discussed in the literature review, analysed the amount of time

spent scanning the instruments during flight. Another study conducted by Diez et al. (2001)

also used a similar sample size of 5 subjects. This study analysed the scanning patterns of

subjects in a large commercial jet aircraft.

Kim, Palmisano, Ash and Allison (2010) conducted a study with only ten subjects,

examining the pilots’ scan patterns during landing. The study conducted daytime and night-

time simulated flights. They had two groups of five subjects each. One group consisted of

students while the other consisted of licensed pilots. Despite the low sample size, they found

that both groups made more errors during night ILS approaches.

Finally, a study conducted by Di Nocera et al. (2007) also included only ten pilots.

Their study made a comparison between workload and phase of flight. One of their

conclusions was that mental workload is lowest during the cruise phase. They also concluded

that a further study should be conducted with a larger sample size. In a similar way, a future

348

study could be conducted to increase the sample size of the experiments in Chapters 5, 6, 7

and 8.

Recent Experience

Pilots recruited for the IFR experiment had experience flying an aircraft equipped

with an analogue cockpit and also an aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. Unlike the first

VFR experiment, all subjects did not have a consistent amount of glass cockpit experience.

Hence, they were all familiar with the instrument display and information layout in both

types of cockpit. It would be beneficial to conduct a future study and recruit subjects who

only have glass cockpit experience for the IFR experiment.

Rotary Wing Study

The experiment conducted with helicopter pilots did not include a comparison

between glass cockpits and analogue cockpits. This is because the glass cockpit is not yet as

common in helicopters as in the fixed-wing counterpart. As a result, the researcher did not

have access to a rotary wing simulator that was equipped with a glass cockpit. The helicopter

study was also conducted in day VFR conditions only, as IFR operations in helicopters are

uncommon. Alternatively, night VFR operations are common with helicopters. A future study

could study the scanning patterns of night VFR operations.

349

Workload Questionnaire

The subjective workload questionnaire assessed the workload for the entire flight. A

future study could compare the workload in a glass and an analogue cockpit in different

phases of flight. Similarly, workload data could be obtained for the abnormal situation study

and the rotary wing study.

Transition Training Hours

The subjects were not provided any transition training before flying in an analogue

cockpit. This is because the researcher wanted to study the effects of making such a transition

without any training. It might be beneficial for a future study to provide the subjects with

transitional training before flying in an analogue cockpit. A cross comparison could also be

made with the results of both these studies to learn if training before transition makes it easier

to fly an analogue cockpit.

350

Further study

Future research can improve on this study by addressing its limitations, as outlined in

the previous section. In addition, further studies could be conducted to provide more

empirical evidence comparing the pilot scanning patterns based on the types of cockpit.

Real World vs Simulator Study

The experiments in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 were conducted using a simulator. An ideal

follow-up study is to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of cockpit in a real

aircraft and a simulator.

Simulators are an asset in the aviation industry. Pilots can use them for training

purposes and to improve their flying skills. Scientists can use simulators for research

purposes to understand and improve pilot safety. Despite these benefits, some pilots do not

fly a simulator the same way as a real aircraft. As a result, a study could be conducted to

compare the pilot scanning patterns in a simulator and real aircraft.

An experiment could be conducted in a Cessna 172 and a simulator with the same

aircraft. Subjects would fly the real-world aircraft first and then repeat the same flight in the

simulator. This would provide consistency in the flight path between the two flights. In other

words, it is easier to replicate a real-world flight in a simulator than to accurately replicate a

351

simulated flight in the real world. Both real-world and simulator flights would involve flying

the aircraft with a glass and an analogue cockpit.

Being a real-world flight, the flight route would be chosen based on the aviation rules

and regulations, and subjects would be required to follow all normal operating procedures.

For example, the flight route could be between Moorabbin airport and Point Cook airport,

which are both general aviation training airports. It would also be possible to conduct the

flight between Moorabbin airport and Essendon airport.

The subjects would wear an eye tracker while flying and a headset to make necessary

radio calls. Being real-world operations, a qualified safety pilot would also accompany the

pilot and sit in the right seat.

The safety pilot would not provide any assistance to the subject if the flight is in

normal operations; however, the safety pilot would take full or partial control of the aircraft

in the event of any unexpected problems.

Such an experiment would require a higher budget and several other resources. The

subjects who might be recruited will have to be industry professionals, with high level of

experience, and would still participate in this study without compensation. However, the

flight time in a real aircraft could be entered into pilots’ logbooks, which will be an

advantage for volunteer subjects.

352

Backup Instruments in the Glass Cockpit Study

The modern glass cockpit offers some backup instruments, which are mainly used if

there is a blackout of the main instrument displays due to an electrical failure. During such an

event, the pilot can use the backup instruments to safely fly and land the aircraft.

The backup instruments also raise several human factors concerns. The first is that

they are displayed using analogue instruments. Several questions can be asked in a research

study. For example, if a pilot is not familiar with the analogue instruments, would she or he

scan the instruments in the event of an electrical failure? Also, if he or she does scan them,

how much time is spent scanning these instruments?

The second concern is that there are only three backup instruments in the Cessna 172.

Although they provide the primary flight information, the pilot is instantly deprived of the

immense information provided in a glass cockpit. This might affect the pilot’s performance

and raises several questions: Is the pilot able to acquire enough information from these three

instruments to safely land the aircraft? Would this differ between IFR and VFR conditions?

How will workload and situational awareness be affected during an electrical failure?

353

The third concern is their position, which also raises several questions: Are the

instruments located in the optimal position in the aircraft’s cockpit? Does changing the

position increase the pilot’s performance?

Finally, it might also be valuable to understand if a pilot refers to these backup

instruments during a normal flight, even when the other displays are working.

Transition Training Hours

There are no regulatory requirements to have training before making a transition. If

training before transition does make a difference, a further study could be conducted to learn

how many hours of training is required before pilots can make a safe transition to an analogue

cockpit. The results of such a study could be incorporated into the flight training syllabus to

help future pilots.

Eye and Head Movement Tracking Study

It would also be beneficial to obtain an eye and head movement tracker. This device

has additional hardware and software that provides more data, and is capable of producing

the scan paths of a pilot in different types of cockpit. Since there are no documented scan

paths of pilots in a glass cockpit, collecting data using this device would provide valuable

input to the human factors literature. All the experiments, including the suggestions for

354

further study made in this section, could be repeated with this device to study the scan paths

of the pilots. This would be particularly beneficial during IFR conditions, because

maintaining a good scan path is crucial when relying on the instruments to fly.

Larger Aircraft Study

The experiments in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 were conducted in a propeller aircraft. As

in general aviation aircraft, commercial aircraft could also benefit from eye tracking studies.

Airline pilots face particular challenges while flying. For example, they transition between

several types of aircraft during their career, and fly in different types of cockpit. Not only

would objective eye tracking data reveal their scanning patterns, it would also help

understand how these patterns change over time. Such valuable data could be utilised while

training a novice.

Other human factors studies could also be conducted. Apart from understanding a

pilot’s scanning patterns between different types of cockpit, it might also be necessary to

understand other human factors issues. For example, how does fatigue or stress affect a

transition between the two cockpit types? How do communication skills affect the crew

during transition in multi-crew environments?

Chapter 10

Conclusion

356

Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to compare pilot scanning patterns based on the type of

cockpit. To explore and understand the scanning patterns between a modern glass cockpit and

a traditional analogue cockpit, four experiments were conducted. These were conducted using

a flight simulator and an eye tracking device.

As described in the literature review in Chapters 2 and 4, understanding scanning

patterns is important. This is because it shows how information has been acquired from the

various available sources. Information acquisition lays the foundation for achieving and

maintaining situational awareness, which in turn helps in making appropriate decisions and

performing the correct actions in a timely manner. This process helps in maintaining safety in

the aviation industry.

The results of Chapter 5 show that in normal daytime visual flying conditions, there

were several differences in the scanning patterns between a glass cockpit and an analogue

cockpit. The results of Chapter 6 show that in normal daytime instrument flying conditions,

these differences between the two types of cockpit are reduced to a small number. The results

of Chapter 7 show that when an abnormal situation was encountered, then there are no

differences between the two types of cockpit.

357

These results show that there were differences in scanning patterns between a glass

cockpit and an analogue cockpit in normal daytime visual flying conditions. As the

circumstances changed, so did the scanning patterns. In particular, if poor visibility

conditions were experienced or an abnormal situation was encountered, then the scanning

patterns were modified to cope with the condition or situation. As a result, there were very

few or almost no significant differences between cockpit types, depending on the

circumstance encountered.

Additionally, an experiment was conducted to compare the scanning patterns between

an analogue cockpit of a fixed-wing aircraft and an analogue cockpit of a rotary wing aircraft.

This study not only changed the cockpit type, but also the aircraft type. The results of Chapter

8 show a comparison between the scanning patterns in the two types of cockpit in the two

types of aircraft. Preliminary conclusions were that scanning patterns could also be modified

to suit the unique rotary wing operations.

The results of these studies have safety implications, which have been discussed in

detail in Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In addition, several recommendations were made in

Chapter 9 to assist any pilot who will be making a transition between a glass cockpit and an

analogue cockpit in the future. One of the most important recommendations was the

importance of transition training. Offering such training to a pilot will help her or him learn

the differences and similarities in instrument display and information layout, and will help in

reducing error which will assist in maintaining aviation safety.

References

and

Appendices

359

Reference List

AAIB. (1990). Aircraft accident report: Report on the accident to Boeing 737-400 G-OBME near Kegworth, Leicestershire on 8 January, 1989. Hampshire, UK.

Abbott, K. H. (2001). Human factors engineering and flight deck design. In C. R.Spitzer (2001) (Eds.). The avionics handbook. (pp. 9.1-9.4). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Aeronautica Civil of the Republic of Columbia. (1996). Aircraft accident report: Controlled flight into terrain, American Airlines Flight 965, Boeing 757-223, N651AA, near Cali, Columbia, December 20, 1995. Bogota, Columbia. Aladwani, A. M. (2001). Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 266-275. Alexander, A. L., & Wickens, C. D. (2005). Synthetic vision systems: Flightpath tracking, situation awareness, and visual scanning in an integrated hazard display. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 May – 9 May, 2005. Anders, G. (2001). Pilot’s attention allocation during approach and landing- Eye-and head- tracking research in an A 330 full flight simulator. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 5 March – 8 March, 2001. Anderson, J. D. (2002). The airplane: A history of its technology. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Andraši, P., Novak, D., & Bucak, T. (2016). Ergonomic Aspect of LCD Display Panels in Flight Training Devices. In Proceedings of the 6th International Ergonomics Conference, Zadar, Croatia, 15 June – 18 June, 2016. Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 3(4), 10-14. Andre, A. D., Wickens, C. D., & Moorman, L. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in the aircraft cockpit. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(3), 205-218. AOPA. (1993). How to Avoid a Midair Collision. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/safety-advisors-and-safety- briefs/collision-avoidance AOPA. (2001). Collision Avoidance: Strategies and Tactics. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/pilot-resources/asi/safety- advisors/sa15.pdf AOPA. (2005). Technically Advanced Aircraft: Safety and Training. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics

360

AOPA. (2007). Technically Advanced Aircraft: Safety and Training. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org.il/userfiles/files/safety/TAA2007.pdf AOPA. (2006). Nall report: Accident trends and factors. Frederick, MD: AOPA Air Safety Institute. AOPA. (2007). Nall report: Accident trends and factors. Frederick, MD: AOPA Air Safety Institute. AOPA. (2010). Nall report: Accident trends and factors. Frederick, MD: AOPA Air Safety Institute. ATSB. (2009). Aviation occurrence investigation: Tailstrike and runway overrun Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 20 March 2009, A6-ERG, Airbus A340-541. Canberra, Australia. Aurino, D. E. M. (2000). Human factors and aviation safety: what the industry has, what the industry needs. Ergonomics, 43(7), 952-959. Avionics 2020. (2015). The saga of cockpits – ODICIS. [photograph]. Retrieved May 16, 2016 from http://onboard.thalesgroup.com/2015/09/03/saga-cockpits/

Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity, 3(2), 16-22.

Axtell, R., Axelrod, R., Epstein, J. & Cohen, M. D. (1996). Aligning simulation models: A case study and results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(2), 123-141.

Baker, D., & Donnet, T. (2012). Regional and remote airports under stress in Australia. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 4, 37-43.

Baker, D., Prince, C., Shrestha, L., Oser, R., & Salas, E. (1993). Aviation computer games for crew resource management training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(2), 143-156.

Balzer, T. (2009) Airbus A330-203 – Air France. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Airbus-A330-203/1864497

Barach, P., & Small, S. D. (2000). Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 759.

Barker, B. M., NewMyer, D.A., Truitt, L.J., Kaps, R.W., & Fuller, M. L. (1995). Directory of scholarly journals publishing non-engineering aviation research. Auburn, AL: University Aviation Association.

Barnes, J. A. (1972). Analysis of pilot's eye movements during helicopter flight. (HEL- TM-11-72). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Human Engineering Lab.

361

Baxter, G., Besnard, D., & Riley, D. (2007). Cognitive mismatches in the cockpit: Will they ever be a thing of the past? Applied Ergonomics, 38(4), 417-423.

BEA. (2000). Aircraft accident report: Accident on 25 July 2000 at La Patte d’Oie in Gonesse (95) to the Concorde registered F-BTSC operated by Air France. Le Bourget, France.

BEA. (2012). Aircraft accident report: Air France Flight 447, Airbus A330-203, 1 June, 2009. Le Bourget, France. Beckman, W. S. (2009). Pilot perspective on the Microsoft Flight Simulator for instrument training and proficiency. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 9(2), 171-180.

Bednarek, J. R. D., & Launius, R. D. (2003). Reconsidering a century of flight. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press.

Bell, H. H., & Waag, W. L. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of flight simulators for training combat skills: A review. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 223-242.

Berends, P., & Romme, G. (1999). Simulation as a research tool in management studies. European Management Journal, 17(6), 576-583.

Beringer, D. B., & Ball, J. D. (2009). Unknown-attitude recoveries using conventional and terrain-depicting attitude indicators: difference testing, equivalence testing, and equivalent level of safety. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(1), 76-97.

BFU. (2004). Investigation report: Überlingen Accident on 1 July 2002, DHL Boeing B757- 200 and Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev TU154M. Braunschweig, Germany.

Billings, C. E. (1991). Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines. (Technical Memorandum 103885). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Billings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bilstein, R. E. (2001). The enterprise of flight: The American aviation and aerospace industry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Björklund, C. M., Alfredson, J., & Dekker, S. W. (2006). Mode monitoring and call-outs: An eye-tracking study of two-crew automated flight deck operations. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16(3), 263-275.

Boehm-Davis, D., Holt, R. & Seamster, T. (2001) Airline resource management programs. In E. Salas, C. Bowers and E. Edens (2001) (Eds.). Improving teamwork in organizations. Applications of resource management training. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

362

Boeing. (2017). 2017 Order and deliveries. Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/?cm_re=March_2015-_-Roadblock-_- Orders+%26+Deliveries/#/orders-deliveries

Bolstad, C. A., Endsley, M. R., Costello, A. M., & Howell, C. D. (2010). Evaluation of computer-based situation awareness training for general aviation pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 20(3), 269-294.

Bonini, C. P. (1963). Simulation of information and decision systems in the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Borisov, F. (2014). Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner – Boeing. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-9-Dreamliner/2472247

Boussemart, Y., Las Fargeas, J., Cummings, M. L., & Roy, N. (2009). Comparing learning techniques for hidden Markov Models of human supervisory control behavior. In Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, 6 April – 9 April, 2009.

Bowers, C., Deaton, J., Oser, R., Prince, C., & Kolb, M. (1995). Impact of automation on aircrew communication and decision-making performance. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(2), 145-167.

Brackx, T. (2007). Cirrus SR22-GTS – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/6058161

Braithwaite, M. G., Durnford, S. J., Groh, S. L., Jones, H. D., Higdon, A. A., Estrada, A., & Alvarez, E. A. (1998). Flight simulator evaluation of a novel flight instrument display to minimize the risks of spatial disorientation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 69(8), 733-742.

Brannick, M. T., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (2005). Can PC-based systems enhance teamwork in the cockpit? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(2), 173-187.

Brown, D. L., Bautsch, H. S., Wetzel, P. A., & Anderson, G. M. (2002). Instrument scan strategies of F-117A pilots. (AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0027). Dayton, OH: Logicon technical services Inc.

Bürki-Cohen, J., Soja, N. N., & Longridge, T. (1998). Simulator platform motion-the need revisited. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 293-317.

Burian, B. K., Barshi, I., & Dismukes, K. (2005). The challenge of aviation emergency and abnormal situations. (NASA Technical Memorandum 2005-213462). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Burian, B. K., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2003). The emergency and abnormal situations project. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ISASI Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 26 August – 28 August, 2003.

363

Button, K. J. (1997). The future of international air transport policy: Responding to global change. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. CAE Oxford Aviation Academy. (2014). Global Aircraft Fleet. Retrieved from http://www.caeoaa.com/aircraft-fleet/#.WliOi6iWaUl

Caldwell Jr., J. A., Caldwell, J. L., Brown, D. L., & Smith, J. K. (2004). The effects of 37 hours of continuous wakefulness on the physiological arousal, cognitive performance, self-reported mood, and simulator flight performance of F-117A pilots. Military Psychology, 16(3), 163.

Camilli, M., Nacchia, R., Terenzi, M., & Di Nocera, F. (2008). ASTEF: A simple tool for examining fixations. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 373-382.

Canciani, G. (2009). Airbus A340-541 – Emirates Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Airbus-A340-541/1530133

CASA. (2017). Licensing regulations. Retrieved from https://www.casa.gov.au/rules-and- regulations/standard-page/licensing-regulations

Casner, S. (2003). Learning about cockpit automation: From piston trainer to jet transport. (NASA Technical Memorandum 2003-212260). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Casner, S. M. (2004). Flying IFR with GPS: How much practice is needed. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 4(2), 81-97.

Casner, S. M. (2005). The effect of GPS and moving maps displays on navigational awareness while flying under VFR. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 5(1), 153-165.

Casner, S. (2006). Mitigating the loss of navigational awareness while flying with GPS and moving map displays under VFR. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 6(1), 121.

Casner, S. (2008). General aviation pilots’ attitudes toward advanced cockpit systems. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 8(1), 88-112.

Castillo, J. A. L. D., & Couture, N. (2016). The aircraft of the future: Towards the tangible cockpit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace, Paris, France, 14 September – 16 September, 2016.

Chant, C. (1978). Aviation: An illustrated history. Sydney, Australia: Chartwell Books.

Chant, C. (2002). A century of triumph: The history of aviation. New York, NY: The Free Press.

364

Chidester, T., Hackworth, C., & Knecht, W. (2007). Participant assessments of aviation safety inspector training for technically advanced aircraft. Oklahoma City OK: FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.

Christensen, J.M., Topmiller, D.A., & Gill, R.T. (1988). Human factors definitions revisited. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 31, 7-8.

Clarke, B. (1998). Aviator’s guide to GPS. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Collinson, R. P. G. (1996). Introduction to avionics. London, NY: Chapman & Hall.

Colvin, K., Dodhia, R., & Dismukes, R. K. (2005). Is pilots' visual scanning adequate to avoid mid-air collisions. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 May – 9 May, 2005. Cook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., Erwin, P. J., & Hamstra, S. J. (2011). Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama, 306(9), 978-988.

Coombs, L. F. E. (1990). The aircraft cockpit: From stick-and-string to fly-by-wire. Emeryville, CA: Thorsons Publishers.

Coombs, L.F.E. (2005). Control in the sky. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Control-Sky-Evolution-History-Aircraft/dp/1844151484

Craig, P. A., Bertrand, J. E., Dornan, W., Gossett, S., & Thorsby, K. K. (2005). Ab Initio training in the glass cockpit era: New technology meets new pilots. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 May – 9 May, 2005. Crocoll, W. M., & Coury, B. G. (1990, October). Status or recommendation: Selecting the type of information for decision aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 34, No. 19, pp. 1524-1528). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Croix, S. J. (1995). The Asia-Pacific airline industry: Economic boom and political conflict. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.

Curry, R. E. (1985). The introduction of new cockpit technology: A human factors study. (Memorandum 86659). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Curtis, M. T., Jentsch, F., & Wise, J.A. (2010). Aviation displays. In E. Salas and D. Maurino, (2010) (Eds.). Human factors in aviation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Dahlström, N. (2008). Pilot training in our time‐use of flight training devices and simulators. Aviation, 12(1), 22-27.

Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., & Nahlinder, S. (2006). Introduction of technically advanced aircraft in ab-initio flight training. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 6(1), 131-144.

365

Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., Van Winsen, R., & Nyce, J. (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(4), 305-314.

Dalamagkidis, K., Valavanis, K. P., & Piegl, L. A. (2011). On integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system: Issues, challenges, operational restrictions, certification, and recommendations. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.

Dallot. (1993). Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde 101 – Air France. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-101/4301991

Davenport, C. E. (2000). USAF spatial disorientation experience: Air force safety center statistical review. In Proceedings of the Recent Trends in Spatial Disorientation Research Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15 November – 17 November, 2000.

Debroise, X. (2010). Human errors in aeronautics: A study of the link between attention and errors (Doctoral thesis, University of Victor Segalen Bordeaux IV, Bordeaux, France). Retrieved from http://www.theses.fr/2010BOR21715/abes

Degani, A., Chappell, S. L., & Hayes, M. S. (1991). Who or what saved the day? A comparison of traditional and glass cockpits. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 29 April – 2 May, 1991.

Dekker, S.W.A. (2002). The field guide to human error investigations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Dekker, S. (2012). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Dennis, K. A., & Harris, D. (1998). Computer-based simulation as an adjunct to ab initio flight training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 261-276.

Desa, M. R. (2007). Boeing 737-46J – Malaysia Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia-Airlines/Boeing-737-46J/1246469

Detwiler, C., Holcomb, K., Hackworth, C., & Shappell, S., (2008). Understanding the human factors associated with visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions. (NTIS DOT/FAA/AM-08/12). Washington, DC: FAA.

Diez, M., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Holt, R. W., Pinney, M. E., Hansberger, J. T., & Schoppek, W. (2001). Tracking pilot interactions with flight management systems through eye movements. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 5 March – 8 March, 2001.

Di Nocera, F., Camilli, M., & Terenzi, M. (2007). A random glance at the flight deck: Pilots' scanning strategies and the real-time assessment of mental workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(3), 271-285.

366

Dick, A. O. (1980). Instrument scanning and controlling: Using eye movement data to understand pilot behavior and strategies. (NASA Technical Memorandum 14793). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Diez, M., Boehm-Davis, D. A., Holt, R. W., Pinney, M. E., Hansberger, J. T., & Schoppek, W. (2001). Tracking pilot interactions with flight management systems through eye movements. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 5 March – 8 March, 2001. Dismukes, R. K. (Ed.). (2017). Human error in aviation. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Dixon, K. W., Rojas, V. A., Krueger, G. M., & Simcik, L. (1990). Eye tracking device for the measurement of flight performance in simulators. Mesa, AZ: Williams Air Force Base.

DJ. (2008). Cirrus SR22 G-ETFL – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/17430/g-etfl-private-cirrus-sr22/

Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., & Tullis, T. (2010). Generation Y, web design, and eye tracking. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 307-323.

Dooley, K. (2002). Simulation research methods. In J. A. C. Baum (2002) (Eds.). Companion to Organizations. (pp. 829-848). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dooley, K., & Mahmoodi, F. (1992). Identification of robust scheduling heuristics: Application of Taguchi methods in simulation studies. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 22(4), 359-368.

Dornan, W. A., Craig, P., Gossett, S., & Beckman, W. (2004). Best evidence for the FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) program for piloting training in technically advanced aircraft. Collegiate Aviation Review, 24(1), 58-66.

Dubois, E., Blättler, C., Camachon, C., & Hurter, C. (2015). Eye movements data processing for ab-initio military pilot training. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies, Sorrento, Italy, 17 June – 19 June, 2015.

Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 455-470.

Durso, F. T., & Alexander, A. (2010). Managing workload, performance, and situation awareness in aviation systems. In E. Salas and D. Maurino, (2010) (Eds.). Human factors in aviation, (pp. 217-247). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Easthope, C., & Easthope, G. (2000). Intensification, extension and complexity of teachers’ workload. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 43-58.

ECA. (2013). Pilot training compass: “Back to the future”. Brussels, Belgium: European Cockpit Association AISBL.

367

Edwards, E. (1988). Introductory overview. In E.L. Wiener and D.C. Nagel (Eds.). Human factors in aviation, (pp. 3-25). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Emanuel Jr., T. W., Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., & Rantanen, E. M. (2003). Comparison of the effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device, a flight training device, and an airplane in conducting instrument proficiency checks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Endsley, M. R. (1995a). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64.

Endsley, M. R. (1995b). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65-84.

Endsley, M. R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. In R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua (Eds.). Automation and human performance: Theory and applications, (pp. 163-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Endsley, M. R. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492.

Endsley, M. R., & Bolstad, C. A. (1994). Individual differences in pilot situation awareness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 241-264.

Endsley, M. R., & Garland, D. J. (Eds.). (2000). Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381-394.

Endsley, M. R., & Rodgers, M. D. (1994). Situation awareness information requirements analysis for en route air traffic control. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 71-75). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Endsley, M. R., & Strauch, B. (1997). Automation and situation awareness: The accident at Cali, Columbia. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 27 April – 1 May, 1997.

English, D. (2012). Two-tail non-linear moving tape displays. (Master thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ). Retrieved from https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/93949/content//tmp/package- 2QGKqm/English_asu_0010N_11979.pdf

FAR/AIM (2003). Federal aviation regulations/Aeronautical information manual. Washington, DC: FAA.

FAA. (1991a). Aeronautical decision making. (Advisory Circular AC No: 60-22). Washington, DC: FAA.

368

FAA. (1991b). Airplane simulator qualification. (Advisory Circular AC No: 120-40B). Washington, DC: FAA.

FAA. (1992). Airplane flight training device qualification. (Advisory Circular AC No: 120- 45A). Washington, DC: FAA.

FAA. (1998). Scanning for other aircraft. Oklahoma City, OK: FAA.

FAA. (2003). General aviation technically advanced aircraft FAA – Industry safety study. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/research/media/TAA%20Final%20 Report.pdf

FAA. (2011). Federal aviation regulations. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

Faria, A. J. (2014). The changing nature of simulation research: A brief ABSEL history. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 27, 84-90.

Fennell, K., Sherry, L., Roberts, Jr., R. J., & Feary, M. (2006). Difficult access: The impact of recall steps on flight management system errors. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16(2), 175-196.

Fiduccia, P., Wright, B., Ayers, F., Edberg, J., Foster, L., Henry, M., Hubbard, C., Landsberg, B., Nleson, D., Radomsky, M., Siewert, D., & Wright, D. (2003). General aviation technically advanced aircraft FAA-industry safety study. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/research/media/TAA%20Final%20 Report.pdf

Fisher, D. L., Pollatsek, A. P., & Pradhan, A. (2006). Can novice drivers be trained to scan for information that will reduce their likelihood of a crash? Injury Prevention, 12(1), i25-i29.

Fitts, P. M., Jones, R. E., & Milton, J. L. (1950). Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument-landing approaches. Aeronautical Engineering Review, 9(2), 1-6.

Flightdeckimages. (2014). Boeing 737-3Q8 – Southwest Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3Q8/2444130

Flight Safety Foundation. (2014). A practical guide for improving flight path monitoring. Retrieved from http://flightsafety.org/files/flightpath/EPMG.pdf

Folkeringa, L. (2003). Cirrus SR22 – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/182405

Gainer, C. A., & Obermayer, R. W. (1964). Pilot eye fixations while flying selected maneuvers using two instrument panels. Human Factors, 6(5), 485-501.

369

Garland, D. J., Wise, J. A., Hopkin, V. D. (2010). Handbook of aviation human factors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Gawron, V., Bailey, R., & Lehman, E. (1995). Lessons learned in applying simulators to crewstation evaluation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(3), 277- 290.

Gipps, P. G. (1981). A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 15(2), 105-111.

Glaholt, M. G. (2014). Eye tracking in the cockpit: A review of the relationships between eye movements and the aviator’s cognitive state. (DRDC-RDDC-2014-R153). Ottawa, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.

Gladines, K. (2002). Boeing 757-23APF – DHL. [photograph]. Retrieved from

http://www.airliners.net/photo/DHL-SNAS-Aviation/Boeing-757-23APF/269514

Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. K. (2011). An eye‐tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 24(1), 71-98.

Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631-645.

Gordon, T. M., & Etherington, T. J. (2004). Altitude tape and integral vertical speed indicator. (Patent No. 6,686,851). Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.

Goteman, Ö., Smith, K., & Dekker, S. (2007). HUD with a velocity (flight-path) vector reduces lateral error during landing in restricted visibility. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 17(1), 91-108.

Gottschalk, M. A. (1996). Computers take over the cockpit. Design News, 11(4), 88-100.

Gough, V. E. (1956). Contribution to discussion of papers on research in automobile stability, control and tyre performance. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 180(15), 392-394.

Graeber, C. (1999). The role of human factors in improving aviation safety: Boeing commercial airplanes group. Aero magazine, 8, 23-31.

Green, R. G. (1996). Human factors for pilots. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Grigorak, M., & Shkvar, O. (2011). A logistic approach for description of decision-making process. Aviation, 15(1), 21-24.

Groeger, J.A., Bradshaw, M.F., Everatt, J., Merat, N., & Field, D. (2003). Pilot study of train drivers’ eye-movements. London, UK: Rail Safety and Standards Board.

370

Guan, Z., & Cutrell, E. (2007). An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 30 April – 3 May, 2007.

Hamblin, C. J., Gilmore, C., & Chaparro, A. (2006). Learning to fly glass cockpits requires a new cognitive model. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, No. 17, pp. 1977-1981). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hamblin, C. J., Miller, C., & Naidu, S. (2006). Comparison of three avionics systems based upon information availability, priorities and accessibility. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, No. 17, pp. 1825- 1828). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hancock, P. A., Williams, G., & Manning, C. M. (1995). Influence of task demand characteristics on workload and performance. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(1), 63-86.

Harris, D. (2004). Human factors for civil flight deck design. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Harris, D. (2011). Human performance on the flight deck. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Harris, R. L., & Christhilf, D. M. (1980). What do pilots see in displays? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 22-26). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Harris, W. C., Hancock, P. A., Arthur, E. J., & Caird, J. K. (1995). Performance, workload, and fatigue changes associated with automation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(2), 169-185.

Harris Sr., R. L., Glover, B. J., & Spady Jr., A. A. (1986). Analytical techniques of pilot scanning behavior and their application. (NASA-TP-2525 19860018448). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 904- 908). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183.

Haslbeck, A., & Hoermann, H. J. (2016). Flying the needles flight deck automation erodes fine-motor flying skills among airline pilots. Human Factors, 58(4), 533-545.

Haslbeck, A., Schubert, E., Gontar, P., & Bengler, K. (2012). The relationship between pilots' manual flying skills and their visual behavior: A flight simulator study using eye tracking. Advances in Human Aspects of Aviation, 561-568.

Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4-21.

371

Havenga, B. (2008). Boeing 737-800 (Simulator) – Delta Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-737-800- %28simulator%29/1367221

Hawkins, F. H., & Orlady, H. W. (1993). Human factors in flight. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

Hayashi, M. (2003). Hidden markov models to identify pilot instrument scanning and attention patterns. Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 3, 2889-2896.

Hayashi, M. (2004). Hidden Markov models for analysis of pilot instrument scanning and attention switching. (Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA). Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/28912/60495284-MIT.pdf;sequence=2

Hayashi, M., Beutter, B., & McCann, R. S. (2005). Hidden Markov model analysis for space shuttle crewmembers' scanning behavior. Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 2, 1615-1622.

Hayashi, M., Oman, C. M., & Zuschlag, M. (2003). Hidden Markov models as a tool to measure pilot attention switching during simulated ILS approaches. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Helmreich, R. L. (2000). On error management: Lessons from aviation. British Medical Journal, 320(7237), 781-785.

Helmreich, R. L., & Anca, J. M. (2010). Crew resource management. London, UK: Elsevier.

Helmreich, R. L., & Davies, J. M. (2004). Culture, threat, and error: Lessons from aviation. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 51, R1-R4.

Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(1), 19-32.

Hermens, F., Flin, R., & Ahmed, I. (2013). Eye movements in surgery: A literature review. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 6(4), 1-11.

Herren, P. R. (2003). Boeing 737-53A – Nordeste Linhas Aereas (VARIG). [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Nordeste-Linhas-Aereas- %28Varig%29/Boeing-737-53A/395713

Hiremath, V., Proctor, R. W., Fanjoy, R. O., Feyen, R. G., & Young, J. P. (2009). Comparison of pilot recovery and response times in two types of cockpits. In Symposium on Human Interface, San Diego, CA, USA, 19 July – 24 July, 2009.

372

Holzmueller, C. G., Pronovost, P. J., Dickman, F., Thompson, D. A., Wu, A. W., Lubomski, L. H., Fahey, M., Steinwachs, D. M., Engineer, L., Jaffrey, A., Morlock, L. L., & Dorman, T. (2005). Creating the web-based intensive care unit safety reporting system. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 12(2), 130-139.

Hom, M. (2005). Boeing 737-7H4 – Southwest Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/492042

Hooper, M. (1985). Kangaroo route: Development of commercial flight between England and Australia. Sydney, Australia: Angus & Robertson.

Hosman, R. J., & Mulder, M. (1997). Perception of flight information from EFIS displays. Control Engineering Practice, 5(3), 383-390.

Huber, S. W. (2006). Recovery from unusual attitudes: HUD vs. back-up display in a static F/A-18 simulator. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77(4), 444-448.

Huettig, G., Anders, G., & Tautz, A. (1999). Mode awareness in a modern glass cockpit attention allocation to mode information. In R. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ohio State University Aviation Conference, Dayton, OH: Ohio State University.

Hunter, D. R., Martinussen, M., & Wiggins, M. (2003). Understanding how pilots make weather-related decisions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(1), 73-87.

ICAO. (1959). Accident Digest Circular. (59-AN/54). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.

ICAO. (1962). Accident Digest Circular. (62-AN/57). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.

Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.

Jeffries, P. R. (2009). Dreams for the future for clinical simulation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(2), 71-72.

Jensen, R. S. (1997). The boundaries of aviation psychology, human factors, aeronautical decision making, situation awareness, and crew resource management. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 259-267.

Jentsch, F., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). Evidence for the validity of PC-based simulations in studying aircrew coordination. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 243-260.

Johannsen, G., & Rouse, W. B. (1983). Studies of planning behavior of aircraft pilots in normal, abnormal & emergency situations. Systems,Man&Cybernetics,13(3),267-278.

Johnson, L. (2013). Boeing 737-229/ADV – Polytechnic West. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Polytechnic-West/Boeing-737-229-Adv/2383300

373

Johnson, R., Hamilton, R., Gibson, B., & Hanna, J. (2006). Usefulness of collegiate aviation publications: What aviation educators say? Collegiate Aviation Review, 24(1), 82.

Johnston, N., McDonald, N., & Fuller, R. (Eds.). (1994). Aviation psychology in practice. Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Jones, D. H. (1985). An error-dependent model of instrument-scanning behavior in commercial airline pilots. (NASA Contractor Report 3908). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Jones, D. G., & Endsley, M. R. (1996). Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67(6), 507-512.

Jones, R. E., Milton, J. L., & Fitts, P. M. (1949). Eye fixations of aircraft pilots, I. A review of prior eye-movement studies and a description of a technique for recording the frequency, duration and sequences of eye-fixations during instrument flight. (USAF Tech. Rep, 5837). Dayton, OH: Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

Jun, J. B., Jacobson, S. H., & Swisher, J. R. (1999). Application of discrete-event simulation in health care clinics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(2), 109-123.

Kaps, R. W., & Phillips, E. (2004). Publishing aviation research: A literature review of scholarly journals. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 14(1),25- 41.

Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (1998). Influences upon students’ perceptions of workload. Educational Psychology, 18(3), 293-307.

Knight, J. (2007). The glass cockpit. Computer, 40(10), 92-95.

Kim, J., Palmisano, S. A., Ash, A., & Allison, R. S. (2010). Pilot gaze and glideslope control. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 7(3), 18.

Kingsley-Jones, M. (2008). A350 XWB cockpit will be ‘an evolution of the A380’s’. Retrieved March 07, 2015, from https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-xwb-cockpit- will-be-an-evolution-of-the-a380s-221890/

Kirby, C. E., Kennedy, Q., & Yang, J. (2012). An analysis of helicopter pilot scan techniques while flying at low altitudes and high speed. Monterey, CA: Naval PG School.

Klaus, H. (2008). Jet engines: Fundamentals of theory, design and operation. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife.

Koglbauer, I., Kallus, K. W., Braunstingl, R., & Boucsein, W. (2011). Recovery training in simulator improves performance and psychophysiological state of pilots during simulated and real visual flight rules flight. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(4), 307-324.

Kontogiannis, T., & Malakis, S. (2009). A proactive approach to human error detection and identification in aviation and air traffic control. Safety Science, 47(5), 693-706.

374

Koonce, J. M., & Bramble Jr., W. J. (1998). Personal computer-based flight training devices. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 277-292.

Krajzewicz, D., Bonert, M., & Wagner, P. (2006). The open source traffic simulation package SUMO. In Proceedings of RoboCup Conference, Osaka, Japan, 23 May, 2006.

Kramer, L. J., Bailey, R. E., & Prinzel III, L. J. (2009). Commercial flight crew decision making during low-visibility approach operations using fused synthetic and enhanced vision systems. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(2), 131-157.

Kramer, J., & Magee, J. (1990). The evolving philosophers problem: Dynamic change management. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), 1293-1306.

Laszlo, V. (2005). Boeing 737-6Q8 – Malev - Hungarian Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malev-Hungarian-Airlines/Boeing-737- 6Q8/796391

Law, A., & Kelton, D. (1982). Simulation modeling & analysis. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.

Law, B., Atkins, M. S., Kirkpatrick, A. E., & Lomax, A. J. (2004). Eye gaze patterns differentiate novice and experts in a virtual laparoscopic surgery training environment. In Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, San Antonia, TX, USA, 22 March – 24 March, 2004.

Lee, B. G., & Myung, R. (2013). Attitude indicator design and reference frame effects on unusual attitude recoveries. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(1), 63-90.

Leibowitz, B. (2005). Cirrus SR-22 GTS – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cirrus-SR-22-GTS/906576

Lenné, M. G., Ashby, K., & Fitzharris, M. (2008). Analysis of general aviation crashes in Australia using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18(4), 340-352.

Liou, J. J., Tzeng, G. H., & Chang, H. C. (2007). Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 243-249.

Lindo, R. S., Deaton, J. E., Cain, J. H., & Lang, C. (2012). Methods of instrument training and effects on pilots’ performance with different types of flight instrument displays. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2, 62-71.

Lockheed Martin. (2016). F-35 lightning II training systems. Retrieved July 05, 2016, from https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35training.html

Lohse, G. L. (1997). Consumer eye movement patterns on yellow pages advertising. Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 61-73.

375

Luke, T., Brook-Carter, N., Parkes, A. M., Grimes, E., & Mills, A. (2006). An investigation of train driver visual strategies. Cognition, Technology & Work, 8(1), 15-29.

Macchiarella, N. D., Arban, P. K., & Doherty, S. M. (2006). Transfer of training from flight training devices to flight for ab-initio pilots. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 6(2), 299.

Mahboubian, M. (2010). Educational aspects of business simulation softwares. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5403-5407.

Martinussen, M., & Hunter, D. R. (2009). Aviation psychology and human factors. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Matsumoto, H., Terao, Y., Yugeta, A., Fukuda, H., & Emoto, M. (2011). Where do neurologists look when viewing brain CT images? An eye tracking study involving stroke cases. Plos One 6(12), 1-7.

MacSween-George, S. L. (2003). Will the public accept UAVs for cargo and passenger transportation? In Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, USA, 8 March – 15 March, 2003.

McCarley, J. S., & Kramer, A. F. (2007). Eye movements as a window on perception and cognition. In R. Parasuraman & M. Rizzo (Eds.). Neuroergonomics: The brain at work (pp. 95-112). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McCann, R. S., Foyle, D. C., & Johnston, J. C. (1993). Attentional limitations with head-up displays. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 22 April – 29 April, 1993.

McCarthy, J. D., Sasse, M. A., & Riegelsberger, J. (2004). Could I have the menu please? An eye tracking study of design conventions. People and Computers, 401-414.

McCracken, C.J., (2011). Flight training success in technologically advanced aircraft

(TAA). West Lafayette, IN: Aviation Technology Graduate Student Publications.

McCormack, C., Wiggins, M. W., Loveday, T., & Festa, M. (2014). Expert and competent non-expert visual cues during simulated diagnosis in intensive care. Frontiers in Psychology, 17(5).

McDermott, J. T., & Smith, C. E. (2006). Teaching new technology to adults. In Proceedings of National Association of Industrial Technology Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 7 November – 10 November, 2006.

McGaghie, W. C., Siddall, V. J., Mazmanian, P. E., & Myers, J. (2009). Lessons for continuing medical education from simulation research in undergraduate and graduate medical education. Chest Journal, 135(3), 62S-68S.

Meintel, J. (2004). Automation in the cockpit. The Journal of the Air Mobility Command, 1-9.

376

Meyer, F., & Heers, R. (2007). Evolution of cockpit-electronics. ATZelektronik worldwide, 2(2), 18-20.

Michalzechen, L. G. (2015). Cessna T240 Corvalis TTX – Cessna Aircraft Company. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-Aircraft- Company/Cessna-T240-Corvalis-TTx/2646467

Milton, J. L., Jones, R. E., & Fitts, P. M. (1949). Eye fixations of aircraft pilots: Frequency, duration, and sequence of fixations when flying the USAF ILAS. (Air Materiel Command AF TR-5839). Dayton, OH: Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

Moore, K., & Gugerty, L. (2010). Development of a novel measure of situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 54, No. 19, pp. 1650-1654). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Moore, S. T., MacDougall, H. G., Lesceu, X., Speyer, J. J., Wuyts, F., & Clark, J. B. (2008). Head-eye coordination during simulated orbiter landing. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 79(9), 888-898.

Morris, C. S., Hancock, P. A., & Shirkey, E. C. (2004). Motivational effects of adding context relevant stress in PC-based game training. Military Psychology, 16(2),135- 147.

Morris, C. H., & Leung, Y. K. (2006). Pilot mental workload: How well do pilots really perform? Ergonomics, 49(15), 1581-1596.

Morrison, J. G., Marshall, S. P., Kelly, R. T., & Moore, R. A. (1997). Eye tracking in tactical decision making environments: Implications for decision support evaluation. Command and Control Research and Technology, 17 (20).

Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(1), 47-63.

Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human Factors, 14(4), 325-335.

Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905-1922.

Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429-460.

Mumaw, R.J., Sarter, N., Wickens, C., Kimball, S., Nikolic, M., Marsh, R., Xu, W., & Xu, X. (2000). Analysis of pilots’ monitoring and performance on highly automated flight decks. (NAS2-99074). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Murray, S. R. (1997). Deliberate decision making by aircraft pilots: A simple reminder to avoid decision making under panic. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(1), 83-100.

377

NASA. (1976). National aeronautics and space administration aviation safety reporting system. Retrieved from https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html

NASA. (1986). NASA task load index (TLX): Paper-and-pencil version. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000021488.pdf

NASA. (2000). Technology first used in military, commercial aircraft. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Glasscockpit.html

Naweed, A. (2013). Psychological factors for driver distraction and inattention in the Australian and New Zealand rail industry. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60, 193- 204.

Netjasov, F., & Janic, M. (2008). A review of research on risk and safety modelling in civil aviation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(4), 213-220.

Nicholson, D. (2012). De Havilland DH-106 Comet 4 – BOAC. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/BOAC/De-Havilland-DH-106-Comet-4/2203557

Norman, D. A. (1990). The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 327(1241), 585-593.

NTSB. (2010a). Introduction of glass cockpit avionics into light aircraft. (NTSB/SS- 01/10PB2010-917001). Washington, DC: NTSB.

NTSB. (2010). Safety recommendation. (A-10-042-043). Washington, DC: NTSB.

NTSB. (2014). Descent below visual glidepath and impact with seawall. (NTSB/AAR-14/01 PB2014-105984). Washington, DC: NTSB.

NTSB. (2015). Electronic code of federal regulations. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=10c00df9e9c914a347493047c7e22b99&mc=true&node=se49.7.830_12&rg n=div8

NTSB. (2017). US transportation fatalities in 2016 – by mode. Retrieved from https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/PublishingImages/US- TransportationFatalities2016.jpg

O’Connor, P., Flin, R. & Fletcher, G. (2002). Methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of flightcrew. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2, 235-255.

O’Hare, D. (1992). The ‘artful’ decision maker: A framework model for aeronautical decision making. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(3), 175-191.

O’Hare, D., Mullen, N., & Arnold, A. (2009). Enhancing aeronautical decision making through case-based reflection. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 20(1), 48-58.

378

O’Hare, D., & Waite, A. (2012). Effects of pilot experience on recall of information from graphical weather displays. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(1), 1-17.

Oakes, E. H. (2007). Encyclopedia of world scientists. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. Olmos, O., Liang, C. C., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Electronic map evaluation in simulated visual meteorological conditions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(1), 37-66.

Orlady, H. W., & Orlady, L. M. (1999). Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Ortiz, G. A. (1994). Effectiveness of PC-based flight simulation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 285-291.

Patrick, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Approaches to understanding, analysing and developing situation awareness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1-2), 41-57.

Pennington, J. E. (1979). Single pilot scanning behavior in simulated instrument flight. (Technical Memorandum 80178). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Pfeiffer, M. G., Clark, W. C., & Danaher, J. W. (1963). The pilot’s visual task: A study of visual display requirements. Philadelphia, PA: Courtney and Co.

Pingali, S., McMahon, T., & Newman, D. G. (2014). Visual scanning in a helicopter during autorotation - A preliminary study. [Abstract]. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 85:343.

Pingali, S., McMahon, T., & Newman, D. G. (2015). Visual scan patterns in novice and expert helicopter pilots during unusual attitude recovery. [Abstract]. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 86:207.

Plant, K., Harvey, C., & Stanton, N. (2013). An overview of cockpit technologies. Retrieved from https://www.ergonomics.org.uk/Public/Resources/Articles/Flying_towards_the_future __An_overview_of_cockpit_technologies.aspx

Potesta, V. A. (1994). Boeing 737-112 – Faucett. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Faucett/Boeing-737-112/113024

Preudhomme, J., Lu, C. T., & Martinez, R. (2012). Collegiate professional pilot programs: Acquisition and use of a level six training device in the academic environment. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 21(2), 21.

Rabl, A. N., Neujahr, H., Zimmer, A. C., & Möller, C. (2014). Exploring pilot’s gaze patterns. In Proceeding of the EAAP Conference on Aviation Psychology, Valetta, Malta, 22 September – 26 September, 2014.

379

Reason, J. T. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot,UK:Ashgate.

Reutskaja, E., Nagel, R., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2011). Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 900-926.

Reweti, S. (2014). PC-based aviation training devices for pilot training in visual flight rules procedures: Development, validation and effectiveness. (Doctoral thesis, Massey University, Palmerston, New Zealand). Retrieved from https://mro.massey.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10179/5454/02_whole.pdf?sequence =2&isAllowed=y

Reynard, W. D. (1986). The development of the NASA aviation safety reporting system. (RP- 1114). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Richardson, C. W. (1981). Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation. Water Resources Research, 17(1), 182-190.

Rinoie, K., & Sunada, Y. (2002). Efficient eye-scanning for reducing pilot workload- single pilot IFR and VFR flight tests. In Proceedings of the 23rd ICAS Conference, Toronto, Canada, 8 September – 13 September, 2002.

Roberts, M. J., Gray, H., & Lesnik, J. (2016). Preference versus performance: Investigating the dissociation between objective measures and subjective ratings of usability for schematic metro maps and intuitive theories of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 109-128.

Robson, D. (2008). Human being pilot: Human factors for aviation professionals. Cheltenham, Australia: Aviation Theory Centre.

Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Identifying the processes underpinning anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic time-constrained task. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 301-310.

Rogers, R. O., Boquet, A., Howell, C., & DeJohn, C. (2010). A two-group experiment to measure simulator-based upset recovery training transfer. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 153.

Rolfe, J. M. (1965). An appraisal of digital displays with particular reference to altimeter design. Ergonomics, 8(4), 425-434.

Roscoe, S. N. (1968). Airborne displays for flight and navigation. Human Factors, 10(4), 321-332.

Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Aviation psychology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Roscoe, S. N. (1991). Simulator qualification: Just as phony as it can be. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 335-339.

380

Rossano, G., & Wildenberg, T. (2015). Striking the Hornets' nest: Naval aviation and the origins of strategic bombing in World War I. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Russi-Vigoya, M. N., & Patterson, P. (2015). Analysis of Pilot Eye Behavior during glass cockpit simulations. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 5028-5035.

Saleem, J. J., & Kleiner, B. M. (2005). The effects of nighttime and deteriorating visual conditions on pilot performance, workload, and situation awareness in general aviation for both VFR and IFR approaches. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 5(1), 107-120.

Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197-208.

Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Jenkins, D., Ladva, D., Rafferty, L., & Young, M. (2009). Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(3), 490-500.

Salojärvi, J., Puolamäki, K., & Kaski, S. (2004). Relevance feedback from eye movements for proactive information retrieval. In Proccedings of the Processing Sensory Information for Proactive Systems, Oulu, Finland, 14 June – 15 June, 2004.

Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sarter, N. B., & Alexander, H. M. (2000). Error types and related error detection mechanisms in the aviation domain: An analysis of aviation safety reporting system incident reports. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(2), 189-206.

Sarter, N. B., Mumaw, R. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2007). Pilots' monitoring strategies and performance on automated flight decks: An empirical study combining behavioral and eye-tracking data. Human Factors, 49(3), 347-357.

Sarter, N., Wickens, C., Mumaw, R. J., Kimball, S., Marsh, R., Nikolic, M., & Xu, W. (2003). Modern flight deck automation: Pilots’ mental model and monitoring patterns and performance. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1994). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation II: An experimental study of pilots’ model and awareness of the flight management system. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(1), 1-28.

Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1995). “How in the world did we ever get into that mode?” Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5-19.

Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1997). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: Operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A- 320. Human Factors, 39(4), 553-569.

381

Savit, G. (2004). Cirrus SR-22 G2 – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cirrus-SR-22-G2/732336

Schriver, A. T., Morrow, D. G., Wickens, C. D., & Talleur, D. A. (2008). Expertise differences in attentional strategies related to pilot decision making. Human Factors, 50(6), 864-878.

Schutte, P. C., & Trujillo, A. C. (1996). Flight crew task management in non-normal situations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 40(4), 244-248.

Seagull, F. J., Xiao, Y., MacKenzie, C. F., Jaberi, M., & Dutton, R. P. (1999). Monitoring behavior: A pilot study using an ambulatory eye-tracker in surgical operating rooms. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 43, No. 15, pp. 850-854). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Self, B. P., Breun, M., Feldt, B., Perry, C., & Ercoline, W. R. (2003). Assessment of pilot performance using a moving horizon, a moving aircraft, and an arc-segmented attitude reference display. Colorado Springs, CO: Air Force Academy.

Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (1997). A human error approach to accident investigation: The taxonomy of unsafe operations. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 269-291.

Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well‐structured and ill‐ structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6-33.

Shinar, D. (2008). Looks are (almost) everything: Where drivers look to get information. Human Factors, 50(3), 380-384.

Simpson, P. A. (2001). Naturalistic decision making in aviation environments. (DSTO- GD-0279) Melbourne, Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

Simpson, P., & Wiggins, M. (1999). Attitudes toward unsafe acts in a sample of Australian general aviation pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 337- 350.

Singh, I. L., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Automation-induced “complacency”: Development of the complacency-potential rating scale. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(2), 111-122.

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 108.

Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., Burdick, M., & Rosenblatt, B. (2000). Automation bias and errors: Are crews better than individuals? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(1), 85-97.

382

Smith, C. E. (2008). Glass cockpit transition training in collegiate aviation: Analog to digital. (Master thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1225479328/inline

Schmitt, V. R., Morris, J. W., & Jenney, G. D. (1998). Fly-by-wire: A historical and design perspective. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Snow, M. P., & French, G. A. (2002). Effects of primary flight symbology on workload and situation awareness in a head-up synthetic vision display. In Proceedings of the 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Irvine, CA, USA, 27 October – 31 October, 2002.

Sorensen, L. J., Stanton, N. A., & Banks, A. P. (2011). Back to SA school: Contrasting three approaches to situation awareness in the cockpit. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(6), 451-471.

Spady Jr., A. A. (1978). Airline pilot scan patterns during simulated ILS approaches. (NASA Technical Paper 1250). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (2010). Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1-2), 29-40.

Starosta, G. (2013). The F-35 readies for takeoff. Air Force Magazine, 4(13), 38-42.

Stern, J. A., Boyer, D., Schroeder, D., Touchstone, M., & Stoliarov, N. (1994). Blinks, saccades, and fixation pauses during vigilance task performance: I. Time on task. (DOT/FAA/AM-94/26). Washington, DC: FAA.

Stern, J. A., Boyer, D. J., Schroeder, D. J., Touchstone, R. M., & Stoliarov, N. (1996). Saccades, and fixation pauses during vigilance task performance: II. Gender and time of day. (DTFA02-91-C-91056). Washington, DC: FAA.

Stewart, D. (1965). A platform with six degrees of freedom. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, 180(1), 371-386.

Strandvall, T. (2009). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 936-937.

Strybel, T. Z., Vu, K. P. L., Battiste, V., & Johnson, W. (2013). Measuring the impact of NextGen operating concepts for separation assurance on pilot situation awareness and workload. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(1), 1-26.

Strauch, B. (2002). Investigating human error: Incidents, accidents, and complex systems. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Stoff, J. (2001). The historic aircraft and spacecraft in the cradle of aviation museum. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Sullivan, J. A. (1998). Helicopter terrain navigation training using a wide field of view desktop virtual environment. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School Monterey.

383

Svensson, E., Angelborg-Thanderez, M., Sjöberg, L., & Olsson, S. (1997). Information complexity-mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40(3), 362-380.

Sweet, W. (1995). The glass cockpit. IEEE spectrum, 32(9), 30-38.

Talleur, D. A., & Wickens, C. D. (2003). The effect of pilot visual scanning strategies on traffic detection accuracy and aircraft control. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 14 April – 17 April, 2003.

Talleur, D. A., Taylor, H. L., Emanuel Jr., T. W., Rantanen, E., & Bradshaw, G. L. (2003). Personal computer aviation training devices: Their effectiveness for maintaining instrument currency. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(4), 387- 399.

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel Jr., T. W., & Phillips, S. I. (1999). Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 319-335.

Taylor, J. W. R., & Munson, K. (1973). History of aviation. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Temme, L. A., & Still, D. L. (1996). Background and instrumentation for the helicopter instrument scan pattern research conducted at NAS Whiting Field. (NAMRL-TM-96- 1). Pensacola FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Lab.

Thomas, L. C., & Wickens, C. D. (2004). Eye-tracking and individual differences in off- normal event detection when flying with a synthetic vision system display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 223-227). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Tien, T., Pucher, P. H., Sodergren, M. H., Sriskandarajah, K., Yang, G. Z., & Darzi, A. (2014). Eye tracking for skills assessment and training: A systematic review. Journal of Surgical Research, 191(1), 169-178.

Todnem, B. R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.

Tole, J. R., & Harris Sr., R. L. (1987). In-flight assessment of workload using instrument scan. Reston, VA: Digital Analysis Corporation.

Truitt, L. J., & Kaps, R. W. (1995). Publishing aviation research: An interdisciplinary review of scholarly journals. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 15(4), 229-43.

Tvaryanas, A. P. (2004). Visual scan patterns during simulated control of an uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV). Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(6), 531-538.

384

Uhlarik, J., & Comerford, D. A. (2002). A review of situation awareness literature relevant to pilot surveillance functions. (DOT/FAA/AM-02/3). Washington, DC: FAA.

Underwood, G. (2007). Visual attention and the transition from novice to advanced driver. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1235-1249.

Valerie, A., Huemer, M. S., Hayashi, M., Renema, F., Elkins, S., McCandless, J. W., & McCann, R. S. (2005). Characterizing scan patterns in a spacecraft cockpit simulator: Expert vs. novice performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 83-87). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Van de Merwe, K., Van Dijk, H., & Zon, R. (2012). Eye movements as an indicator of situation awareness in a flight simulator experiment. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(1), 78-95.

Virgin Australia. (2017). Flight crew recruitment. Retrieved from https://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/about-us/careers/flight-crew-pilot-recruitment/

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543-548.

Walczak, S. (2002). Cirrus SR-20 – Private. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cirrus-SR-20/249436

Wanga, L., Li, H., Dongb, D., & Shu, X. (2015). Relationship between the technical skills and eye-movement indicators of pilots. In Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia, 9 August – 14 August, 2015.

Ware, C., & Mikaelian, H. H. (1987). An evaluation of an eye tracker as a device for computer input. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 17, 183-188.

Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Hancock, P. A. (1996) Vigilance and workload in automated systems. In R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua (1996) (Eds.). Automation and human performance. (pp. 183 – 200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wegener, P. P. (1991). What makes airplanes fly? History, science, and applications of aerodynamics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Wells, A. (2001). Commercial aviation safety. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Wesslen, E. P., & Young, J. P. (2011). Pilot performance: Round dial and vertical tape altimeters. West Lafayette, IN: Aviation Technology Graduate Student Publications.

Wetzel, P. A., Krueger-Anderson, G., Poprik, C., & Bascom, P. (1996). An eye tracking system for analysis of pilots’ scan paths. (AL/HR-TR-1996-0145). Mesa, AZ: Hughes Training Inc.

Whitehurst, G. (2014). The multiple-baseline design. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 4(1), 1-12.

385

Whitehurst, G., & Rantz, W. (2011). Digital training to analog flying: Assessing the risks of a stark transition. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 20(3), 13-16.

Whitehurst, G., & Rantz, W. (2012). The digital to analog risk: Should we teach new dogs old tricks? Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 21(3), 17-22.

Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., Liu, Y., & Lee, J. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Wickens, C. D., Self, B. P., Andre, T. S., Reynolds, T. J., & Small, R. L. (2007). Unusual attitude recoveries with a spatial disorientation icon. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 17(2), 153-165.

Wickens, C. D., & Ververs, P. M. (1998). Allocation of attention with head-up displays. (DOT/FAA/AM-98/28). Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine.

Wickens, C.D., Xu, X., Helleberg, J.R., Carbonari, R., & Marsh, R. (2000). The allocation of visual attention for aircraft traffic monitoring and avoidance: Baseline measures and implications for free flight. (Technical Report ARL-00-2/FAA-00-2). Washington, DC: FAA.

Wiegmann, D., & Goh, J. (2003). Visual flight rules (VFR) flight into adverse weather: An empirical investigation of factors affecting pilot decision making. (Technical Report ARL-00-15/FAA-00-8). Washington, DC: FAA.

Wiener, E. L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology (glass cockpit) transport aircraft. (Technical CR-177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Wiener, E. L., & Nagel, D. C. (Eds.). (1988). Human factors in aviation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wiggins, M. W., Hunter, D. R., O’Hare, D., & Martinussen, M. (2012). Characteristics of pilots who report deliberate versus inadvertent visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions. Safety Science, 50(3), 472-477.

Williams, K. W. (2001). Comparing text and graphics in navigation display design. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(1), 53-69.

Williams, K. W. (2002). Impact of aviation highway-in-the-sky displays on pilot situation awareness. Human Factors, 44(1), 18-27.

Williams, J. R., Nicks, A. D., & Arnold, J. G. (1985). Simulator for water resources in rural basins. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 111(6), 970-986.

Wilson, G. F. (2002). An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(1), 3-18.

386

Wise, J. A., Tilden, D. S., Abbott, D., Dyck, J., & Guide, P. (1994). Managing automation in the cockpit. In Proceedings of the Annual International Air Safety Seminar, Lisbon, Portugal, 31 October – 3 November, 1994.

Woods, D. D., & Cook, R. I. (2002). Nine steps to move forward from error. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4(2), 137-144.

Wright, S., & O'Hare, D. (2015). Can a glass cockpit display help (or hinder) performance of novices in simulated flight training? Applied Ergonomics, 47, 292-299.

Wright, M. C., Taekman, J. M., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(1), i65-i71.

Wu, A. W., Pronovost, P., & Morlock, L. (2002). ICU incident reporting systems. Journal of Critical Care, 17(2), 86-94.

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of comparative neurology, 18(5), 459-482.

Young, J. P., Fanjoy, R. O., & Suckow, M. W. (2006). Impact of glass cockpit experience on manual flight skills.Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education &Research,15(2),27-32.

Yu, C. (2015). Boeing 737-7H4 – Southwest Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-7H4/2719510

Yu, C. S., Wang, E. M. Y., Li, W. C., & Braithwaite, G. (2014). Pilots’ visual scan patterns and situation awareness in flight operations. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 85(7), 708-714.

Yu, C. S., Wang, E. M. Y., Li, W. C., Braithwaite, G., & Greaves, M. (2016). Pilots’ visual scan patterns and attention distribution during the pursuit of a dynamic target. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 87(1), 40-47.

Yuxiaobin. (2006). Boeing 737-86N – Xiamen Airlines. [photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Xiamen-Airlines/Boeing-737-86N/1008783

Zhang, Y., Drews, F. A., Westenskow, D. R., Foresti, S., Agutter, J., Bermudez, J. C., Blike, G., & Loeb, R. (2002). Effects of integrated graphical displays on situation awareness in anaesthesiology. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4(2), 82-90.

Zhang, J., Johnson, K. A., Malin, J. T., & Smith, J. W. (2002). Human-centered information visualization. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning, Tubingen, Germany, 18 July – 19 July, 2002.

Ziv, G. (2016). Gaze behavior and visual attention: A review of eye tracking studies in aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 26(3-4), 75-104.

Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. (2014). Naturalistic decision making. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Psychology Press.

387

Appendix A – Email Advertisement Used for Recruiting Subjects

388

Appendix B – Fixed-Wing Experiment Ethics Email

SUHREC 2012/256 Scanning pattern and information gathering based on pilot experience and type of cockpit Dr David Newman, FEIS/ Mr Sravan Pingali Approved Duration: 13/12/2012 To 15/02/2015 [Adjusted]

I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol undertaken on behalf of Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by SUHREC Subcommittee (SHESC4) at a meeting held on 19 October 2012. Your response to the review as e-mailed on 11 December was reviewed for sufficiency.

I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions here outlined.

- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.

- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely notification and SUHREC endorsement.

- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC. Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/ clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project.

- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project.

- A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any time.

Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance or you need a signed ethics clearance certificate, citing the SUHREC project number. A copy of this clearance email should be retained as part of project record-keeping.

Best wishes for the project.

Yours sincerely Kaye Goldenberg Secretary, SHESC4 Administrative Officer (Research Ethics) Swinburne Research (H68) Swinburne University of Technology P O Box 218 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Tel +61 3 9214 8468

389

Appendix C – Fixed-Wing Experiment Forms

Informed Consent Form

Scanning pattern and information gathering based on pilot experience and type of cockpit

Principal Investigator: Dr David Newman

Student Researcher(s): Mr Sravan Pingali

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project consent information statement to which this consent form relates and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following:

I agree to complete the flight in the simulator wearing an eye tracking device Yes No I agree to complete two short questionnaires Yes No I agree to allow the researcher to observe and take notes on the session Yes No

3. I acknowledge that:

(a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation;

(b) this Swinburne project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of

my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project;

(d) my anonymity is preserved and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise.

By signing this document I agree to participate in this project.

Name of Participant: ……………………………………………………………………………

Signature & Date: ……………………………………………………………............................

390

Information Statement

Scanning pattern and information gathering based on pilot experience and type of cockpit


Student Researcher: Mr Sravan Pingali

Background information and invitation to participate This project is aimed at Swinburne University aviation students who learn to fly in a glass cockpit aircraft. After graduation students get flying jobs which require them to fly aircraft equipped with analogue cockpits. This project will look at the effects of transiting from a glass cockpit to an analogue cockpit. It will do so by using flight simulators and eye tracking devices. Project and researcher interests This experiment is being conducted to meet the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy research project What participation will involve – time, effort, resources, costs, compensatory payments, etc You will be required to complete a flight in the simulator twice, first in a glass cockpit and then in an analogue cockpit. Each flight will be approximately 30 minutes long, total experiment time will be approximately 60 minutes. The flight will require you to fly between two airports and also complete a few challenging flying tasks. You will also be required to wear an eye tracking device mounted on your head (similar to a headset) during the experiment. You will not be wearing a headset during the flight. Participant rights and interests – Risks & Benefits/Contingencies/Back-up Support There are minimal risks associated with participating in this project. A potential benefit of participation is a greater understanding of your abilities and limitations, and experience while transiting to an analogue cockpit after learning to fly in a glass cockpit. Participant rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation Participation in this project is completely at your free will, and you may withdraw from participation at any time. There is no risk of penalty or repercussion from your decision to withdraw, and any recorded data will be removed at your request. Your consent to participate is acknowledged by completing the attached “Informed Consent” form. Participant rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality All steps have, and will be, taken to ensure your privacy and confidentiality. Your signed consent form will be retained on file, while your background information questionnaire will be transposed (without identity information) into electronic/printed format. Additionally all notes and results from the simulator session will be matched only by number with background data, to ensure you cannot be matched with your simulator outcome. All data will be password protected, or stored in a locked filing cabinet. Research output The research data and conclusions reached will form part of the postgraduate research project for the above named researcher. The data may also be used for publication in an applicable journal. In both possible outcomes no identifiable data or personal details will be published without your express written consent. Further information If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact: Dr. David Newman, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences Swinburne University of Technology P.O Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122 Tel: (03) 9214 8630 Email: [email protected]

This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

391

Appendix D – Rotary Wing Experiment Ethics Email

SUHREC 2013/121 Scanning pattern in an analogue helicopter cockpit Dr D Newman Mr Sravan Pingali FEIS Approved duration: 15/11/2013 To 31/12/2015 [Adjusted]

I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol undertaken on behalf of Swinburne's

Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by SUHREC Subcommittee (SHESC3) at a meeting held on 23rd May 2013. Your responses to the reviews as e-mailed on 18 June and 14 November were reviewed.

I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard

on-going ethics clearance conditions here outlined. - All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to

Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the current National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal. - The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely notification and SUHREC endorsement. - The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC. Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/ clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project. - At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project. - A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any time.

Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance. The SUHREC project number should be quoted in communication. Chief Investigators/Supervisors and Student Researchers should retain a copy of this email as part of project record-keeping. Best wishes for project. Yours sincerely,

Ann _____________________________________ Dr Ann Gaeth Administration Officer (Research Ethics) Swinburne Research (H68) Swinburne University of Technology P O Box 218 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Ph +61 3 9214 8356

392

Appendix E – Rotary Wing Experiment Forms

Informed Consent Form

Scanning pattern in an analogue helicopter cockpit


Student Researcher(s): Mr Sravan Pingali

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project consent information statement to which this consent form relates and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following:

I agree to complete the flight in the simulator wearing an eye tracking device Yes No

I agree to complete two short questionnaires Yes No I agree to allow the researcher to observe and take notes on the session

Yes No

3. I acknowledge that: (a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project at any

time without explanation; (b) this Swinburne project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the

result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project;

(d) my anonymity is preserved and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise. By signing this document I agree to participate in this project. Name of Participant: …………………………………………………………………………… Signature & Date: ……………………………………………………………............................

393

Information Statement

Scanning pattern in an analogue helicopter cockpit


Student Researcher: Mr Sravan Pingali

Background information and invitation to participate This project is aimed at pilots who are able to fly helicopters. This project will examine the scanning pattern of pilots in an analogue cockpit helicopter during visual (VFR) and instrument (IFR) operations. It will do so by using flight simulators and eye tracking devices. Project and researcher interests This experiment is being conducted to meet the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy research project What participation will involve – time, effort, resources, costs, compensatory payments, etc You will be required to complete a flight in the helicopter simulator. The total experiment time will be approximately 60 minutes. The flight will require you to fly between two airports and also complete a few challenging flying tasks. You will also be required to wear an eye tracking device mounted on your head (similar to a headset) during the experiment. You will not be wearing a headset during the flight. Participant rights and interests – Risks & Benefits/Contingencies/Back-up Support There are minimal risks associated with participating in this project. A potential benefit of participation is a greater understanding of your abilities and limitations, and experience while flying a helicopter with an analogue cockpit. Participant rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation Participation in this project is completely at your free will, and you may withdraw from participation at any time. There is no risk of penalty or repercussion from your decision to withdraw, and any recorded data will be removed at your request. Your consent to participate is acknowledged by completing the attached “Informed Consent” form. Participant rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality All steps have, and will be, taken to ensure your privacy and confidentiality. Your signed consent form will be retained on file, while your background information questionnaire will be transposed (without identity information) into electronic/printed format. Additionally all notes and results from the simulator session will be matched only by number with background data, to ensure you cannot be matched with your simulator outcome. All data will be password protected, or stored in a locked filing cabinet. Research output The research data and conclusions reached will form part of the postgraduate research project for the above named researcher. The data may also be used for publication in an applicable journal. In both possible outcomes no identifiable data or personal details will be published without your express written consent. Further information If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact: Dr. David Newman, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences Swinburne University of Technology P.O Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122 Tel: (03) 9214 8630 Email: [email protected]

This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

394

Appendix F – Frequencies and Charts Given to Each Subject

Moorabbin (YMMB) ATIS: 120.900 MHz Ground: 119.900 MHz Tower: 118.100 MHz Tower: 123.000 MHz Approach: 123.000 MHz Approach: 135.700 MHz Centre: 135.700 MHz MULTICOMM: 118.100 MHz MULTICOMM: 120.000 MHz Latitude: S37*58.55' Longitude: E145*06.13' Elevation: 50 FT Essendon (YMEN) ATIS: 119.800 MHz Ground: 118.450 MHz Ground: 121.900 MHz Tower: 125.100 MHz Departure: 118.900 MHz Departure: 129.400 MHz Approach: 132.000 MHz Approach: 135.700 MHz AWOS: 133.200 MHz Latitude: S37*43.78' Longitude: E144*54.03' Elevation: 282 FT Runway Length Surface ILS ID ILS Freq ILS Hdg 26 6295 Asphalt IEN 109.900 257 Melbourne Intl (YMML) ATIS: 132.700 MHz Clearance Delivery: 127.200 MHz Ground: 121.700 MHz Tower: 120.500 MHz Departure: 118.900 MHz Departure: 129.400 MHz Approach: 132.000 MHz Latitude: S37*40.40' Longitude: E144*50.60' Elevation: 434 FT Runway Length Surface ILS ID ILS Freq ILS Hdg 16 12014 Asphalt IMS 109.700 161

396

MOORABBIN (MELBOURNE) (MB) ESSENDON (MELBOURNE) (EN) Type: NDB Type: NDB Class: H Class: H Frequency: 398.0 kHz Frequency: 356.0 kHz Morse: - - - . . . Morse: . - .

PLENTY (MELBOURNE) (PLE) BOLINDA (MELBOURNE) (BOL)

Type: NDB Type: NDB Class: Compass locator Class: Compass locator Frequency: 218.0 kHz Frequency: 362.0 kHz Morse: . - - . . - . . . Morse: - . . . - - - . - . .

MEADOW (MELBOURNE) (MEA) ARCADIA (MELBOURNE) (ARC)

Type: NDB Type: NDB Class: Compass locator Class: MH Frequency: 230.0 kHz Frequency: 206.0 kHz Morse: - - . . – Morse: . - . - . - . - .

ROCKDALE (MELBOURNE) (ROC) MELBOURNE (ML)

Type: NDB Type: VOR/DME Class: Compass locator Class: High altitude Frequency: 338.0 kHz Frequency: 114.10 MHz Morse: . - . - - - - . - . Morse: - - . - . .

397

Appendix G – YMEN ILS 26

398

Appendix H – YMML ILS 16

399

Appendix I – Demographic Questionnaire

400

Appendix J – NASA TLX

a comparison of pilot scanning patterns based on the type of … · 2020-05-13 · an aircraft’s...

Documents