Rotary-wing aviators’ complete unique flight tasks compared to their fixed-wing counterparts. These tasks likely translate into experiences of workload that differ as well. However, the workload experienced by rotary-wing aviators, particularly in the context of military operational scenarios, is less documented in the literature, particularly in terms of overall flight operations rather than maneuvers specific to an operation, such as medical evacuations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DesmondP. A.HoyesT. W. (1996). Workload variation, intrinsic risk and utility in a simulated air traffic control task: Evidence for compensatory effects. Safety Science, 22(1-3). 87-101.
2.
DussaultC.JouaninJ.C.GuezennecC. Y. (2004). EEG and ECG changes during selected flight sequences. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(10), 889-897.
3.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human-automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5-24.
4.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183
5.
HockeyG. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1-3), 73-93.
6.
HockeyG. R. J. (2011). A motivational control theory of cognitive fatigue. In AckermanP. L. (Ed.), Cognitive fatigue (pp. 167-187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
MathewsG.DesmondP. A. (2002). Task-induced fatigue states and simulated driving performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(2), 659-686
8.
McAteeA.RussellD.FeltmanK.SwanbergD. E.StatzJ. K.RamiccioJ.HardingT. H. (2017). Integrated cueing environment testing: Pilot cueing synergies for degraded visual environments (Report No. 2017-04). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
9.
OnnaschL. (2015). Crossing the boundaries of automation: Function allocation and reliability. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 76, 12-21.
10.
OnnaschL.WickensC. D.LiH.ManzeyD. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated metal-analysis. Human Factors, 53(3), 476-488.
11.
TsangP. S.VidulichM. A. (2006). Mental workload and situation awareness. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 242-268). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
WebbC. M.GaydosS. J.EstradaA.MilamL.S. (2010). Toward an operational definition of workload: A workload assessment of aviation maneuvers. (USAARL Report No. 2010-15) Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
14.
WickensC. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In NickersonR. (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resource in attention. In ParasuramanR.DaviesR. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). New York, NY: Academic Press.
16.
WickensC. D. (2002). Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Current directions in psychological science, 11(4), 128-133.
17.
WickensC. D.TsangP. (2015). Workload. In Boehm-DavisD. A.DursoF. T.LeeJ. D. (Eds.), APA handbook of human systems integration (pp. 277–292). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
