Cockpit automation has changed the roles, responsibilities, and activities of pilots, leading to new types of errors on the flight deck. This research is focused on understanding those errors through the development of a computational cognitive model that describes how pilots interact with automated systems. The cognitive model under development is based on a cognitive task analysis supplemented with eye tracking data collected from commercial pilots flying a low-fidelity simulator.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R.LebiereC. (1998). The atomic components of thought.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
KierasD. (1997). A guide to GOMS model usability evaltion using NGOMSL. In HelanderM.LandaueiT. K.PrabhuP. (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Intetion, (Second ed., pp. 733–766). New York: Elsevier.
3.
SarterN.WoodsD. (1995). “From tool to agent”: Tl evolution of (Cockpit) automation and its impact on human-machine coordination. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (Vol. 1, pp. 79–83). San Diego, CA: Human Factors Ergonomics Society.
4.
ShermanP. J.HelmreichR.L.AshleighC.M. (1992National culture and flight deck automation: Results of multinational survey. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 311–329.
5.
WienerE. L (1989). Human factors of advanced technol. (“Glass Cockpit”) transport aircraft. NASA Contract port No. 177528. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
6.
WienerE. L. (1988). Cockpit automation. In WienE. L.NagelD. C. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 43–461). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
WienerE. L. (1985). Beyond the sterile cockpit. Human Factors, 27(1), 75–90.
