Aircrew Performance during Emergency Conditions: A Comparison between an Electronic and Traditional Paper Natops

Abstract

Prior research addressing the integration and interpretation of information presented either on paper or in electronic form has found significant preferences favoring paper-based presentation of text in terms of search times and comprehension (Rice, 1994; Askwall, 1985). When an electronic checklist was used as the source of information in flight training simulations with aviators, fewer subsystem failures were detected by the aviators than when a paper checklist was used (Palmer and Degani, 1991). More recent research, however, has pointed out the advantages of electronic checklists (Boorman, 2000). At this time, no research known to the authors has addressed the performance of pilots using paper vs. electronic forms of the NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standards) manual and Pocket Checklist (PCL). The purpose of this evaluation was to compare aircrew performance when using the traditional paper copy of NATOPS and the PCL with that of the prototype Interactive Electronic NATOPS (IE-NATOPS) developed by CHI Systems. This evaluation effort attempted to establish whether or not there are notable differences in resolving problem situations dependent upon the format of the NATOPS and PCL used. Data were gathered at the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, using pilots with recent experience in the H-60F rotorcraft. Results are presented in terms of both information access speed as well as time required to solve numerous problem scenarios requiring access to NATOPS information.