A study of advanced cockpit displays (synthetic vision systems) and their impact on pilot performance and workload was investigated. Data from 42 average-time pilots were assessed for flight technical error and workload in simulated landings. Results indicated that the synthetic vision system greatly enhanced performance, but had little impact on workload.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AuffretR. (1977). Studies on Pilot Workload. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development Conference Proceedings. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce.
2.
BaileyL. L.ThompsonR. C., (2001). The TLX: One or more constructs. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH: Federal Aviation Administration.
3.
DohertyS. M.WickensC. D. (2000). An analysis of the immersed perspective flight path display benefit: Benefits of preview, prediction, and frame of reference (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-00-5/NASA-00-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
4.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37 (1), 65–84.
5.
FaddenS.VerversP. M.WickensC. D. (2001). Pathway HUDs: Are they viable?Human Factors, 43 (2), 174–193.
6.
HallS. M.DohertyS.FrenchJ.LandaL. (2004). Single-pilot performance / Synthetic vision system Study Report (ERAU-HFS 03-1). Daytona Beach, FL: Southeast SATS Lab Consortium.
7.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
RoscoeA. H. (1978). Assessing Pilot Workload. Physiological Methods. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development Conference Proceedings. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce.
9.
SmithsonM. (2003). Confidence Intervals. Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-140. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
