Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Thirty pilots flew a simulated VFR cross country flight into deteriorating weather with one of three levels of display support: a control display with standard instruments, a synthetic vision system (SVS) display depicting terrain and a highway in the sky (HITS), and a configuration in which the same SVS HITS display was augmented by an electronic moving map depicting weather. Results revealed that nearly all pilots in the control condition avoided penetrating the IMC clouds. Significantly, 60% of pilots across both SVS conditions penetrated the clouds and continued to their destination in zero visibility conditions. Their failure to notice the deteriorating weather outside the cockpit was documented by a dominance of head-down scanning for the pilots in these two groups who penetrated the weather. The presence of the moving map weather display did not mitigate these manifestations of attentional tunneling. Possible solutions related to display design and training are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AOPA Air Safety Foundation (1993). How to avoid a midair collision. January 16.

FAR/AIM (2003). Aeronautical Information Manual/Federal Aviation Regulations. McGraw-Hill.

Goh

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2001). Visual flight rules flight (VFR) into adverse weather: An empirical investigation of the possible causes. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(4), 259–379.

Goh

Wiegmann

D.A.

(2002). Human factors analysis of accidents involving visual flight rules flight into adverse weather. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 817–822.

Hughes

M. F.

Takallu

M. A.

(2002). Terrain portrayal for head-down displays experiment. International Advanced Aviation Technologies Conference, Anchorage, Alaska.

Iani

Wickens

C.D.

(2004). Factors affecting task management in aviation. Proceedings of the 48^th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

Latorella

K.A.

Chamberlain

J.P.

(2002). Tactical vs strategic behavior: General aviation piloting in convective weather scenarios. Proceedings of the 46^th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1989). Safety report: General aviation accidents involving visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions (NTSB/SR-89/01). Washington, DC.

Prinzel

L.J.

Comstock

J.R.

Glaab

L.J.

Kramer

L.J.

Arthur

J.J.

Barry

J.S.

(2004). The efficacy of head down and head up synthetic vision display concepts. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14(1), 53–77.

10.

Schnell

Kwon

Merchant

Etherington

(2004). Improved flight technical performance in flight decks equipped with synthetic vision information system displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology (14) 1, 79–102.

11.

Takallu

M.A.

Wong

D.T.

Uenking

M. D.

(2002). Synthetic vision systems in GA cockpit—evaluation of basic maneuvers performed by low time GA pilots during transition from VMC to IMC. International Advanced Aviation Technology Conference. Anchorage, AK.

12.

Wickens

C.D.

(2005). Attentional tunneling and task management. Proceedings of the 13^th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

13.

Wiegmann

Goh

O'Hare

(2002). The role of situation assessment and experience in pilots' decisions to continue visual flight rules (VFR) flight into adverse weather. Human Factors, 44(2), 189–197.

Effects of Advanced Cockpit Displays on General Aviation Pilots' Decisions to Continue Visual Flight Rules Flight into Instrument Meteorological Conditions

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References