Testing Boeing's Flight Deck of the Future: A Comparison between Current and Prototype Autoflight Panels

Abstract

Operational issues with the current generation of flight control panels in modern airliners are well documented, and include opaque operating modes, limited feedback when modifying settings, and inconsistent interactions that can result in unexpected aircraft behaviors, leading to costly training programs. Boeing engineers have proposed a redesigned panel known as the Flight Deck of the Future (FDF), in an attempt to address these issues.

In the first experimental test of this new interface, we studied the effects of the redesign on transfer of initial training. Tasks known to present challenges in the current generation of aircraft were selected for training and testing. Airline pilots were asked to perform these tasks on both the FDF panel, and the corresponding panel on a typical large commercial aircraft. Training transfer was found to be substantially improved on the FDF system. Implications for continued design, adoption, and airline training of the new interface are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Besnard

Cacitti

(2005) Interface changes causing accidents. An empirical study of negative transfer. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 105–125.

Boehm-Davis

D. A.

Holt

R. W.

Hansberger

J. T.

Seamster

T. L.

(1999). Overview of lessons learned developing ACRM for a Regional Carrier. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 966–972.

Boorman

D.J.

Mumaw

R.J.

(2004). A new autoflight/FMS interface: Guiding design principles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics: Toulouse, France.

Bovair

Kieras

D.E.

Polson

P.G.

(1990) The acquisition and performance of text editing skill: A production syst em analysis. Human Computer Interaction, 5, 1–48.

Diez

Boehm-Davis

D. A.

Holt

R. W.

(2003, April). Checklist perfo rmance on the commercial flight-deck. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH.

Feary

Sherry

Palmer

Polson

(1998) Aiding Vertical Guidance Understanding. NASA Technical Memorandum 1998–112217. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA.

Prada

L. R.

Boehm-Davis

D. A.

(2004, October). GOMS on the flight deck: A case study of the Boeing 777 MCP, Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting: New Orleans, LA.

Pritchett

A. R.

(2003). Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace. In Jacko

J. A.

Sears

(Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 861–882). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sarter

N. B.

Woods

D. D.

(1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5–19.

10.

Sherry

Polson

Feary

(2001, November). Designing user-interfaces in the cockpit: five common design errors and how to avoid them. Paper presented at the 2002 SAE World Aviation Congress: Phoenix, AZ.