This experiment sought to gain insight into the potential loss of situational awareness that could arise from the switch from radio-based verbal communications between pilots and controllers to the delivery of non-time-critical information through data communications (Data Comm). Specifically, this study examined the effect that loss of the party line and changes to the delivery format for clearances and other flight-relevant information had on pilot situational awareness and workload. Data suggest that both the loss of the party line and the use of Data Comm as a delivery mechanism for clearances affected performance and workload.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DeiningerR.GriepK.MorseD.MillionS.KnappS. (2004). Investigation of party line voice over Inmarsat's mobile packet data service. The 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, (pp. 1.E.5/1–1.E.5/10). Salt Lake City, UT.
2.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.
3.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2008). U.S. airline transport pilot international flight language experiences, report 1: Background information and general/pre-flight preparation (Publication No. DOT/FAA/AM-08/19). Washington, D.C.: Office of Aerospace Medicine.
HartS.G.StavelandL.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP.A.MeshkatiN. (eds), Human Mental Workload, (pp.139–183) Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
6.
HellebergJ.WickensC. D. (2001). Effects of data link modality on pilot attention and communication effectiveness. In 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.
7.
HodgettsH. (2005). The effects of party line communication on flight task performance. In de WaardD.BrookhuisK. A.van EgmondR.BoersemaT. (Eds.), Human Factors in Design, Safety, and Management, (pp. 1–12) Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.
8.
HoogeboomP. (2004). Does the 'silent cockpit' reduce pilot workload? In The 23rdDigital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 5.D.5/1–5.D.5/9). Salt Lake City, UT.
HyamsD.S.FanT.P.KucharJ.K. (1998). Survey of inflight replanning performed on the flight deck. In The 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. F53/1–F53/8). Bellevue, WA.
11.
MidkiffA.H.HansmanR.J. (1993). Identification of important ‘party line’ information elements and implications for situational awareness in the datalink environment. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 1 (1), 5–30.
12.
NavarroC.SikorskiS. (1999). Datalink communication in flight deck operations: A synthesis of recent studies. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 361–376.
13.
PritchettA.HansmanR.J. (1997). Variations among pilots from different flight operations in party line information requirements for situation awareness. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 4 (1), 29–50.
14.
PritchettA.HansmanR.J. (1995). Variations in ‘party line’ information importance between pilots of different characteristics. In International Symposium of Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH.
15.
PritchettA.MidkiffA.HansmanR.J. (1995). ‘Party line’ information use studies and implications in ATC datalink communications. In The 14thDigital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 26–31). Cambridge, MA.
16.
TaylorR. M. (1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design (AGARD-CP-478), In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (pp.3/1–3-17). NATO-AGARD. Neuilly Sur Seine, France.
17.
U.S. Department of Transportation. (1995). Flightdeck party line issues: An aviation safety reporting system analysis (Publication No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/12). Atlantic City, NJ: Federal Aviation Administration.
18.
U.S. Department of Transportation. (1997). Human factors recommendations for airborne controller-pilot data link communications (CPDLC) systems: A synthesis of research results and literature (Publication No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN97/6). Atlantic City, NJ: Federal Aviation Administration.
