Previous research concerning the pilot's visual scan is descriptive/predictive in nature. This experiment quantitatively demonstrates the information processing aspects of one instrument monitoring technique. The results imply that experienced pilot eye movement patterns reflect workload minimization strategies developed early during flight training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Air Force Manual 51–37 (1979). Instrument Flying.Department of the Air Force: Washington, DC.
2.
EllisS.R.StarkL. (1986). Statistical dependency in visual scanning. Human Factors, 28, 421–438.
3.
FittsP.M. (1951). Engineering psychology and equipment design. In StevensS.S. (Ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology (pp. 1287–1340). New York: Wiley & Sons.
4.
FittsP.M.JonesR.E.MiltonJ.L. (1950). Eye movements of pilots during ILS and GCA. Aeronautical Engineering Review, 9, 24–29.
5.
HartS.G. (1986). The relationship between workload and training: An introduction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting, (pp. 1116–1120). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
6.
KlemmerE.T. (1956). Time uncertainty in simple reaction time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 179–184.
7.
LacagninaM.M. (1986). Lessons from the China Airlines accident. AOPA Pilot, 29(10), 73–74.
8.
ManeA.WickensC.D. (1986). The effects of task difficulty on workload and training. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting, (pp. 1124–1127). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
9.
RoscoeS.N. (1980). Aviation psychology.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
10.
WeirD.H.KleinR.H. (1970). Measurement and analysis of pilot scanning behavior during simulated instrument approaches. In Proceedings of the 6th NASA-University Conference on Manual Control, (pp. 83–103). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
11.
WickensC.D. (1984). Engineering psychology and human performance.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing.
