This paper examined the correspondence between pilots' instrument scanning behavior during instrument approaches and their general knowledge (or “prototypical mental model”) of their information requirements and subjective reactions associated with procedural phases of the approaches. Factor analysis was used to characterize each of these two domains in terms of a set of underlying factors. The relationships between the factors of the instrument scanning domain and those of the mental model domain appeared to be based on the procedural requirements of the approaches (e.g., reduce airspeed and altitude).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CattellR. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum.
2.
CooleyW.W.LohnesP.R. (1971). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Wiley.
3.
DickA.O. (1980). Instrument scanning and controlling: Using eye movement data to understand pilot behavior and strategies. NASA CR-3306.
4.
DickA.O.BaileyG. (1976). A comparison between oculometer data and pilot opinion on the usefulness of instruments during landing. Center for Visual Science Technical Report 3–76, university of Rochester. (NASA Grant NSG-1211).
5.
DickA.O.BrownJ.L.BaileyG. (1977). Statistical evaluation of. control inputs and eye movements in the use of instrument clusters during aircraft landing. Center for Visual Science Technical Report 4–76, University of Rochester. (Available as NASA CR-149465).
6.
HameluckD.E. (1990). Mental models, mental workload, and instrument scanning in flight. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Toronto.
7.
HartS.G.StavelandL.E. (1988). Development of a multidimensional workload rating scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP.A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
8.
HigginsT.J.ChignellM.H. (1987). Cognitive processes during instrument landing. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st annual meeting, 1219–1219.
9.
LevineM.S. (1977). Canonical correlation and factor comparison. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
MorayN. (1984). Attention to dynamic visual displays in man-machine systems. In ParasuramanR.DaviesD.R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 485–514). New York: Academic Press.
11.
RasmussenJ. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. New York: North Holland.
12.
SAS Institute (1985). SAS User's guide: Statistics (Version 5 edition). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
13.
SimmonsR.R.LeesM.A.KimballK.A. (1978). Visual performance/workload of helicopter pilots during instrument flight. In KnappS.C. (Ed.), AGARD conference proceedings on operational helicopter aviation medicine (AGARD CP-255) (pp. 52–1 to 52–13).
14.
SpadyA.A.Jr. (1978). Airline pilot scan patterns during simulated ILS approaches (NASA TP-1250).
15.
ToleJ.R.StephensR.L.HarrisR.L.Sr.EphrathA.R. (1982). Visual scanning behavior and mental workload in aircraft pilots. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 588–592.
16.
ToleJ.StephensA.T.VivaudouM.HarrisR.L.Sr.EphrathA.R. (1982). Entropy, instrument scan, and pilot workload. Proceedings of the. International conference on cybernetics and society, 588–592.
