Automated airline cockpit systems are very helpful at times, but they can induce errors and other problems when change is required by the operational demands. If this holds in the constrained airline operating environment, it would appear that corporate aviation — with its demand for extreme flexibility — would magnify these problems. This study is the first attempt to examine the pilot-automation interaction in the corporate aviation environment. Survey data from 430 corporate pilots and observations from over 60 actual corporate missions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsC. (1991). The automatic human. Aerospace, March, pp. 14–19.
2.
BrauneR.J. (1989). The Common/Same Type Rating: Human Factors and Other Issues. SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 892229.
3.
JamesM.McClumphaA.GreenR.WilsonP.BelyavinA. (1991). “Pilot attitudes to cockpit automation.” Presented at the one day conference Human Factors on Advanced Flight Decks, The Royal Aeronautical Society, London. April.
4.
NormanS. D.OrladyH. W. (1988). Flight deck automation: Promises and realities. A NASA/FAA/Industry Workshop (NASA Conference Publication 10036).
5.
ReisingJ. M.AretzA. J. (1983). Color coding in fighter cockpits: It isn't black and white. In JensenR. S. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1–7. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
6.
SarterN. B. (1991). “The flight management system - Pilot's interaction with cockpit automation.”Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Charlottesville, VA.
7.
WienerE. L. (1989, June). Human factors of advanced technology (“Glass Cockpit”) transport aircraft. NASA Tech. Rep. No. 177528.
8.
WienerE. L.CurryR. E. (1980). “Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems.”Ergonomics, 23(10), 995–1011. Also in HurstR. & HurstL. R. (Eds.). Pilot Error: The Human Factor (pp. 67–86). New York: Jason Aronson.