Contrastive Analysis of Distractions to Pilot Caused by Various Flight Instrument Displays
- 1 University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, China
- 2 University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, China
- 3 University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, China
- 4 University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, China
- 5 University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, China
- 6 University of Glasgow, Singapore, Singapore
Abstract
Automation of aircraft instrument displays enhance s flight safety, but it also increases complexity and pilot workload. Executing changes in flight plan, navigation or communication during flight using flight instrument switches often increase s pilots’ workload and this may also cause distraction that add s potential risks to flight safety. This study compares the conventional avionics panel and touchscreen avionic panel to find out the least distractive panel for the pilots. Thirty simulated flights using four different pilots were carried out; and aircraft speed, altitude and heading parameters using both avionics systems were observed to study the operational efficiency and pilot distraction resulted from each of the avionic systems. The distraction was examined by a parameter analysis based on the Mean Squared Error (MSE) mathematical model and visually by recording videos of each simulated flight. The results indicate that the touchscreen system is more efficient and less erroneous for the aircraft in maintaining the parameters as compared with the conventional system. There is also a clear relationship between task completion time and disruption level on the parameters control.
- Kwak, Y., Choi, Y. and Choi, J. (2018) Analysis between Aircraft Cockpit Automation and Human Error Related Accident Cases. International Journal of Control and Automation, 11, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijca.2018.11.3.16
- Moir, I. and Seabridge, A. (2008) Aircraft Systems: Mechanical, Electrical, and Avionics Subsystems Integration. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex. https://doi.org/10.2514/4.479526
- Blasch, E., Kostek, P., Paces, P. and Kramer, K. (2015) Summary of Avionics Technologies. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 30, 6-11. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2015.150012
- Federal Aviation Administration (2011) General Aviation & Recreational Aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/
- Garmin International Inc (2011) G1000 Integrated Flight Deck Pilot’s Guide. http://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf
- Garmin (2021) The Standard in Glass Flight Deck Capability. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/6420#overview
- RGV Aviation Ltd (2017) Avidyne Entegra Release 9. https://www.rgv.co.uk/product/avidyne-entegra-release-9/
- Garmin (2021) Tap into a World of Navigation Capability. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/67886#overview
- Wells, M. (2014) S-TEC and Chelton Flight Systems Acquired in MBO. https://genesys-aerosystems.com/news/s-tec-and-chelton-flight-systems-acquired-mbo
- International Civil Aviation Organisation (2018) ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Methodology—Version 11. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Documents/Methodology%20ICAO%20Carbon%20Calculator_v11-2018.pdf#search=airport%20codes
- Robert, J. (2021) Data Set Output Table. https://www.x-plane.com/kb/data-set-output-table/
- Hossein. P.N. (2014) Introduction to Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes—Mean Squared Error (MSE). https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter9/9_1_5_mean_squared_error_MSE.php
- Irwin, W. and Kelly, T. (2021) Airline Pilot Situation Awareness: Presenting a Conceptual Model for Meta-Cognition, Reflection and Education. Aviation, 25, 50-64. https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2021.14209
- Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2020) Fatigue Risk Management System (Appendix 7). https://www.casa.gov.au/safety-management/fatigue-management/what-steps-do-i-need-take/fatigue-risk-management-system-appendix-7?utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Fatigue