|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
HUMAN FACTORS ISSUES IN COCKPIT AUTOMATION
Melchor J. Antuñano, M.D., M.S.
FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A.
Humans are very flexible and adaptable to varying tasks, but have limitations performing repetitive tasks where consistent and reliable results are required. On the other hand, machines are very consistent and reliable performing repetitive tasks, but are not very flexible or adaptable to new and unexpected conditions. Automation refers to the techniques, methods, or systems used to operate or control a productive process by means of autonomous mechanical and/or electronic devices. The use of automation in an aircraft cockpit started with analog technologies such as gyroscopic auto-pilots, automatic stabilizers, auto landing gear down systems, auto flaps, emergency alarm/warning systems (visual and audible) systems, etc. Today’s automated cockpits (glass cockpits) utilize advanced digital systems operated by computers such as flight directors, fly-by-wire controls, auto-throttle, auto-trimming, auto-landing, vertical and horizontal navigation systems, TCAS, EGPWS, pathway-in-the-sky displays, head-up displays, head-mounted displays, helmet-mounted displays, advisory systems using synthetic voice, anti-lock braking, anti-skid, etc. Future cockpits may include voice/vision/mind controlled systems, 3-D holographic displays, retinal displays, artificial intelligence systems, automated upset recovery systems, etc. The design and implementation of digital automated cockpit systems promised more effective, efficient and safe flight operations due to improved systems reliability, less required maintenance, lower energy consumption, better control of power plants, more precise inflight navigation, lower operational costs, elimination of monotonous repetitive tasks, better pilot situational awareness, reduction of pilot workload, elimination of pilot error, certification of 2-pilot commercial operations (eliminating flight navigator and flight engineer), etc. However, due to differences in cockpit automation design approaches used by different aircraft manufacturers, there is a lack of a single standardized design philosophy that ensures an optimum interface between the human operator (pilot) and the automated cockpit systems. The reality is that today’s glass cockpits have produced unwanted consequences such as increase in pilot mental workload flying below 10K feet 9 (3K m), increase in head-down time associated with programming (initial or subsequent) of computers, higher risk of pilot errors associated with computer programming, pilot complacency/monotony/boredom and decreased vigilance during flight, decreased situational awareness, difficulty identifying problems associated with the operation of automated systems including false alarms, over-reliance on computerized systems, sudden and unexpected system malfunctions, concerns about decreased performance in manual piloting skills and abilities, concerns about pilot transition between aircraft from different manufacturers, concerns about pilot transition between old aircraft (analog) and new aircraft (digital), pilot confusion, transfer of control authority between captain and first officer, increased training requirements, etc. Therefore, in order to eliminate the unwanted consequences of cockpit automation it is important to: 1) apply standardized principles of human-centered automation in the design of future automated cockpits, 2) develop/update pilot selection and training approaches to ensure the safe operation of future automated systems under nominal and emergency conditions, and 3) improve aircraft certification standards that ensure optimum operational safety assessment of new automated cockpit systems under nominal and emergency conditions.