U. S. Navy
3.1 A Little History †
3.1.5 Summary Appraisal
areas have been examined, but very few have been studied intensively. Th e major concerns are the basic research, as it relates to fl ight and displays. In spite of the fact that presumably automation (the “glass cockpit”), situational awareness, and workload are all “hot” topics in the aviation research community, they received only a modest degree of attention. If one adds up all the topics that deal with sophisticated mental processes (e.g., decision-making, mental models, and cognition) along with crew coordination, it can be observed that a fair bit of attention is being paid to the higher-order behavioral functions. Th is represents some change from the earlier research areas.
Most of the behavioral research in aviation is conducted on the ground, for obvious reasons: non- availability of aircraft and cost of fl ights. Another reason is perhaps that much of the research deals with cockpit or display variables, which may not require actual fl ight. Reliance on opinion expressed in questionnaires, incident/accident reports, and full-scale simulators diminishes the need to measure in the actual fl ight. It may also refl ect the fact that behavioral research, in general (not only in aviation), rarely takes place in the operational environment, which is not conducive to sophisticated experimental designs and instrumentation. However, this leaves us with the question on whether results achieved on the ground (even with a high degree of simulation) are actually valid with respect to fl ight conditions.
Case studies comparing the ground and in-fl ight evaluations have been carried out by Gawron and Reynolds (1995). Th e issue of generalizability to fl ight is compounded by the fact that one-third of all the subjects employed in these studies were not fl ying personnel.
Th e HF research in aviation is not completely devoted to an experimental format; only half the studies reported were of this type. It is remarkable that with a system whose technology is so advanced, there is so much reliance on nonexperimental techniques and subjective data.
maintainers function and the factors that aff ect their effi ciency, and a good start can be made from the Aviation Maintenance Human Factors Program at the Federal Aviation Administration (Krebs, 2004).
Furthermore, a little more attention to fl ight attendants and passengers too, may also be necessary.
Th ough the role of the passenger in fl ight is a very passive one, on long-distance fl ights, particularly, the constraints involved in being a passenger are very evident.
References
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. (1992). Guide to human performance measurement (Rep. No. BSR/AIAA, G-035-1992). New York: Author.
Aretz, A. J. (1991). Th e design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101.
Armstrong, G. C. (1985). Computer-aided analysis of in-fl ight physiological measurement. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 183–185.
Barthelemy, K. K., Reising, J. M., & Hartsock, D. C. (1991, September). Target designation in a perspec- tive view, 3-D map using a joystick, hand tracker, or voice. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Engineering Society (pp. 97–101). San Francisco, CA.
Battiste, V., & Delzell, S. (1991, June). Visual cues to geographical orientation during low-level fl ight.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 566–571). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Berger, R. (1977, March). Flight performance and pilot workload in helicopter fl ight under simulated IMC employing a forward looking sensor (Rep. No. AGARD-CP-240). Proceedings of the Guidance and Control Design Considerations for Low-Altitude and Terminal-Area Flight. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France:
AGARD.
Bowers, C., Salas, E., Prince, C., & Brannick, M. (1992). Games teams play: A method for investigating team coordination and performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 24, 503–506.
Brictson, C. A. (1969, November). Operational measures of pilot performance during fi nal approach to car- rier landing (Rep. No. AGARD-CP-56). Proceedings of the Measurement of Aircrew Performance-Th e Flight Deck Workload and its Relation to Pilot Performance. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: AGARD.
Caldwell et al. (Eds.) (1994). Psychophysiological assessment methods (Report No. AGARD-AR-324).
Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.
Cohen, J. B., Gawron, V. J., Mummaw, D. A., & Turner, A. D. (1993, June). Test planning, analysis and evalu- ation system (Test PAES), a process and tool to evaluate cockpit design during fl ight test. Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 871–876). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Conley, S., Cano, Y., & Bryant, D. (1991, June). Coordination strategies of crew management. Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 260–265). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Crites, D. C. (1980). Using the videotape method. In Air force systems command design handbook DH-1-3, Part 2, Series 1-0, General Human Factors Engineering, Chapter 7, Section DN 7E3 (pp. 1–6).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.
Degani, U., & Wiener, E. L. (1993). Cockpit checklists: Concept, design, and use. Human Factors, 35, 345–359.
Dempsey, C. A. (1985). 50 years of research on man in fl ight. Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson AFB, U.S. Air Force.
Fassbender, C. (1991, June). Culture-fairness of test methods: Problems in the selection of aviation person- nel. Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1160–1168). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Fitts, P. M., & Jones, R. E. (1947). Psychological aspects of instrument display. I. Analysis of 270 “pilot-error”
experiences in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments (Rep. No. TSEAA-694-12A). Dayton, OH:
Aeromedical Laboratory, Air Materiel Command.
Gawron, V. J. (1997, April). High-g environments and the pilot. Ergonomics in Design: Th e Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 6, 18–23.
Gawron, V. J. (2000). Human performance measures handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gawron, V. J. (2002, May). Airplane upset training evaluation report (NASA/CR-2002-211405). Moff ett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Gawron, V. J. (2004). Psychological factors. In F. H. Previc, & W. R. Ercoline (Eds.), Spatial disorientation in aviation (pp. 145–195). Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Gawron, V. J., Bailey, R., & Lehman, E. (1995). Lessons learned in applying simulators to crewstation evalu- ation. Th e International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(2), 277–290.
Gawron, V. J., & Baker, J. C. (1994, March). A procedure to minimize airsickness. Association of Aviation Psychologists Newsletter, 19(1), 7–8.
Gawron, V. J., Berman, B. A., Dismukes, R. K., & Peer, J. H. (2003, July/August). New airline pilots may not receive suffi cient training to cope with airplane upsets. Flight Safety Digest, pp. 19–32.
Gawron, V. J., & Draper, M. (2001, December). Human dimension of operating manned and unmanned air vehicles. Research and Technology Organisation Meeting Proceedings 82 Architectures for the Integration of Manned and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (RTO-MP-082), Annex F. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Gawron, V. J., & Priest, J. E. (1996). Evaluation of hand-dominance on manual control of aircraft , Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 72–76). Philadelphia.
Gawron, V. J., & Reynolds, P. A. (1995). When in-fl ight simulation is necessary. Journal of Aircraft , 32(2), 411–415.
Gawron, V. J., Schifl ett, S. G., Miller, J. C., Slater, T., & Ball, J. E. (1990). Eff ects of pyridostigmine bromide on in-fl ight aircrew performance. Human Factors, 32, 79–94.
Goetti, B. P. (1993, October). Analysis of skill on a fl ight simulator: Implications for training. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 1257–1261). Seattle, WA.
Guide, P. C., & Gibson, R. S. (1991, September). An analytical study of the eff ects of age and experience on fl ight safety. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 180–183). San Francisco, CA.
Guidi, M. A., & Merkle, M. (1993, October). Comparison of test methodologies for air traffi c control sys- tems. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 1196–1200). Seattle, WA.
Hart, S. G., & Hauser, J. R. (1987). Infl ight applications of three pilot workload measurement techniques.
Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 58, 402–410.
Hubbard, D. C., Rockway, M. R., & Waag, W. L. (1989). Aircrew performance assessment. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Aviation psychology (pp. 342–377). Brookfi eld, IL: Gower Technical.
Hughes, R. R., Hassoun, J. A., Ward, G. F., & Rueb, J. D. (1990). An assessment of selected workload and situation awareness metrics in a part-mission simulation (Rep. No. ASD-TR-90–5009). Dayton, OH:
Wright-Patterson AFB, Aeronautical Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command.
Itoh, Y., Hayashi, Y., Tsukui, I., & Saito, S. (1989). Heart rate variability and subjective mental workload in fl ight task validity of mental workload measurement using H.R.V. method. In M. J. Smith, &
G. Salvendy (Eds.), Work with computers: Organizational, management stress and health aspects (pp. 209–216). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Kleiss, J. A. (1993, October). Properties of computer-generated scenes important for simulating low- altitude fl ight. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 98–102). Seattle, WA.
Krebs, W. K. (2004). Aviation maintenance human factors program review. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/AvMaint04.pdf
Krueger, G. P., Armstrong, R. N., & Cisco, R. R. (1985). Aviator performance in week-long extended fl ight operations in a helicopter simulator. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 68–74.
Lindholm, E., & Sisson, N. (1985). Physiological assessment of pilot workload in simulated and actual fl ight environments. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 191–194.
McCloskey, K. A., Tripp, L. D., Chelette, T. L., & Popper, S. E. (1992). Test and evaluation metrics for use in sustained acceleration research. Human Factors, 34, 409–428.
McClumpha, A. J., James, M., Green, R. C., & Belyavin, A. J. (1991, September). Pilots’s attitudes to cockpit automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 107–111). San Francisco, CA.
McDaniel, W. C., & Rankin, W. C. (1991). Determining fl ight task profi ciency of students: A mathematical decision aid. Human Factors, 33, 293–308.
Meister, D. (1985). Behavioral analysis and measurement methods. New York: Wiley.
Moroney, W. R. (1995). Evolution of human engineering: A selected review. In J. Weimer (Ed.), Research techniques in human factors. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morris, T. L. (1985). Electroocculographic indices of changes in simulated fl ying performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 176–182.
Muckler, F. A. (1977). Selecting performance measures: “Objective” versus “subjective” measurement.
In L. T. Pope, & D. Meister (Eds.), Productivity enhancement: Personnel performance assessment in navy systems (pp. 169–178). San Diego, CA: Naval Personnel Research and Development Center.
Orasanu, J. (1991, September). Individual diff erences in airline captains’ personalities, communica- tion strategies, and crew performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 991–995).
San Francisco, CA.
Orasanu, J., Dismukes, R. K., & Fischer, U. (1993, October). Decision errors in the cockpit. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 363–367). Seattle, WA.
Pawlik, E. A., Sr., Simon, R., & Dunn, D. J. (1991, June). Aircrew coordination for Army helicopters:
Improved procedures for accident investigation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 320–325). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Reynolds, J. L., & Drury, C. G. (1993, October). An evaluation of the visual environment in aircraft inspec- tion. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 34–38). Seattle, WA.
Schwirzke, M. F. J., & Bennett, C. T. (1991, June). A re-analysis of the causes of Boeing 727 “black hole landing” crashes. Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 572–576). Columbus:
Ohio State University.
Seidler, K. S., & Wickens, C. D. (1992). Distance and organization in multifunction displays. Human Factors, 34, 555–569.
Selcon, S. J., Taylor, R. M., & Koritsas, E. (1991, September). Workload or situational awareness?: TLX vs.
SART for aerospace systems design evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 62–66).
San Francisco, CA.
Shively, R. et al. (1987, June). Infl ight evaluation of pilot workload measures for rotorcraft research.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 637–643). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Stein, E. S. (1984). Th e measurement of pilot performance: A master-journeyman approach (Rep. No. DOT/
FAA/CT-83/15). Atlantic City, NJ: Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center.
Taylor, H. L., & Alluisi, E. A. (1993). Military psychology. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 503–542). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van Patten, R. E. (1994). A history of developments in aircrew life support equipment, 1910–1994. Dayton, OH: SAFE-Wright Brothers Chapter.
Vidulich, M. A., & Tsang, P. S. (1985, September). Assessing subjective workload assessment: A comparison of SWAT and the NASA-bipolar methods. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 71–75).
Baltimore, MD.
Vreuls, D., & Obermayer, R. W. (1985). Human-system performance measurement in training simulators.
Human Factors, 27, 241–250.
Wilson, G. F., & Fullenkamp, F. T. (1991). A comparison of pilot and WSO workload during training missions using psychophysical data. Proceedings of the Western European Association for Aviation Psychology, R (pp. 27–34). Nice, France.
Wilson, G. F., Purvis, B., Skelly, J., Fullenkamp, F. T., & Davis, L. (1987, October). Physiological data used to measure pilot workload in actual and simulator conditions. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society (pp. 779–783). New York.
4-1