Cited by 76Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyAerospace Engineering and Control SystemsAir Traffic Management and Optimization

Pilots of the future: human or computer?

Open access
Chambers, Alan B., Nagel, David C.·1985·Communications of the ACM

Abstract

As more and more automation is incorporated in aircraft, the essential question becomes one of autonomy: Should the automated system serve as the human pilot's assistant, or vice versa?

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/4547.4551

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [2]2. Aviat. Week Space Technol. Concept envisions transatmospheric trans. port. Aoiat. Week Space Technol. 122, 24 (June 17, 1985), 91.
  2. [3]3. Buchanan, B.G., and Shortliffe, E.H. Human engineering of medical expert systems. In Rule-Based Experf Systems, B.G. Buchanan and E.H. Shortliffe. Eds. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1964.
  3. [9]9. Hammer, J.M., and Rouse, W.B. Design of an intelligent computer- aided cockpit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyber- netics and Society. IEEE, New York, Oct. 1982, pp. 449-453.
  4. [12]12. Johannsen. G., and Rouse, W.B. Problem solving behavior of pilots in abnormal and emergency situations. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Human Decisions and Manual Control (Del!?, The Neth- erlands, May). Delft Univ., The Netherlands, 1981.
  5. [13]13. Lauber, J.K., and Foushee, H.C. Guidelines for line-oriented flight training, Vol. 1. NASA Rep. CP-2184, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., Aug. 1981.
  6. [14]14. National Transportation and Safety Board. Annual review of aircraft accident data. U.S. air carriers, calendar year 1960. NTSB/ARC-83/ 01, National Transportation and Safety Board, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chambers, A. B., & Nagel, D. C.
Affiliations
Ames Research Center (US)
Venue
Communications of the ACM
Published
1985-11
Volume
28
Issue
11
Pages
1187-1199
ISSN
  • 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7317
OpenAlex
W2017353403
Cited by
76
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Aerospace Engineering and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Air Traffic Management and Optimization
Keywords
aircraft automation, human-computer interaction, human factors, cockpit automation, aviation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review