The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pilot Interaction With Cockpit Automation II: An Experimental Study of Pilots' Model and Awareness of the Flight Management System
Abstract
Technological developments have made it possible to automate more and more functions on the commercial aviation flight deck and in other dynamic high-consequence domains. This increase in the degrees of freedom in design has shifted questions away from narrow technological feasibility. Many concerned groups, from designers and operators to regulators and researchers, have begun to ask questions about how we should use the possibilities afforded by technology skillfully to support and expand human performance. In this article, we report on an experimental study that addressed these questions by examining pilot interaction with the current generation of flight deck automation. Previous results on pilot-automation interaction derived from pilot surveys, incident reports, and training observations have produced a corpus of features and contexts in which human-machine coordination is likely to break down (e.g., automation surprises). We used these data to design a simulated flight scenario that contained a variety of probes designed to reveal pilots' mental model of one major component of flight deck automation: the Flight Management System (FMS). The events within the scenario were also designed to probe pilots' ability to apply their knowledge and understanding in specific flight contexts and to examine their ability to track the status and behavior of the automated system (mode awareness). Although pilots were able to "make the system work" in standard situations, the results reveal a variety of latent problems in pilot-FMS interaction that can affect pilot performance in nonnormal time critical situations.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
Cited by
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
Miller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007779598037 · Cited by 434
Understanding human management of automation errors
McBride, S. E., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2014) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2013.817625 · Cited by 82
Sebok, A., & Wickens, C. D. (2017) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816665201 · Cited by 75
Flying the Needles: Flight Deck Automation Erodes Fine-Motor Flying Skills Among Airline Pilots
Haslbeck, A., & Hoermann, H.-J. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816640394 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D.
- Venue
- The International Journal of Aviation Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-28
- ISSN
- 1050-8414 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7108
- OpenAlex
- W1991964001
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.