Search Results

In defining human factors/ergonomics requirements, user questionnaire data are often employed. These data can be difficult to interpret and may lead engineers to discard data post hoc because an explanation is not apparent. Such a process leads to erroneous conclusions and poor design. A structured approach to data interpretation is required to prevent such errors including consideration of (a) question comprehension, (b) bias across the user sample, (c) variability in user cognitive models, (d) user differences in intended method of, or strategy for, interfacing with a design, and (e) user attachment to an old design.. This approach should provide the human factors/ergonomics engineer with a clearer insight into the perceptual-cognitive processes which form the basis for responses and aid in the ability to define requirements for the user interface.

The capability of a multifunction display system to present data regarding malfunctioning manned spacecraft systems is illustrated. The development of formats for abnormal operations is based on the correspondence between cognitive requirements of the crewmember and displayed information. Three different stages of cognitive processing are identified and associated spacecraft formats are developed. System architecture provides for the display of required information tailored to crewmember requirements in identifying, understanding, and solving malfunctions via a simple multifunction display interface. Two sets of formats were produced which illustrate traditional display strategies and cognitive representations. Formats were presented to subjects using a slide projector and data were collected to identify any significant differences between the two methods of information display.

As part of the NASA High Speed Research program, an unusual attitude (UA), pilot-in-the-loop simulation study provided information on Primary Flight Display (PFD) symbology factors that affect UA recovery. Overall research objectives were to evaluate symbology concepts to facilitate pilot perception and safe recovery. It was concluded that UA recognition and recovery task performance is unacceptable when the pilot relies only on raw data but is improved markedly with appropriate second-generation symbology. The major result indicated that a newly-developed PFD symbol (the Roll Arrow) significantly reduced UA recognition errors. The Roll Arrow is a large, red arrow attached to the PFD Bank Angle Pointer. When the aircraft is in a UA, the Roll Arrow appears on the PFD and points left or right to indicate the required direction to roll for recovery. Other recovery actions are at pilot discretion.