Search Results

Increasing the automation in a flight deck has not always led to benefits to the pilot; instead it is often found that inappropriate implementation of automation can cause a variety of issues including loss of situation awareness, poorer performance, and a perceived increase in workload. It is important to determine in what context a pilot might benefit the most from the inclusion of automation and then to determine the appropriate level at which that automation is implemented. The objective of this study was to evaluate what level of automation is most appropriate for supporting the pilots in the performance of non-normal event resolution tasks. Pilots were given a series of scenarios where the level of automation for performing tasks was varied from no automation to full automation. A related objective was to determine whether the use of a voice interface is effective in providing sufficient feedback to support the pilots' situation awareness.

This study compared the performance of pilots flying a series of approach and landings under each of three conditions: using standard 737-NG flight deck displays only, using those displays with an optical head up display (HUD), and using those displays with a head worn display (HWD) depicting the same symbology as the HUD. Display condition had no effect on pilots' normal landing flight profiles or successful avoidance of a runway incursion. However, pilots reported decreased situation awareness and increased perceived workload when using the HWD as compared to the other two conditions. Pilot comments suggested that the poorer ratings for HWD were attributed to physical characteristics of the hardware and noticeable head-tracking latency. The results indicate that while the HWD technology still needs more refinement, the near-to-eye display concept is a viable alternative to a HUD.