FDAI logo   ::  Site Map  ::   
Home  |  About This Website  |  Contact Us
Home » All Surveys

All Surveys 29 resources found.


  1.  
  2. Source: Braune, R.J. (1989). Boeing/Deutsche Lufthansa Mixed Fleet Study 737-200/ -300 (EFIS).
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: A survey was given to Deutsche Lufthansa pilots flying both the Boeing 737-200 and the Boeing 737-300 with EFIS. The survey questions were "aimed at issues related to the scheduling of flight crews on both types of Boeing 737 (200/300) aircrafts. Althouth not quite realistic, the following questions assume a trip schedule with constant alternations between the 737-200 and 737-300." Pilots were asked to judge "the differences (or similarities, if appicable) on the following dimensions: 1. Criticality (C) (i.e., how critical do you feel is the item to general flight deck operations?) 2. Error Potential (EP) (i.e., how large do you perceive the eror potential which is created by the transfer of habits and expectations between the two airplanes?) 3. Safety (S) (i.e., what is the perceived impact on flight safety?)" ... Of the 220 pilots contacted, 51 pilots returned the survey.
    See all Evidence from this resource

  3.  
  4. Source: Bruseberg, A., & Johnson, P. (2004). Should Computers Function as Collaborators?. In Proceedings of HCI-Aero 2004 held in Toulouse, France September 29, 2004 to 1 October 2004.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "To better understand the requirements for human-computer collaboration, we review problems that have been observed with automated systems within the area of aviation...Besides a range of insights drawn from the literature, we have also carried out interviews with pilots that highlight the issues drawn out here through example accounts. Pilot 1 (P1) has experience in flying Boeing 777 (one of the most advanced automated planes in service), besides other experience. Pilot 2 (P2) has, besides others, flown Boeing 727 (with only basic automation) and Learjet 31 (with a range of automated capabilities). Both pilots have been mainly in corporate employment (i.e. not airlines)"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  5.  
  6. Source: Curry, R.E. (1985). The Introduction of New Cockpit Technology: A Human Factors Study. NASA Technical Memorandum 86659, 1-68. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "This report describes the first phase of a joint airline/NASA study which was undertaken during the introduction of a new technology aircraft, the B-767. ... Three airlines and their pilots agreed to participate in the study. Data was obtained through more than 100 [104, to be exact] questionnaires returned by pilots, the direct observation and interviews with pilots and check airmen, and attendance by a NASA observer at the ground schools of the participating airlines."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  7.  
  8. Source: Gras, A., Moricot, C., et. al. (1994). Faced with automation. Publications de la Sorbonne.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "we propose to present the first results of a survey by questionnaire, carried out in 1993. ... The questionnaire was addressed to the pilots of French airline companies: Air France, Air Inter, TAT, Air Littoral, flying new generation and intermediate generation airliners: A310, A320, A340, B747/400, B767, b737S (new version of the B737), Fokker 100. The airplanes mentioned all have an essential characteristic: a glass cockpit (from their origin or in a recent version) equipped with advanced computerized equipment. ... 1769 questionnaires were distributed to pilots qualified on new or intermediate generation aircraft and belonging to one of four French airlines taking part in the survey. A total of 798 questionnaires were returned"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  9.  
  10. Source: Hutchins, E., Holder, B., & Hayward, M. (1999). Pilot Attitudes Toward Automation. Web published at http://hci.ucsd.edu/hutchins/attitudes/index.html.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "Pilots flying the Boeing 757/767 for a large US-based airline responded to a survey containing 16 attitude probes concerning autoflight automation...The 757/767 has a moderate level of flight automation. It has a complete Flight Management Computer System (FMCS) which can be programmed to guide the airplane through a complete flight from shortly after takeoff until the after-landing rollout. It also has a partial Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS). The attitude indicator and the lateral navigation display (ND) are computer generated displays. The airspeed indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator are traditional electro-mechanical devices...Of 2909 surveys distributed, 575 (19.8%) were returned...Of the remaining 562 usable surveys returned, 254 were from Captains, 267 were from First Officers, and 41 did not indicate which seat they occupied...Surveys were returned from pilots flying out of eight operational bases...On average, the respondents had 11,833 hours of total flight time. Of that, 3,013 hours were in automated airplanes, and 2,657 of the automated hours were in the 757/767. The average amount of time since initial training in the 757/767 was 5 years 0 months, so pilots were flying, on average, about 530 hours per year in this airplane."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  11.  
  12. Source: James, M., McClumpha, A., Green, R., Wilson, P., & Belyavin, A. (1991). Pilot attitudes to cockpit automation. In R.S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, April 1991, 192-198. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requested "the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine to conduct a study to assess the opinions and attitudes of UK commercial pilots to advanced automated aircraft. The questionnaire comprised two sections, a ten item general attitudes section that could be completed by all pilots, and a 68 item sub-divided second section that could be completed only by pilots with experience of automated aircraft." In the second section "most items comprised two statements defining opposite viewpoints with a scale of one to five between them indicating grades of opinion. Pilots were asked to express their opinion on an item by circling a number on the scale." ... 1372 questionnaires were returned ... "572 complete and 800 partially complete ... In order to carry out this analysis only completed questionnaires were included. ... Over 50 aircraft types and more than 30 airlines were represented."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  13.  
  14. Source: Last, S. & Alder, M. (1991). British Airways Airbus A320 Pilots' Autothrust Survey. IFALPA Reference ADO/12/3/4, SRS/SJS. IFALPA.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "The Airbus A320 has an autothrust system which is unique among transport aircraft in not having feedback movement provided to the pilots' thrust levers. ... As British Airways was one of the earliest operators of the type a survey was conducted to determine the views of line pilots as to the advantages and disadvantages of the system compared with conventional moving levers. This paper contains the results of that survey. ... The questionnaire was designed in four sections. The first section covered the pilot's flying background; the second asked about his use of autothrust on previous (conventional) autothrust aircraft; the third about experience using the A320 system; and the fourth a menu of possible features of an 'ideal' autothrust system. The questionnaire was distributed to some 95 pilots, and a response of 69% (66 questionnaires) obtained. ... most pilots had between 250 and 1000 hours on the A320"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  15.  
  16. Source: Lyall, B., Wilson, J., & Funk, K. (1997). Flightdeck automation issues: Phase 1 survey analysis. Available: http://www.flightdeckautomation.com/ExpertSurvey/e_report.aspx.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "In Phase 1 we prepared a questionnaire for a survey pilots and other individuals with first hand knowledge of flight deck automation. Along with basic demographic and flight experience questions, the questionnaire probed the respondent for flight deck automation problems he/she knew about or concerns he/she had about flight deck automation. We sent participation invitations to aviation and automation related newsgroups on the Internet, to selected individuals with demonstrated expertise in automation and flight safety, and to pilots. We distributed 1096 questionnaires and received back 128 completed questionnaires as follows: 83 from commercial transport pilots, 11 from air traffic controllers, 10 from aviation safety professionals (analysts and instructors), 12 from scientists (human factors scientists, aviation psychologists, and computer scientists), five from avionics engineers, and seven from other individuals claiming familiarity with flightdeck automation. We analyzed the responses and found 371 citations in 121 questionnaires. We classified the citations of problems and concerns as described above. In Phase 2 we reviewed questionnaires returned by pilots for evidence related to flight deck automation issues. ... Pilots participating in the study responded to the Phase 1 questionnaire statement: "Describe a problem you know of or a concern you have about flightdeck automation." In 21 of these questionnaires the respondents gave responses that can be considered as evidence. ..."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  17.  
  18. Source: Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "The first phase of our on-going research identified 114 human factors problems and concerns with flightdeck automation. ... One of our objectives for Phase 2 was to decide whether the concerns raised in Phase 1 could be considered problems on which resources should be spent to identify or develop solutions. As one step in meeting this objective we conducted a survey of individuals who have a broad experience or knowledge base related to flightdeck automation. In this survey we asked the respondents to what degree they agreed that the concern is a problem, how critical they believed the problem to be, and to identify the sources upon which they based their ratings. ... Forty-seven individuals were asked to participate in the survey based on their broad research or performance experience with flightdeck automation. Thirty-six agreed to complete the survey, and 30 completed surveys were received."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  19.  
  20. Source: Lyall, E.A. (1990). The effects of mixed-fleet flying of the Boeing 737-200 and -300. America West Airlines Technical Report AWA01-90-01. Phoenix, AZ: America West Airlines.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "The effects of allowing pilots to concurrently fly two derivatives of the Boeing 737 (200 and 300) were assessed at America West Airlines using data gathered in flight and from a survey completed by the 737 pilots. An activity analysis methodology was used to gather the in-flight data. ... The survey data were used as supplementary to the in-flight data. ... The surveys were distributed through company mail to every 737 pilot with a mailbox as of January 1990 (759 total). ... 207 737 pilots returned the survey that was sent to them."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  21.  
  22. Source: McClumpha, A.J. & James, M.R. (1994). Understanding automated aircraft. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman (Eds.), Human Performance in Automated Systems: Current Research and Trends. Proceedings of the 1st Automation Technology and Human Performance Conference, held in Washington, DC April 7-9, 1994. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requested the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM) to conduct a study to assess the opinions and attitudes of UK commercial pilots toward advanced automated aircraft. "The complete questionnaire comprised 78 items. The majority of the questionnaire consisted of Likert type bi-polar statements defining opposite viewpoints with a scale of one to five between them indicating intermediate grades of opinion. Pilots were asked to circle the number that most closely corresponded to their attitude. ... A total of 1372 questionnaires were returned from the UK distribution of which 572 were from pilots of advanced technology aircraft. The IATA distribution [which was administered approximately one year after the UK sample] returned 539 questionnaires from pilots of advanced technology aircraft. A total 982 questionnaires were satisfactorily completed and used in this analysis." "The objective of this paper is to assess the structure of pilots' understanding of advanced technology flight decks and to identify factors that may help to explain observed differences in perceived understanding."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  23.  
  24. Source: Morters, K. (1988). B767 Flightdeck Automation Research. Research Paper 32:420, 1-141.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "A group of ... airline pilots participated in this research which examined some issues concerning the pilot-automated flight-deck interface on the Boeing B767 aircraft. The pilots voluntarily completed a questionnaire which consisted of 40 Likert statements and several open ended questions about aircrew training, flight-deck design, monitoring and controlling, pilot skills and past experience, and pilot acceptance of automation on the flight-deck. ... 90 questionnaires were mailed to all B767 pilots [in the participating airline company] ... 65 of the questionnaires were completed and the data analyzed."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  25.  
  26. Source: Noyes, J.M. & Starr, A.F. (2000). Civil aircraft warning systems: Future directions in information management and presentation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(2), 169-188. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "Aviation statistics often cite human error and, in particular, crew decision making as a primary cause in explanations of aircraft accidents and incidents. Part of the solution to managing error may lie in the development ofhuman-centered flight deck warning systems, which not only are error tolerant but also actively aid crew decision making. This article describes some of the findings from a comprehensive questionnaire survey of civil flight deck crew carried out to locate user requirements for the next generation of warning systems. Because the participants in the study were from 10 different fleets (thus representing a range of warning systems from the older fixed static systems to the modem multifunction ones), it is possible to consider whether the development of warning systems has been successful from the point of view of the user. Pilot views on the provision of earlier detection of abnormal conditions, the completeness of warning information, the consequences of crew actions, the prioritization of warning information, and the facility to interrogate the system to make predictions are reported. It is concluded that warning systems have developed in accordance with crew opinion and that given the prevalence of human error on the flight deck, issues of information management and presentation in the next generation of warning systems will be of paramount importance. Working closely with crew provides one means of helping to ensure the good design of future systems. … A questionnaire survey was conducted of all flight deck crew within an international commercial airline. The questionnaire was distributed to 3,364 United Kingdom based commercial airline pilots and flight engineers."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  27.  
  28. Source: Orlady, H.W. & Wheeler, W.A. (1989). Training for Advanced Cockpit Technology Aircraft. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "In the summer of 1988, we undertook a broad investigation of flight crew training issues relating to ADVTECH aircraft. ...Because of the space and time limitations this paper is restricted to a small portion of the [objectives of the study]." Discussed are the "preliminary findings on only two issues: (1) Training for crew coordination and communication with ADVTECH aircraft (2) Maintenance of basic flying skills in ADVTECH aircraft. ... approximately 100 pilots who were flying ADVTECH aircraft and had reported incidents with them to the ASRS were called and asked to participate in the survey. ... Our survey covered five types of ADVTECH aircraft which were flown by pilots of 12 airlines. The aircraft were grouped as follows: A300-600; B737-300/400/500; B757/767; MD-80; and MD-88. ... The telephone interviews took approximately one hour and were all conducted by experienced airline pilots."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  29.  
  30. Source: Rash, C.E., Adam, G.E., LeDuc, P.A., & Francis, G. (May 6-8, 2003). Pilot Attitudes on Glass and Traditional Cockpits in the U.S. Army's AH-64 Apache Helicopter. Presented at the American Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ. American Helicopter Society International, Inc.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "Computers and multifunction displays (MFDs) are an integral part of multiple current Army rotary-wing aircraft. The cockpit design with these types of systems is sometimes referred to as a "glass cockpit." MFDs and computers are also an integral part of the cockpit designs for planned future aircraft. A recent study found that aircraft with a glass cockpit design have higher accident rates than corresponding aircraft with the traditional, dedicated-instrument, cockpit design. This finding suggested that the differences in cockpit designs needed to be examined. To identify significant differences, this study assessed pilots’ attitudes toward traditional and glass cockpit designs in the AH-64 Apache helicopter. The study identified which aspects of the two cockpit designs were most favorable or troublesome to the pilots, and identified differences in opinions across pilots who flew traditional or glass cockpit designs. The results of the study identify which areas of cockpit design require further investigation."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  31.  
  32. Source: Rudisill, M. (1994). Flight Crew Experience with Automation Technologies on Commercial Transport Flight Decks. In M. Mouloua & R. Parasuraman (Eds.), Human Performance in Automated Systems: Current Research and Trends. Proceedings of the 1st Automation Technology and Human Performance Conference, held in Washington, DC April 7-9, 1994, 203-211. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "...a survey conducted by the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine to identify line pilots' attitudes toward advanced automation. A questionnaire was administered containing four sections: biographical information, background on flight experience with automated cockpits, a series of bi-polar statements addressing 10 areas of crew/automation interaction (e.g., design, training), and open comments. ... This paper focuses on comments given in the RAF IAM survey by pilots of two categories of automated aircraft, Airbus (A300, A310, & A320) and Boeing (B757 & B767). .. Approximately 400 surveys with comments were randomly selected and reviewed. These surveys were used as a representative sample of the entire set of comments"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  33.  
  34. Source: Rudisill, M. (1995). Line Pilots' Attitudes About and Experience With Flight Deck Automation: Results of an International Survey and Proposed Guidelines. In R.S. Jensen, & L.A. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio, April 24-27, 1995, 288-293. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "A survey of line pilots' attitudes about flight deck automation was conducted by the Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (RAF IAM, Farnborough, UK) under the sponsorship of the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority and in cooperation with IATA (the International Air Transport Association). Survey freehand comments given by pilots operating 13 types of commercial transports across five manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing, British Aerospace, Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas) and 57 air carriers/organizations were analyzed by NASA. ... This paper reports the results of analyses of comments from pilots flying commercial transport types having the highest level of automation sophistication (B757/B767, B747-400, and A320). ... The goal of these analyses is to contribute to the definition of guidelines which may be used during design of future aircraft flight decks. ... analyses are based on a corpus of comments from 443 respondents"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  35.  
  36. Source: Sarter, N.B. & Woods, D.D. (1992). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: Operational experiences with the Flight Management System. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(4), 303-321. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "The pilot report corpus was generated through a questionnaire, distributed to experienced airline pilots flying the B-737-300. This survey expands on results from a portion of a study by Wiener (1989) who asked B-757 pilots to rate statements concerning their attitude towards cockpit automation. Two of the statements were specifically related to FMS operations" ... "We followed up Wiener's results by asking B-737-300 pilots to rate their agreement/disagreement with the ... two statements [related to FMS operations] on a five point scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). But, more critically, we asked them to describe in detail as many instances as possible of surprises they had actually experienced and modes they did not understand. ... The survey was distributed to 887 B-737-300 line pilots from one airline company; responses were received from 135 pilots."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  37.  
  38. Source: Sarter, N.B. & Woods, D.D. (1995). Strong, Silent, and Out-of-the-loop: Properties of Advanced (Cockpit) Automation and Their Impact on Human-Automation Interaction. CSEL Report 95-TR-01.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: This paper describes "procedures and results of ... research activities that were carried out to examine the nature and circumstances of automation-related problems encountered by A-320 pilots during line operations." A survey "was developed and distributed to all A-320 pilots (n=750) at one major U.S. airline. This questionnaire asked pilots about their experiences with the training for and the operation of the A-320 automation during line operations." 169 pilots returned the survey for evaluation.
    See all Evidence from this resource

  39.  
  40. Source: Sherman, P.J., Helmreich, R.L., & Merritt, A. (1997). National culture and flight deck automation: Results of a multination survey. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 311-329. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "Attitudes regarding flight deck automation were surveyed in a sample of 5,879 airline pilots from 12 nations. The average difference in endorsement levels across 11 items for pilots flying automated aircraft in 12 nations was 53%. reflecting significant national differences in attitudes on all items, with the largest differences observed for preference and enthusiasm for automation. The range of agreement across nations was on average four times larger than the range of agreement across different airlines within the same nation, and roughly six times larger than the range across pilots of standard and pilots of automated aircraft. Patterns of response are described in terms of dimensions of national culture. Implications of the results for development of safety cultures and culturally sensitive training are discussed."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  41.  
  42. Source: Speyer, J.J. (1990). Towards Design Induced Error Tolerance. ICAO Human Factors Digest #4: Circular 229-AN/137. Leningrad: International Civil Aviation Organization.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "17 pilots and observers [who had participated in a previous study regarding] the A310 crew complement certification ... volunteered to answer an anonymous questionnaire on the quality of the man-machine interface. As a group, these pilots appeared to cover an experience-level corresponding to the operation of almost all commercial jet aircraft introduced to that period. In answering the questionnaire, pilots were asked to compare the A310 with the aircraft they considered most representative of their experience. For each question a scale from 1 to 6 was presented, the 1 showing low appreciation, requesting improvement, the 6 showing high appreciation, recognizing high quality. This questionnaire covered the whole spectrum of aircraft design issues"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  43.  
  44. Source: Speyer, J.J., Blomberg, R.D., & Fouillot, J.P. (1990). Evaluation the Impact of New Technology Cockpits: Onwards from A300FF, A310, A320 to A330, A340. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Machine Interaction and Artificial Intelligence in Aeronautics and Space.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: The A320 sidestick/fly-by-wire 'proof of concept' was "supported by a questionnaire-interview. Some 75 flying hours were achieved with 48 pilots from 5 Airworthiness Authorities, 12 airlines and Airbus Industrie" in the 'proof of concept' testbed A300. "... a quantitative assessment was made through a detailed questionnaire containing 42 questions filled in by each team of visiting aircrew; 25 such questionnaires were submitted" ... the answering scale was a 6-attitude scale with a range from unacceptable to excellent.
    See all Evidence from this resource

  45.  
  46. Source: Speyer, J.J., Monteil, C., Blomberg, R.D., & Fouillot, J.P. (1990). Impact of New Technology on Operational Interface: From Design Aims to Flight Evaluation and Measurement. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development No. 301, Vol. 1.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "LUFTHANSA Fleet Surveys This airline's policy is to establish a sound basis for future aircraft specifications from flight crews' experience. Feedback surveys were started to this effect as early as in 1976 covering the whole fleet operated at the time ... [A] survey was launched shortly after the A310-200 and 737-200 Advanced introductions to enquire about pilot's acceptance of the new technologies. Answers to questionnaires were provided by means of a 5-point evaluation scale exhibiting a neutral position ... The pilot questionnaire consisted of two main parts. The first dealt with overall cockpit lay-out, general handling qualities and airplane systems while the second was concerned with the electronic interfaces to the crew (ECAM, EFIS, AFS, FMS)."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  47.  
  48. Source: Stefanovich, Y. & Thouanel, B. (1993). Inquiry into a crash. (Translated from VSD), 1-20.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "Following the congress of the IFALPA (International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations) in Rome in early April 1992, over 150 pilots from around the world exchanged opinions on Europe's twin-engine jet. Seventeen airlines operating the A320 met in Cancun (Mexico) in spring 1992; their experience spotlights the main problems linked to the operation of the aircraft."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  49.  
  50. Source: Wiener, E.L. (1985). Human Factors of Cockpit Automation: A Field Study of Flight Crew Transition. NASA Contactor Report 177333. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "The purpose of this research was to gain information on the human factors of automated cockpits. The particular issue under study was the transition of pilots from a traditional technology aircraft (DC-9-10), -30 and -50) to a highly automated derivative model. ... Numerous forms for the attitude scales were considered. ... The final forms consisted of two instruments, a 36-item Likert-type attitude scale, and a 5-by-16 matrix frequency of use chart ..." The study was in the form of a longitudinal analysis. The subjects were pilot volunteers who "were contacted by a direct mailing from the Republic Central Air Safety committee of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) ... The sample sizes were 37 in Wave One and 20 in Wave Two ..."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  51.  
  52. Source: Wiener, E.L. (1989). Human Factors of Advanced Technology ("Glass Cockpit") Transport Aircraft. NASA Contractor Report 177528. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "This is a report of a three-year field study of airline crews at two major U.S. airlines who were flying an advanced technology aircraft, the Boeing 757. The study addresses the opinions and experiences of these pilots as they view the advanced, automated features of this aircraft, and contrast it with previous models they have flown. ... The research design called for two sets of questionnaires, mailed to the pilots one year apart, the first being in the summer of 1986. ... Questionnaires were designed to elicit pilot opinions, experience level, and specific information and viewpoints."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  53.  
  54. Source: Wiener, E.L. Chidester, T.R., Kanki, B.G., Palmer, E.A., Curry, R.E., & Gregorich, S.E. (1991). The Impact of Cockpit Automation on Crew Coordination and Communication: I. Overview, LOFT Evaluations, Error Severity, and questionnaire data. NASA Contractor Report 177587.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: This paper describes "the results of the simulator experiment, in which various measures of performance were recorded and derived." One of the measures was "self-assessed measures of workload by the pilots" ... for this measure, "Each pilot assessed his own workload subjectively at the end of the flight using the 'Participant Survey', an unweighted version of the NASA Task Load Index ... This form consists of six workload-related dimensions: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration. Pilots reported their responses along a seven-point Likert scale ('Low' to 'High') with high numbers indicating greater amounts of the dimension in question." Data was analyzed for this study from a total of 11 2-man crews, 6 of the crews flying a DC-9 and 5 of the crews flying a MD-88. "Self-assessment scores were analyzed by casting the data into a 2-by-2 (aircraft type-by-seat) analysis of the variance (ANOVA). This allowed statistical assessment of the influence of cockpit technology (DC-9 vs. MD-88), duty assignment (captain vs. first officer), and the interactions (non-additive combined effects) of these two variables. The role of PF versus PNF was not examined."
    See all Evidence from this resource

  55.  
  56. Source: Wiener, E.L. Chidester, T.R., Kanki, B.G., Palmer, E.A., Curry, R.E., & Gregorich, S.E. (1991). The Impact of Cockpit Automation on Crew Coordination and Communication: I. Overview, LOFT Evaluations, Error Severity, and questionnaire data. NASA Contractor Report 177587.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: "Questionnaires were designed to elicit pilot opinions, experience level, and specific information and viewpoints. It was somewhat difficult to design a questionnaire that would be equally responsive to the needs and opinions of DC-9 and MD-88 crews. [There was a total of 73 pilots who returned the questionnaires, 18 DC-9 first officers, 24 DC-9 captains, 16 MD-88 first officers, and 15 MD-88 captains.] Most MD-88 pilots had flown traditional cockpit aircraft; but only eight of the 42 DC-9 pilots (all captains) had experience in advanced airliners (B-767/757). In this study we do not take into account military or corporate aircraft the volunteers may have previously flown. The questionnaires were mailed to the volunteers in January 1990. ... Most of the questionnaires were returned by the end of the March; a few straggled in during April and May. They were designed with the goal that they could be filled out in one hour. Some respondents attached lengthy answers to some questions ... The questionnaire contained the following parts: 1. Bibliographic information on flying experience ... 2. A 28-item Likert attitude scale [with five response levels: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree] ... An item consists of a 'probe', which is a positive or negative statement to which the respondent is asked his degree of agreement/disagreement. ... 3. Information was sought on the number of various types of instrument approaches ... 4. Eight open-ended questions"
    See all Evidence from this resource

  57.  
  58. Source: Wise, J.A., Abbott, D.W., Tilden, D., Dyck, J.L., Guide, P.C., & Ryan, L. (1993). Automation in Corporate Aviation: Human Factors Issues. CAAR-15406-93-1. Daytona Beach, FL: Center for Aviation/Aerospace Research, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
    Source Type:   Survey
    Synopsis: This is "a summary of a two year study that investigated the impact of automation in corporate aviation cockpits. ... The approach followed in this study emulated previous work in the air carrier environment (e.g., Wiener, 1989). In general the study used three data collection techniques to cover all aspects of automation and corporate cockpits. They were: Questionnaires, Flight observations, Simulator observations" ... "The questionnaire was specifically developed to survey pilots who regularly fly corporate missions ... with 'glass cockpit' experience." The questionnaire was composed of both Likert-Scale attitude opinions and open-ended questions. "The open-ended questions were designed to obtain information on various aspects of cockpit automation by giving pilots the opportunity to report their opinions and experiences in response to a variety of issues ... Although the open-ended questions provided very useful and informative information, they were very subjective and the most difficult to summarize. ... After the questions were reviewed by the research staff, many categories began to emerge. ... The response frequencies for the question categories are summarized" 421 questionnaires were analyzed. There were 15 open-ended questions and approximately 2,200 open ended responses.
    See all Evidence from this resource
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.