Document
TH 25 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES
INCORPORATING DATA LINK MESSAGING INTO A
MULTI-FUNCTION DISPLAY FOR
GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
Catherine A. Adams, Jennifer L. Murdoch, Ph.D.
Research and Technology Directorate, NASA Langley Research Center representational elements required for Abstract presenting dynamic messaging, sequence, One objective of the Small Aircraft procedure, and flight path conformance Transportation System (SATS) Project is to information on a multi-function display (MFD) increase the capacity and utilization of small to aid pilots in making flight decisions.
non-towered, non-radar equipped airports by Although an optimized interface was not the transferring traffic management activities to an primary purpose of the research endeavor, automated system and separation inherent in the design of the display was the responsibilities to general aviation (GA) pilots. need to provide pilots with accurate information This paper describes the development of a about the state of inbound and outbound airport research multi-function display (MFD) to operations as well as aircraft position through support the interaction between pilots and an data link messaging and traffic symbology.
automated Airport Management Module (AMM). Preliminary results of simulation and This paper describes the design of a display that flight tests indicate that adding the incorporates data link messaging as a decision responsibility of monitoring other traffic for support tool to enable pilots to self separate self-separation does not increase pilots’ while flying to SATS designated airports.
subjective workload levels. Pilots preferred Included is a discussion of two empirical using the enhanced MFD to execute flight investigations. Simulation and flight studies procedures, reporting improved situation were conducted to examine the effects of SATS awareness over conventional instrument flight flight procedures and a related research MFD on rules (IFR) procedures. GA pilots’ perceptions of workload and situation awareness (SA).
1 Introduction 2 Background The Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) research and development project, led Currently, during instrument meteorological by the National Aeronautics and Space conditions (IMC) at small, remote airports, air Administration (NASA) in partnership with the traffic control (ATC) uses procedural separation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and a that limits instrument flight rules (IFR) consortium of U.S. industry, governments, and operations to only one approaching or departing academia, is investigating many new challenges aircraft at a time – the “one-in/one-out” for single pilot instrument flight and technology paradigm – a safe yet capacity limiting development. An objective of this project is to operation.
increase the capacity of small non-towered, non- The SATS Higher Volume Operations (HVO) radar equipped airports by transferring traffic concept breaks this paradigm and increases management activities to an automated Airport operational efficiency by allowing multiple, Management Module (AMM) and separation simultaneous operations [1].
responsibilities to general aviation (GA) pilots.
This challenge is associated with designing the ADAMS, MURDOCH Central to the SATS HVO concept is a set of 3 Development of the SATS HVO Research procedural rules that enable self-separation and Multifunction Display (MFD) enhance throughput in a newly defined area of flight operations, a Self-Controlled Area (SCA).
The SATS HVO research MFD is shown in The SCA is established around SATS Figure 2. The platform for the research designated airports during periods of IMC.
interface, an Avidyne® EX5000 MFD, was Within the SCA, it is envisioned that pilots will selected because the research aircraft [i.e., use advanced airborne systems to execute NASA Langley Research Center’s (LaRC) procedures by relying on automated dependent Cirrus SR22] has this MFD installed in its surveillance-broadcasts (ADS-B), two way data instrument panel. The interface was reproduced link, and appropriate self-separation tools.
for use during a simulation study with the Additionally, an AMM (i.e., a new, ground- functionality being carried over to a flight based automation system typically located at the experiment. The researchers examined the airport) will provide appropriate sequencing Avidyne® display’s existing capabilities to information to arriving aircraft. However, in facilitate the integration of SATS requirements contrast to ATC, the AMM will not provide necessary to achieve the objectives established separation, clearances, or altitude assignments for HVO (i.e., the ability to self-separate, avoid and will not control aircraft or sequence conflicts, communicate with the AMM, and departures.
display traffic information).
2.1 The SATS HVO “T” Procedure for Flight The challenge for the human factors researchers Operations was to prescribe, design, and position messaging elements required to convey critical The smooth flow of self-separating traffic will data relevant to the pilot’s role in self-separation depend on compliance with a SATS HVO and in executing the IFR procedure.
procedure (Figure 1) adapted from the Terminal Consideration for the pilot’s instrument scan Arrival Area basic “T” approach [2]. In the ENTRY: VERT KMFV-IAF: AZBEZ Figure 1: SATS HVO Procedure.
SATS procedure, pilots will either make a vertical or a lateral entry into the SCA. For a vertical entry, the aircraft (aircraft at 4000 ft) descends at increments of 1000 ft from a Figure 2: SATS HVO Research MFD.
transition fix, outside the SCA, following other and mental workload was important since the traffic within the airspace. If there are no other display was intended to augment the aircraft at the initial approach fix (IAF) to which information provided by the primary flight the aircraft is assigned, a lateral entry directly to displays without depleting attentional resources the IAF is possible (blue aircraft ).
NOVEL DATA LINK MESSAGING IN A MULTI-FUNCTION DISPLAY FOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT [3]. Additionally, display requirements needed based on the data received). Rather than display to provide messaging, features, and symbols a message such as “… cleared to 2000,” the that were in compliance with industry accepted message “open: 2000” was used to indicate that standards where possible. Assumptions made the pilot may advance along the approach path for guiding the display design included: 1) since no aircraft is located ahead of the ownship retaining useful features of the current at the stated altitude (a safe vertical and Avidyne® display; 2) redefining actions for horizontal distance is assured thereby some of the softkeys to facilitate interaction preventing a conflict with another aircraft).
with the AMM and the aircraft control and navigation systems; 3) gating data link 3.2 Map elements and related symbology messages to dedicated windows within the MFD; 4) easing search tasks via the location of Several features of the Avidyne® MFD were text windows and map symbology; 5) making retained and layered on top of flight operation colour, size, and shape coding distinctive, area bitmaps. These included: the active way intuitive, and salient; and 6) using phraseology point window, flight path renderings and colour as close to the current ATC lexicon as possible coding, fixes, a top mounted and centered [5]. heading box and heading scales with range indication, and the range knob.
3.1 Task Analysis and Requirements Crucial to the task of self-separation was the Identification pilot’s requirement for knowledge regarding the status of the airspace and airport within the A typical IFR flight, without any failure modes SCA. Standards for electronic displays vary occurring, was disaggregated into higher order among organizations allowing some flexibility tasks such as: communicating with ATC or in coding, selecting designs, and locating requesting a sequence from the AMM windows for gating data linked information.
(depending on whether a flight was a “baseline” Based on general recommendations, it was flight using the current IFR system or a SATS decided that traffic information would be flight) and initiating a procedure segment such incorporated into the display so that the pilot as entering the airport or SATS airspace, could identify the lead aircraft as well as traffic descending to a lower altitude, holding at fixes within the SCA. Rather than use range buffers or transition points on a descent or climb, or or arcs to indicate protected zones, pilots were flying directly to the IAF, holding at the IAF, cued by an alert and a “Pilot Advisor” message initiating the approach, executing a missed indicating that their airspeed or flight path approach, or landing or departing.
deviations might be impacting operations.
Ranging off the mileage marker incorporated For each task, requirements for information, into the heading scale helped pilots orient the actions required to make electronic requests or ownship relative to other traffic or the airport retrieve information, and modalities for depending on the segment of flight. Data tags representing information were identified. For with registration numbers, ground speed, climb this research, computer generated aural and descent arrows [based on traffic alert and commands or coupled tone-text presentations collision avoidance (TCAS) II guidelines], and were not implemented. Of particular importance relative altitudes were added to facilitate SA and in the development of the phraseology for the reduce scan to acquire targets [4]. To assure messaging system was the need to provide correspondence between IFR chart symbols information without controlling the pilot’s where possible, dashed lines were used to actions (i.e., the pilot must take responsibility indicate missed approach paths.
for processing the information and making decisions to execute the instrument procedure ADAMS, MURDOCH By design, the SATS HVO procedure should in a dedicated AMM window. Similarly, flight prevent the intrusion of one aircraft upon path conformance as well as speed and altitude another. However, an important requirement transgressions, based on a speed profile and a was to indicate when the proximity of an defined containment area, appear in a dedicated aircraft might pose a conflict. Look ahead times Pilot Advisor (PA) window.
were based on time and distance considering the aircraft speed profiles and state vectors. TCAS 3.4 Text windows and gated data link II color-coding was used in the algorithms for messages conflict detection, but the paradigm stopped short of providing resolutions at this stage. The aircraft symbols used were chevrons that AMM changed color and characteristic, thereby providing redundant coding, rather than the Alerting PA shape changes prescribed by the TCAS document [4, 5]. Chevrons provided intuitive directional information by virtue of their Figure 3. Text Windows orientation.
The researchers positioned three windows in the 3.3 Text messaging upper periphery of the display, level with the lateral scan of the pilot. The alert window was With the exception of departures and non- placed in the upper left corner, and the AMM normal situations, no communications between and PA windows were situated in the upper controller and pilot are required once the aircraft right corner below the active waypoint window enters the SCA. Inside the SCA, the pilot uses (Figure 3). The following are highlights of each the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency window’s features.
(CTAF) to announce intentions and for party line communications with other aircraft. 3.4.1 Alert Window Communications occur between the AMM and The alert window provides alerting messages to other aircraft via dynamic messaging tailored to the pilot. New and changed information is the segment of the approach. The AMM and the identified and prioritized. After a dwell time, ADS-B data link communications are used to irrelevant alerts deselect themselves, and the generate messages to guide the pilot’s decisions window disappears. Alerts include: “AMM” to regarding following a particular aircraft, indicate messaging in the AMM window; “REQ adhering to the flight path, and monitoring SEQ” to indicate that the pilot may request a aircraft performance to assure self-separation. sequence via a “Sequence/Request” on- As a result of this messaging, the pilot executes condition button located on the left side of the an approach procedure and monitors the flight display (Figures 2, 3); “Advisor” to instruct the path. If transgressions from the flight path and pilot to attend to the PA window for procedural performance profile occur, the aircraft system information; “Message” to advise the pilot that advises the pilot that speed, heading, or altitude messages can be accessed through the “MSG>” should be adjusted to prevent loss of separation button located on the right side of the display from traffic aircraft. (Figure 2); and “Traffic” (in reverse background amber or red) to alert the pilot to impending Based on Drury’s model of intelligent search, conflicts.
the research MFD’s windows were sited to guide the pilot’s attention to specific elements 3.4.2 AMM Window [3]. For example, the data transmitted by the The AMM window (Figures 4) provides airport AMM (i.e., airport identifier, approach, missed information ENTRY:VERT approach fixes, and sequence data) are depicted similar to that KMFV-IAF:AZBEJ FOLLOW:N022GC GPS03 MAHF:AZBEJ NOVEL DATA LINK MESSAGING IN A MULTI-FUNCTION DISPLAY FOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT of a flight plan. When a sequence request is as on-condition buttons to accommodate the made, the AMM determines the aircraft’s requirements of operating in a SATS position in relationship to other aircraft within environment and were dedicated to sequence the vicinity and in the SCA and provides a requests and next leg functions. The on- sequence to the aircraft. In this case, a vertical condition labels appear during appropriate entry, the airport identifier and IAF are segments of flight. For example, the provided. The sequence is in the form of “Sequence/Request” action signals the AMM “FOLLOW: <aircraft registration number>” that an aircraft wants to enter the SCA and land.
rather than a queue number. The fourth line of The “Next Leg” button is pressed to provide information provided in this window shows the flight path guidance when a pilot skips or exits a approach filed (GPS approach 03) and the hold or to execute a missed approach. The Alert location of the missed approach holding fix and AMM windows and the button labels (MAHF) – AZBEJ. Irrelevant information appear only when an action is required. The disappears as the pilot proceeds along the button labels disappear after buttons are pressed.
approach. For example, upon entering the SCA, During the simulation study described below, a entry and airport information drop off. As the “MSG>” button along with arrow buttons allow aircraft becomes the first for landing, access to an automatic terminal information “FOLLOW: N022GC” updates to “FOLLOW: services (ATIS) message. The MSG> label was NONE.” Only the approach type and missed always present so that the pilot could retrieve approach continue to be displayed. current or updated ATIS information; this eliminates interruption tasks such as writing OPEN:3000 3.4.3 PA Window down flight critical information and reduces OPEN:2000 Procedure information demands on the pilot’s working memory [6].
is gated to the PA TTA:2:25 window (below the 4.0 Preliminary Validation of the SATS HVO TOO CLOSE AMM window) Concept CHECK SPEED indicating when the Figure 5: PA messages aircraft is out of Two empirical investigations were conducted to conformance with the validate the SATS HVO concept – a simulation flight path, when the airspace below is available study involving 15 subject pilots, and a flight for manoeuvring, the total time until the test involving 12 subject pilots. The purpose of approach can be initiated, and when the the simulation and flight studies was to answer approach is open for initiation. Messages the questions: “Can pilots safely and associated with more urgent flight path proficiently fly an airplane while performing conformance transgressions are blue. Figure 5 SATS HVO procedures?” and “Do pilots lists some of the messages relating to flight path perceive that workload, while performing HVO progression as well as provides one of the procedures, is no greater than flying in today’s conformance messages. system?” Dependent measures included flight technical error, subjective assessments of 3.5 Softkeys workload and SA, and observed aircraft throughput with respect to airport usage.
The Avidyne® MFD has Summary results associated with subjective five softkeys located on assessments of workload and SA (including each side of the display traffic awareness and navigation guidance screen and two control awareness) are provided below. Coeffiencts for knobs located below the Mean (M), Standard deviation (SD) and display screen (Figure probability ( p ) are provided throughout the 6). Several of the results sections.
softkeys were redefined Figure 6: Softkeys ADAMS, MURDOCH 4.1 Simulation Study Results participants reported experiencing higher levels of workload when they performed the baseline Fifteen instrument rated GA pilots, each with departure procedure as compared with the approximately 355 total flight hours ( M = 355, SATS departure procedure ( p = 0.04) and when SD = 230), participated in a simulation study they performed the baseline approach #2 conducted at NASA LaRC during May 2004. procedure as compared with the SATS approach During the experiment, participants used a GA #2 procedure ( p = 0.04).
desktop simulator to fly five flight scenarios (i.e., one departure, three approaches, and one 4.1.2 Subjective assessments of SA missed approach) according to baseline (i.e., SA refers to a pilot’s perception and current day) as well as SATS HVO procedures. interpretation of information relevant to a particular task [9]; in this case – a procedure for 4.1.1 Subjective assessments of workload departing from or arriving at an airport. After Participants used the Modified Cooper-Harper performing each test condition, participants (MCH) Rating Scale to rate the level of completed a Situational Awareness Rating workload that they experienced during each of Technique (SART) instrument that included the the simulation study’s 10 test conditions. three dimensions of demand, supply, and Workload ratings could range on a scale from understanding as well as two independent “1” (i.e., the instructed task was very dimensions of traffic awareness and navigation easy/highly desirable; operator mental effort guidance awareness. Global SART ratings can was minimal; and desired performance was range from 1 (representing a low level of SA) to easily attainable) to “10” (i.e., the instructed 14 (representing a high level of SA). In the task was impossible; it could not be current study, participants’ SART ratings accomplished reliably) [7]. As reported below, ranged from 3 to 13. For traffic awareness and the Wilcoxon Test (i.e., a nonparametric within- navigation guidance awareness, scores ranging subject test appropriate for analyzing two from 2 to 7 on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high) related samples of ordinal data) was employed were collected from the participants. As as a conservative method for analyzing reported below, Wilcoxon Tests were used to workload ratings associated with discrete rating analyze the participants’ SART, traffic scale items [8]. awareness, and navigation guidance awareness ratings.
When workload ratings were averaged across the five types of flight scenarios, participants SART ratings were averaged across the five reported experiencing a workload level of 1.69 types of flight scenarios resulting in a mean when performing the SATS procedures ( M = rating of 9.6 for the SATS procedures ( M = 9.6, 1.69, SD = 0.54, N = 75) and reported SD = 1.97, N = 75) and a mean rating of 8.05 experiencing a workload level of 2.59 when ( M = 8.05, SD = 2.68, N = 75) for the baseline performing the baseline procedures ( M = 2.59, procedures. The results of a Wilcoxon Test SD = 1.37, N = 75). A Wilcoxon Test revealed indicated that, at a statistically significant level, that, at a statistically significant level, the SART ratings associated with the participants reported experiencing a lower level performance of the SATS procedures were of workload when they performed the SATS higher than those associated with the procedures than when they performed the performance of the baseline procedures ( p = baseline procedures ( p = 0.05). When 0.02). When examining the SART ratings that examining the workload ratings that participants participants provided when they performed provided when they performed different types different types of scenarios using baseline of scenarios using baseline procedures and procedures and SATS procedures, Wilcoxon SATS procedures, Wilcoxon Tests revealed Tests revealed that, at a statistically significant that, at a statistically significant level, level, participants reported experiencing higher NOVEL DATA LINK MESSAGING IN A MULTI-FUNCTION DISPLAY FOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT levels of SA when lateral approaches were procedures rather than the baseline procedures performed using the SATS procedures rather ( p < 0.05).
than the baseline procedures ( p = 0.02 and p = 0.03 respectively). 4.2 Flight Test Results Traffic awareness ratings were averaged across Twelve instrument rated GA pilots drawn from the five types of flight scenarios resulting in a the simulation study’s subject pool, each with mean rating of 6.55 for the SATS procedures ( M approximately 400 total flight hours ( M = 407, = 6.55, SD = 0.72, N = 75) and a mean rating of SD = 258), participated in a flight experiment 5.59 ( M = 5.59, SD = 1.43, N = 75) for the conducted by NASA LaRC during July – baseline procedures. The results of a Wilcoxon October 2004. During the flight test, Test indicated that, at a statistically significant participants used NASA LaRC’s Cirrus SR22 level, the traffic awareness ratings associated research aircraft to fly three flight scenarios with the performance of the SATS procedures (i.e., two approaches and one missed approach) were higher than those associated with the according to baseline as well as SATS HVO performance of the baseline procedures ( p = procedures.
0.0003). When examining the traffic awareness ratings that participants provided when they 4.2.1 Subjective assessments of workload performed different types of scenarios using Participants used the MCH scale to rate the baseline procedures and SATS procedures, level of workload that they experienced during Wilcoxon Tests revealed that, at a statistically each of the flight test’s six test conditions.
significant level, participants reported When workload ratings were averaged across experiencing higher levels of traffic awareness the three types of flight scenarios, participants when all approaches (including the missed reported experiencing a workload level of 1.57 approach) were performed using the SATS when performing the SATS procedures ( M = procedures rather than the baseline procedures 1.57, SD = 0.43, N = 36) as compared to a ( p < 0.02). workload level of 2.35 when performing the baseline procedures ( M = 2.35, SD = 0.62, N = Navigation guidance awareness ratings were 36). A Wilcoxon Test revealed that participants averaged across the five types of flight scenarios reported experiencing a lower level of workload resulting in a mean rating of 6.45 for the SATS when they performed the SATS procedures than procedures ( M = 6.45, SD = 0.65, N = 75) and a when they performed the baseline procedures ( p mean rating of 5.44 ( M = 5.44, SD = 1.30, N = = 0.02). When examining the workload ratings 75) for the baseline procedures. The results of a that participants provided when they performed Wilcoxon Test indicated that, at a statistically different types of scenarios using baseline significant level, the navigation guidance procedures and SATS procedures, Wilcoxon awareness ratings associated with the Tests revealed that participants reported performance of the SATS procedures were experiencing higher levels of workload when higher than those associated with the lateral approaches performed using the baseline performance of the baseline procedures ( p = procedures as compared with the SATS 0.001). When examining the navigation procedures ( p = 0.04 and p = 0.005 guidance awareness ratings that participants respectively).
provided when they performed different types of scenarios using baseline procedures and 4.2.2 Subjective assessments of SA SATS procedures, Wilcoxon Tests revealed After each test condition, participants’ SA that, at a statistically significant level, ratings were collected via a SART instrument participants reported experiencing higher levels that included two independent dimensions of of navigation guidance awareness when all five traffic awareness and navigation guidance flight scenarios were performed using the SATS awareness [9]. Participants’ global SART ADAMS, MURDOCH ratings ranged from 1.5 (indicating a relatively the SATS procedures rather than the baseline low level of SA) to 11.5 (indicating a relatively procedures ( p = 0.04 and p = 0.01 respectively).
high level of SA). For traffic awareness, scores ranging from 2 to 7 on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 Navigation guidance awareness ratings were (high) were collected from the participants, and averaged across the three types of flight scores ranging from 1.5 to 7 on a scale of 1 scenarios resulting in a mean rating of 6.43 for (low) to 7 (high) were collected for navigation the SATS procedures ( M = 6.43, SD = 0.48, N = guidance awareness. 36) and a mean rating of 5.29 ( M = 5.29, SD = 1.40, N = 36) for the baseline procedures. The When SART ratings were averaged across the results of a Wilcoxon Test indicated that, at a three types of flight scenarios, a mean rating of statistically significant level, the navigation 7.74 was calculated for the SATS procedures guidance awareness ratings associated with the ( M = 7.74, SD = 1.84, N = 36), and a mean performance of the SATS procedures were rating of 6.03 ( M = 6.03, SD = 2.46, N = 36) higher than those associated with the was calculated for the baseline procedures. performance of the baseline procedures ( p = However, a Wilcoxon Test revealed that a 0.004). When examining the navigation statistically significant difference did not exist guidance awareness ratings that participants between the mean SART rating for the SATS provided when they performed different types procedures and the mean SART rating for the of scenarios using baseline procedures and baseline procedures ( p = 0.08). SATS procedures, Wilcoxon Tests revealed When examining the SART ratings that that, at a statistically significant level, participants provided when they performed participants reported experiencing higher levels different types of scenarios using baseline of navigation guidance awareness when lateral procedures and SATS procedures, Wilcoxon approaches were performed using the SATS Tests revealed that, statistically speaking, procedures rather than the baseline procedures participants reported experiencing higher levels ( p = 0.05 and p = 0.01 respectively).
of SA when lateral approach was performed using the SATS procedures rather than the 4.3 Usability baseline procedures ( p = 0.02).
Traffic awareness ratings were averaged across The purpose of the experiment was not to the three types of flight scenarios resulting in a optimize the MFD but to see if pilots could mean rating of 6.33 for the SATS procedures ( M safely execute the procedures. However, the = 6.33, SD = 0.77, N = 36) and a mean rating of communications between aircraft and air-to- 5.44 ( M = 5.44, SD = 1.47, N = 36) for the ground as well as violations of conformance and baseline procedures. The results of a Wilcoxon alerting of potential conflicts had to be delivered Test indicated that, statistically speaking, the through an effective interface. At the end of the participants reported equivalent traffic simulation a formal usability questionnaire was awareness ratings when they performed the administered to obtain the pilots’ perspective of SATS procedures and when they performed the the arrangement of text windows, the baseline procedures ( p = 0.08). When symbology, the delivery of information and examining the traffic awareness ratings that alerting schemes. Generally (93%), pilots liked participants provided when they performed the moving map noting they could see traffic different types of scenarios using baseline and that it was intuitive to use. Pilots did want procedures and SATS procedures, Wilcoxon terrain rendering and the ability to tailor the Tests revealed that, at a statistically significant display based on their preferences. SA was level, participants reported experiencing higher reported to be greatly enhanced by the map.
levels of traffic awareness when later approach and the missed approach were performed using NOVEL DATA LINK MESSAGING IN A MULTI-FUNCTION DISPLAY FOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT A high percentage of the subject pilots (47%) assure task execution without negatively felt the Alert Window was helpful. The alert impacting workload or SA. Future research messaging directed the pilot to a particular endeavors will focus on minimum equipage for position on the screen where SATS operations through assessing the utility of information/symbology was changing, the Pilot Advisor in self-separation tasks, non- eliminating random search activities. Two pilots normal conditions such as emergencies or were confused about the type of information in instrument-to-visual flight rules transitions, the windows and noted that they didn’t scan the aural alerting, and alternative MFD design alert window; rather, they scanned for refreshed configurations.
information in the AMM and PA. Pilots did feel 6.0 References that the alert window should blink on initial presentation or that they had already noticed [1] Williams, D. M., Consiglio, M. C., Murdoch, J. L., & changes to symbology. The AMM window was Adams, C. A. (2004, August). Preliminary validation considered very useful by 60% of the pilots and of the small aircraft transportation system higher useful to 33% of pilots citing good feedback, volume operations (SATS HVO) concept. Paper th extremely helpful at unfamiliar airports, and presented at the 24 International Congress of the important for updating operational information Aeronautical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan.
[2] Federal Aviation Administration. (2004).
relating to aircraft on approach. No negative Aeronautical information manual. Retrieved comments were received. The PA window was September 1, 2004, from considered useful to very useful by 93% of the http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.ht pilots.
ml#5-4-1 [3] Wickens, C.D., & Hollands, J. G. (1999).
rd Engineering psychology and human performance (3 Pilots were more critical about the color coding ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
scheme, recommending changes in brightness of [4] Federal Aviation Administration. (1993).
the greens, changing cyan to a color that is more Airworthiness approval of traffic alert and collision distinctive, and requesting colors that had better avoidance systems (TCASII) and Mode S contrast. Several comments regarding transponders (AC No: 20-131B). Washington, DC: Author.
attentional attributes were made such as [5] Cardosi, K., & Hannon, D. (1999). Guidelines for the coupling blinking with color. Symbol coding use of color in ATC displays. Cambridge, MA: John and size were considered adequate by most A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
pilots (73%) with 27% reporting the symbols as (NTIS No. A489763) [6] McGann, A., Morrow, D., Rodvold, M., & somewhat appropriate.
Mackintosh, M.A. (1998). Mixed-media communication on the flight deck: A comparison of 5.0 Conclusions voice, data link and mixed ATC environments. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 137- In both the simulation and flight tests, 156.
considering the lower workload and higher SA [7] Wierwille, W. W., & Casali, J. G. (1983). A valid rating scale for global mental workload measurement.
data for SATS over baseline scenarios, it could th Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27 be inferred that the SATS HVO research display Annual Meeting, USA, 129-133.
was an effective interface for assisting pilots in [8] Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS® for Windows™: Base the execution of SATS IFR approaches. This system user’s guide, 6.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
implies that dynamic messaging, tailored to the [9] Endsley, M. R., Selcon, S. J., Hardiman, T. D., & SATS operational domain and coupled to the Croft, D. G. (1998). A comparative analysis of SAGAT and SART for evaluations of situation phase of flight in a logical, progressive nd awareness. Proceedings of the 42 Annual Meeting sequence facilitated pilots in their decision of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, USA, making while flying in IFR conditions. Gating 82-86 the messages to dedicated windows and providing on-condition cueing via softkeys provided a sufficient level of information to