Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Dismukes, R. K.

Publications and source records attributed to Dismukes, R. K..

Cockpit Interruptions and Distractions: Effective Management Requires a Careful Balancing Act

Managing several tasks concurrently is an everyday part of cockpit operations. For the most part, crews handle concurrent task demands efficiently, yet crew preoccupation with one task to the detriment of performing other tasks is one of the more common forms of error in the cockpit. Most pilots are familiar with the December 1972 L1011 crash that occurred when the crew became preoccupied with a landing gear light malfunction and failed to notice that someone had inadvertently bumped off the autopilot. More recently a DC-9 landed gear-up in Houston when the crew, preoccupied with an stabilized approach, failed to recognize that the gear was not down because they had not switched the hydraulic pumps to high. We have recently started a research project to study why crews are vulnerable to these sorts of errors. As part of that project we reviewed NTSB reports of accidents attributed to crew error; we concluded that nearly half of these accidents involved lapses of attention associated with interruptions, distractions, or preoccupation with one task to the exclusion of another task. We have also analyzed 107 ASRS reports involving competing tasks; we present here some of our conclusions from those ASRS reports. These 107 reports involved 21 different types of routine tasks crews neglected at a critical moment while attending to another task. Sixty-nine percent of the neglected tasks involved either failure to monitor the current status or position of the aircraft or failure to monitor the actions of the pilot flying or taxiing. Thirty-four different types of competing activities distracted or preoccupied the pilots. Ninety percent of these competing activities fell into one of four broad categories: communication (e.g., discussion among crew or radio communication), heads-down work (e.g., programming the FMS or reviewing approach plates), responding to abnormals, or searching for VMC traffic. We will discuss examples of each of these four categories and suggest things crews can do to reduce their vulnerability to these and similar situations.

Dismukes, R. K.↗

Cockpit Interruptions and Distractions: An Analysis of ASRS Reports and an Experimental Program

A recent detailed analysis of 107 ASRS incident reports focusing on interruptions and distractions as their primary feature revealed several interesting and surprising findings. Of those tasks that were interfered with, over 40% fell within the category of monitoring; for example, monitoring the autopilot flying the aircraft, monitoring the pilot flying, or monitoring the altimeter or navigation instruments for future action. Surprisingly, over 60% of the tasks that were considered distractions fell under the broad category of communication or conversation. Using these findings, we have developed an experimental paradigm that will help us understand the method by which pilots perform certain monitoring tasks. Specifically, we hope to determine the degree to which pilots rely on internal time mechanisms versus external cues as a means of successfully completing a monitoring task. In addition, we will incorporate a battery of competing aviation type tasks, including communication, to see how these tasks affect the process of monitoring. The long range goal of this research is to find operational solutions that facilitate effective monitoring in the presence of both sudden interruptions and distractions that lead to unintended multiple tasks situations.

Dismukes, R. K.↗

Human performance in the modern cockpit

This panel was organized by the Aerospace Human Factors Committee to illustrate behavioral research on the perceptual, cognitive, and group processes that determine crew effectiveness in modern cockpits. Crew reactions to the introduction of highly automated systems in the cockpit will be reported on. Automation can improve operational capabilities and efficiency and can reduce some types of human error, but may also introduce entirely new opportunities for error. The problem solving and decision making strategies used by crews led by captains with various personality profiles will be discussed. Also presented will be computational approaches to modeling the cognitive demands of cockpit operations and the cognitive capabilities and limitations of crew members. Factors contributing to aircrew deviations from standard operating procedures and misuse of checklist, often leading to violations, incidents, or accidents will be examined. The mechanisms of visual perception pilots use in aircraft control and the implications of these mechanisms for effective design of visual displays will be discussed.

Dismukes, R. K.↗