Pilot Non-Conformance to Alerting System Commands
This research project examined the effects of consonance between cockpit displays and alerting system as a technique to encourage pilots to conform to alerting system commands. An experiment used the task of collision avoidance during closely spaced parallel approaches as a case study, building upon previous experiments which identified instances of non-conformance and conflicts between the alerting criteria preferred by pilots, compared to that used by alerting systems. Using a workstation based, part-task simulator, each of 45 subjects completed 45 experiment runs. In each run, the subjects were told they were flying an approach. Their primary task was to keep their wings level despite turbulence through the use of a sidestick. The sidestick commands did not affect the path of the aircraft, however, so that consistent approach paths were be followed. Their secondary task was to indicate when an aircraft on a parallel approach is blundering towards them, as evidenced by the traffic display. Subjects were asked to press different buttons indicating whether they feel an avoidance maneuver is required by the traffic situation or not. At the completion of each run, subjects were asked to rate their confidence in their decision and, if appropriate, to rate the timeliness of automatic alerts when had been given. Three different automatic alert conditions were tested. The "No Automatic Alerts Given" condition is self-explanatory. In the "Automatic Alerts Based on NTZ Criteria" condition, an automatic alert was given when the NTZ criteria was triggered; this criteria is consistent with subject reactions in other studies, in which subjects were found to react, on average, when the other aircraft was 1350 min to the side of the own aircraft. In the "Automatic Alerts Based on MIT Criteria" condition, an automatic alert was given when the MIT criteria was triggered; this criteria was developed by Carpenter and Kuchar for parallel approaches to have better performance, at the cost of increased complexity and higher sensitivity to pilot non-conformance. Three displays were tested. The "Baseline Display" is based on a moving map display, with a top-down view, track-up orientation, iconic presentation of the other aircraft's positions and a text presentation of the other aircraft's altitude. The "NTZ Alert Criteria Shown" display added to the Baseline Display an explicit presentation on the display of the boundary delineating the NTZ criteria, allowing for quick comparison of the other aircraft's position relative to this alert criteria. Likewise, the "MIT Alert Criteria Shown" display added to the Baseline Display an explicit presentation on the display of the boundary delineating the MIT criteria, allowing for quick comparison of the other aircraft's position relative to this alert criteria The test matrix for this experiment was three dimensional, varying displays, alerts and traffic conflict scenarios.