[<Normal page] [PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D [ed] (20082). Ergonomization attitudes in general aviation. Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2011, pages 56-60.]
Ergonomization attitudes in GA
Casner explored the attitudes of general aviation pilots towards advanced cockpit systems (ACS, namely glass-cockpits) in 20081. He asked a group of general aviation pilots from the California Bay area about their attitudes towards ACS. Although the majority of pilots did not have flying experience with glass-cockpit aircraft, Casner's research found that, in general, pilots believed that ACS were a positive step forward, even when they also perceived them to be potentially problematic (see table 1). These and other related attitudes towards ACS are collated in the following tables. The reader needs to note, however, that these attitudes are not necessarily based on direct experience, thus they may not be particularly reliable and may only represent an idealistic understanding of ACS and their features.
| Table 1. General attitudes towards ACS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| Want more ACS features | 4.17 | agree | |
| ACS may mean trouble | 3.80 | agree | |
| ACS are too complicated | 2.89 | neutral | |
| ACS depress flying skills | 2.72 | neutral | |
| Feel like a button pusher | 2.63 | neutral | |
| ACS has gone too far | 2.14 | disagree | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding workload
Table 2 collates results regarding cockpit workload. GA pilots typically considered ACS to be a favourable tool for managing workload, especially the autopilot, but also the GPS and related systems.
| Table 2. Attitudes towards how ACS affect workload | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| Autopilot lowers workload | 4.50 | strongly agree | |
| GPS lowers workload | 3.98 | agree | |
| Better workload management with ACS | 3.72 | agree | |
| Too many warnings | 2.86 | neutral | |
| Too much time operating autopilot | 2.67 | neutral | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding awareness
Table 3 collates results regarding situational awareness. GA pilots typically considered ACS as a tool that allowed them to gain more situational awareness when flying.
| Table 3. Attitudes towards how ACS affect awareness | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| Raised awareness with ACS | 4.15 | agree | |
| Aware of GPS and autopilot modes | 3.56 | agree | |
| More awareness without GPS | 2.75 | neutral | |
| Do less sky scanning with TCAS | 2.68 | neutral | |
| Worry of ACS's lack of transparency | 2.68 | neutral | |
| Feel lost without GPS navigation | 2.02 | disagree | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding learning
Table 4 collates results regarding learning flying skills (especially for ab-initio pilots). GA pilots typically considered that learning on an ACS-equipped aircraft was more complex and took longer than on a conventional aircraft.
| Table 4. Attitudes towards how ACS affect learning | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| ACS require experience | 4.06 | agree | |
| ACS require more learning/memory | 3.93 | agree | |
| FAA should publish ACS handbook | 3.83 | agree | |
| ACS restrict learning skills | 3.78 | agree | |
| Flight tests should include ACS skills | 3.77 | agree | |
| FAA tests should include ACS | 3.75 | agree | |
| Don't understand ACS fully | 3.66 | agree | |
| PIC should have ACS endorsement | 3.47 | neutral | |
| GPS approaches are learnt fast | 3.11 | neutral | |
| FAA guidance on ACS is sufficient | 2.48 | disagree | |
| ACS technical manuals are comprehensive | 2.47 | disagree | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding flight proficiency
Table 5 collates results regarding how ACS affect retaining flight proficiency. GA pilots did not typically consider ACS as a threat to their proficiency, but neither considered them an advantage.
| Table 5. Attitudes towards how ACS affect proficiency | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| Need more ACS hours for proficiency | 3.40 | neutral | |
| Worry to become dependent on ACS | 3.17 | neutral | |
| Worry ACS affect basic flying skills | 2.79 | neutral | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding pilot error
Table 6 collates results regarding how ACS help manage pilot errors. GA pilots typically considered ACS as a tool that allowed them to capture and prevent specific errors much easily, although this might not help much with other errors (probably those not directly affected by ACS).
| Table 6. Attitudes towards how ACS affect pilot error | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| GPS reduce navigational errors | 4.19 | agree | |
| ACS create new errors | 4.07 | agree | |
| ACS reduce navigational and altitude errors | 3.58 | agree | |
| ACS reduce pilot errors | 3.18 | neutral | |
| It is easier to detect errors in ACS | 2.86 | neutral | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding safety
Table 7 collates results regarding how ACS help manage safety. In contrast to the results presented in table 6, GA pilots did not typically consider ACS as a good tool for managing safety. Indeed, although some features might help prevent some type of accidents (eg CFIT and mid-air collisions), other types of accidents may remain unaffected or may even increase, especially if pilots were to stretch safety margins because of their over-reliance on ACS.
| Table 7. Attitudes towards how ACS affect safety | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| Pilots will stretch safety with ACS | 3.88 | agree | |
| Terrain displays will reduce CFIT | 3.80 | agree | |
| TCAS will reduce mid-air collisions | 3.71 | agree | |
| Weather displays will reduce weather accidents | 3.49 | neutral | |
| ACS feel safer | 3.20 | neutral | |
| GPS will reduce accidents | 3.08 | neutral | |
| Aircraft with airframe parachutes feel safer | 2.66 | neutral | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Attitudes regarding use of ACS
Table 8 collates results regarding preference for specific ACS features. GA pilots did not typically consider ACS as a good tool for managing flight operations, except in circumstances where automation (ie autopilot) may reduce workload and where the displayed information may be easier to understand (GPS navigation versus VOR navigation).
| Table 8. Attitudes towards using ACS features in flight | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| attitude | mean* | interpretation | |
| Prefer autopilot when high workload | 4.34 | agree | |
| Prefer GPS to navigate | 4.28 | agree | |
| Prefer autopilot when en route | 4.03 | agree | |
| Prefer hand-flying when low workload | 3.38 | neutral | |
| Prefer autopilot in instrument approach | 3.37 | neutral | |
| Prefer autopilot in missed approach | 2.98 | neutral | |
| *average value out of 53 | |||
Methods
Research approach
- This was an exploratory study of general aviation pilots' attitudes towards advanced [glass] cockpit systems.
Sample
- A convenient sample of 134 general aviation pilots from California Bay Area.
- The sample comprised the following demographics: pilots holding a PPL (66.4%), CPL (26.1%) and ATPL (7.5%); flight instructors (13.4%), other (non-student) pilots (86.6%).
- Other demographic variables of interest: median flight time = 650 hours; median flight time with some GPS navigation = 155 hours; median flight time on advanced glass-cockpits = 0 hours.
Materials
- A questionnaire surveying 52 attitudinal variables, plus 5 multiple-choice / supply-type. The attitudinal variables were regarding advanced cockpit systems, of which 50% were expressed positively and 50% negatively. They required an assessment of personal agreement, measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Strongly agree" to "Strongly disagree".
- The questionnaire 'probed' nine topic areas: general attitudes towards advanced cockpit systems, workload, awareness, learning, retention, error, safety, preferences for in-flight use, and overall preferences.
Procedure
- Pilots were approached in person and invited to participate in the research ad-hoc (paper and pencil survey).
- All responses were anonymous.
Data analysis
- Quantitative analyses, including univariate (namely descriptives and histograms) and bivariate statistics (namely correlations).
Generalization potential
Given the exploratory approach of the research and the small sample and its convenience, the results from this study may not have enough scope for generalization. They could be indicative of similar attitudes in the following 'populations' (in order of decreasing generalization power):
- General aviation pilots with characteristics similar to this sample, namely California-trained pilots, using airplanes, flying for business (including instructing other pilots), and holding private or commercial licences.
- General aviation pilots of similar characteristics working in the US.
- General aviation pilots of similar characteristics working elsewhere.
Want to know more?
- AviationKnowledge - Ergonomization
- This AviationKnowledge page offers further information on aviation ergonomization.
- Casner's (2008) article
- The original article expands these results further, incorporating comparisons with previous research, and providing histogram charts for most results.
Editor
Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2011). Massey University, Turitea Campus, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. (JDPerezgonzalez).
Peer-reviewers
Anthony FRYER (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (Anthony Fryer).
Amber WAN (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (Amber Wan).
| Other interesting sites |
 Journal KAI |
 Wiki of Science |
 AviationKnowledge |
 A4art |
 The Balanced Nutrition Index |
