Pilot Detection of Masked Hazards and Failures in Manual and Automated Flight
S. van den Eijkel (TU Delft - Aerospace Engineering)
Max Mulder – Mentor (TU Delft - Control & Simulation)
Olaf Stroosma – Mentor (TU Delft - Control & Simulation)
H.M. Landman – Mentor (TU Delft - Control & Simulation)
Marinus M.(René) van Paassen – Mentor (TU Delft - Control & Simulation)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of manual and autopilot control on hazard and failure detection in aviation, in cases where the autopilot can masks or diminishes cues of aircraft movement. This mechanism could result in loss of situation awareness, upsets and ultimately accidents. Twenty airline pilots participated in an experiment in which two scenarios, an engine failure and icing accumulation hazard, were flown in both manual and autopilot control conditions. Results show no significant difference in detection time for the engine failure scenario between the two modes, but a marginally significant difference in the icing accumulation scenario and a clear difference in the way pilots detected the failure/hazard. Manual control may provide clearer cues, but automation may lower workload and allow for better monitoring. Monitoring of the flight controls was found to be an important factor in hazard detection, with pilots who had their hands resting on the controls having significantly lower detection times. The study provides insights on the importance of active monitoring of flight controls and on the impact of non-backdriven controls. The findings suggest that understanding the advantages and disadvantages of autopilot use is crucial for training pilots effectively.