Comparing Response Behaviors to System-Limit and System-Malfunction Failures with Four Levels of Operational Proficiency

Author:

Du Junmin1ORCID,Yunusi Padun1,He Shuyang1,Ke Peng1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

Abstract

Commercial aircraft are becoming highly automated, but pilots must take control if automation systems fail. Failures can be due to known limitations (system-limit failures) or unforeseen malfunctions (system-malfunction failures). This study quantifies the impact of these failures on response performance and monitoring behavior, considering four levels of operational proficiency. In a flight simulator with pitch, roll, and yaw, 24 participants experienced both types of failures at different proficiency levels. The results showed that system-malfunction failure response times were 3.644, 2.471, 2.604, and 4.545 times longer than system-limit failure response times at proficiency levels 1 to 4. Monitoring behaviors (fixation duration, saccade duration, fixation rate) differed between failure types and proficiency levels. Considering these differences in response performance and monitoring behavior between failure types, it is important to differentiate between system-limit and system-malfunction failures in the literature and not overlook the influence of proficiency. Furthermore, due to the unpredictability of system-malfunctions, it is crucial to develop pilots’ psychological models and training theories regarding the operation of automated systems, fostering their core competency to excel in handling unknown situations.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes,Computer Science Applications,Process Chemistry and Technology,General Engineering,Instrumentation,General Materials Science

Reference34 articles.

1. AAIBE (2019). Aircraft Accident Investigation Preliminary Report: B737-8 (MAX) Registered ET-AVJ.

2. National Transportation Safety Board (2014). Accident Report NTSB/AAR-14/01 PB2014-105984, Descent below Visual Glidepath and Impact with Seawall Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Boeing 777-200ER.

3. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2011). ATSB Transport Safety Report, Aviation Occurrence Investigation AO-2008-070, In-Flight Upset 154 km West of Learmonth, WA 7 October 2008 VH-QPA Airbus A330-303.

4. FAA (2023). Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Section 91.3—Responsibility and Authority of the Pilot in Command.

5. An Ethical Inquiry of the Effect of Cockpit Automation on the Responsibilities of Airline Pilots: Dissonance or Meaningful Control?;Holford;J. Bus. Ethics,2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3