Introducing a New Spacing Instruction. Impact of Spacing Tolerance on Flight Crew Activity

Abstract

To assess the benefits and limits of a new spacing instruction from flight crew perspectives, a pilot-in-the-loop experiment was conducted. Beyond assessing interface usability and overall feasibility, the experiments aimed at analysing the impact of various tolerance margins on flight crew activity and efficiency. Flight crew feedback was generally positive. Despite a new task in the cockpit, which requires appropriate assistance to contain workload, pilots highlighted the positive aspects of getting in the loop, understanding their situation (through goal-oriented instructions), and gaining anticipation. Results showed that even though the smallest tolerance margin (0.25NM) led to increased workload, the spacing deviation was usually below 0.5NM.

Toward a better understanding of task demands, workload, and performance during physician-computer interactions

“…[20][21][22][23][24] Numerous studies in various health care settings demonstrate that excess task demands and workload streaming from task complexities, [25][26][27] cross-coverage, 28 workflow interruptions, 29 suboptimal workflows, 30 job-related stress, 31 staffing levels, 32 and overall cognitive information processing [33][34][35][36][37][38] can hinder performance and safety. Workload in general has been shown to affect performance, including in aviation [39][40][41][42] and nuclear power. [44][45]…”

Evaluation of Flight Deck-Based Interval Management Crew Procedure Feasibility

“…Previous work by EUROCONTROL found two speed changes per minute was acceptable to the flight crew when performing spacing operations. 16,17 In this experiment, the frequency of speed changes was highest from 6,000 ft to the FAF, but was still less than one per minute in all scenarios. Statistical analysis was performed using the one-sample Poisson rate test, a hypothesis test appropriate for analyzing the number of occurrences of an event in a given length of time.…”

“…The precise merging and spacing enabled by FIM avionics and flight crew procedures reduces excess spacing buffers and results in higher terminal throughput. Studies by MITRE, [12][13][14] EUROCONTROL, [15][16][17][18] and NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) [19][20][21] have demonstrated an increase in efficiency through the use of FIM operations.…”

An Evaluation of a Flight Deck Interval Management Algorithm including Delayed Target Trajectories

“…Previous studies indicated that a speed change rate of less than two speed changes per minute was acceptable to pilots and therefore used as a benchmark for this study. 16,17 Means and upper 95% confidence bounds for number of speed commands for each of the segments are shown in Table 1. The speed change rate includes speed changes used to correct for spacing errors and speed changes that were part of the nominal approach procedures.…”