Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace 2014
DOI: 10.1145/2669592.2669685
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Toward single pilot operations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The new design approach manages off-nominal situations and emergencies comparable to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) ConOps (Johnson et al 2012;Lachter et al 2017). In the latter one, dedicated support would be assigned to the single-pilot aircraft in high-workload and urgent situations among which are adverse physiological states, suspicious entries into aircraft systems, incapacitation and loss of control (Brandt et al 2015;Dao et al 2015;Lachter et al 2014;Ligda et al 2015). It was suggested combining an autoland procedure with new automation technology to enable a safe automated landing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The new design approach manages off-nominal situations and emergencies comparable to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) ConOps (Johnson et al 2012;Lachter et al 2017). In the latter one, dedicated support would be assigned to the single-pilot aircraft in high-workload and urgent situations among which are adverse physiological states, suspicious entries into aircraft systems, incapacitation and loss of control (Brandt et al 2015;Dao et al 2015;Lachter et al 2014;Ligda et al 2015). It was suggested combining an autoland procedure with new automation technology to enable a safe automated landing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is because a non-verbal message can be a regulator, which is used to control, maintain or discourage interaction [55], for example, by holding up a hand to discourage communication. There is also a common preference for face-to-face communication among pilots, perhaps instilled from traditional training methods, as demonstrated in a study that examined crew interaction on physically separated pilots [56]. They observed some confusion from pilots not being able to point or exchange paper (e.g., charts), although, most importantly, this did not appear to interfere with the quality of decision making.…”
Section: Workloadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This SiPO concept was promoted in a number of simulation studies undertaken by NASA [47,61]. The 1:1 remote pilot configuration was evaluated in simulated in-flight diversion and emergency scenarios in the NASA SPO II trials [62]. These trials also involved several prototype collaboration tools to enhance pilot/ground-station communication and coordination.…”
Section: High Level System Architecturesmentioning
confidence: 99%