Workload Functions Distribution Method: A Workload Measurement Based on Pilot’s Behaviors

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9736)

Abstract

According to the airworthiness regulation, FAR25.1523 published by Federal Aviation Administration, the minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation considering the workload on individual crew members. Considering workload evaluation, typically, the measurements classified into three types: performance measures, subjective rating scale measures and psychophysiological measures. However, although these measurements are widely used in various fields, they could not reflect the behavior of flight crew during flight tasks comprehensively, especially their workload functions. Normally, the basic workload functions based on the flight crew behaviors consist of six aspects: flight path control, collision avoidance, navigation, communication, operation and monitoring of aircraft engines and systems and command decisions. In this study, upon the above six aspects, a measurement named Workload Function Distribution Method was developed, considering flight crew behaviors including fixations, actions and communications in flight tasks. In order to verify the Workload Function Distribution Method, three flight tasks with different complexity were carried out among 6 flight crews in a CRJ200 flight simulator. The three flight tasks were standard instrument approach, non-precision approach with normal weather condition and non-precision approach with turbulence. Furthermore, one of the subjective rating scale measures, NASA-TLX, was used as a verification method which collected after each task. The experiment results indicated that Workload Function Distribution Method could distinguish the different complexity of flight tasks, and related to the NASA-TLX Scale.

In conclude, Workload Function Distribution Method was built up in this study. This measurement could effectively represent the flight crew workload based on their behaviors in flight tasks.

Keywords

Fixation Operation Workload Workload function 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    EASA, Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EASA, CS-25 BOOK2 Acceptable Means of Compliance (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stassen, H., et al.: Final Report of Control Engineering Group on Mental Load, in Mental Workload: Its Theory and Measurement, pp. 235–252. Plenum Press, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eggemeier, F.T., et al.: Workload Assessment in Multi-Task Environments Multiple-Task Performance, pp. 207–216. Taylor and Francis, London (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kramer, A.F., Sirevaag, E.J., Braune, R.: A psychophysiological assessment of operator workload during simulated flight missions. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 29(2), 145–160 (1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corwin, W.H., et al.: Assessment of Crew Workload Measurement Methods, Techniques and Procedures, vol. 1. Process, Methods and Results (1989). DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gawron, V.J.: Human Performance, Workload, and Situational Awareness Measures Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Nocera, F., Camilli, M., Terenzi, M.: A random glance at the flight deck: pilots’ scanning strategies and the real-time assessment of mental workload. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 1(3), 271–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmer, E., Brownson, A.: Review of workload measurement, analysis and interpretation methods. Eur. Organ. Safety Air Navig. 33 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cain, B.: A Review of the Mental Workload Literature (2007). DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wickens, C.D., Huey, B.M.: Workload Transition: Implications for Individual and Team Performance. National Academies Press, Washington DC (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Annett, J.: Subjective rating scales: science or art? Ergonomics 45(14), 966–987 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramaekers, D., et al.: Heart rate variability and heart rate in healthy volunteers. Eur. Heart J. 19, 1334–1341 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    FAA, A.C., Airplane Simulator Qualification (AC 120–40B), F.A. Adminstration, (ed.), Washington, DC (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Soc. 50(3), 449–455 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wickens, C.D., McCarley, J.S.: Applied Attention Theory. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buhusi, C.V., Meck, W.H.: Relative time sharing: new findings and an extension of the resource allocation model of temporal processing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364(1525), 1875–1885 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zheng, Y., et al.: Developing a measurement for task complexity in flight. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 86(8), 698–704 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kasarskis, P., et al.: Comparison of expert and novice scan behaviors during VFR flight. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mumaw, R., Sarter, N., Wickens, C.: Analysis of pilot’s monitoring and perfomance on an automated flight deck. In: International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shanghai Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Center of CAACShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations