Advertisement

Flight Eye Tracking Assistant (FETA): Proof of Concept

  • Christophe LounisEmail author
  • Vsevolod Peysakhovich
  • Mickaël Causse
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 964)

Abstract

Accident investigations show that piloting errors (e.g., incorrect trajectory) often result from an inadequate monitoring of the cockpit instruments. Recent improvements of the eye tracking technology now allow a reliable and rather accurate recording of eye movements in ecological environments. The present study investigates how the integration of eye tracking in the cockpit could help pilots performing an efficient surveillance of their instruments. We developed FETA, an embedded system that evaluates online the visual monitoring of the cockpit. The system compares the current visual scan of the pilot with a database of “standard” visual circuits established thanks to eye-tracking recordings from 16 airlines pilots. If the current visual scan deviates too much from the database, e.g., the speed is not fixated during a too long period, FETA emits a vocal alarm to reorient attention. This paper presents the development of FETA and its preliminary evaluation with 5 airlines pilots. During an approach-landing phase in flight simulator; we assessed the impact of FETA on situation awareness, cognitive resources, flight performance, and visual scans. Results showed that FETA system efficiently redirected attention toward critical flight instruments. However, improvements must be performed to satisfy with operational requirements. For example, it seems important to take also into-account flight parameters in order to limit unnecessary alerts.

Keywords

Eye-tracking Aviation Human factors Neuroergonomics Human computer interaction Flying assistant Assistive technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a chair grant from Dassault Aviation (“CASAC”, holder: Prof. Mickaël Causse)”. The Authors thank the PEGASE simulator technical team and all the pilots who participated in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Boeing. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations, 1959–2014; Aviation Safety. Boeing Commercial Airplanes: Seattle, WA, USA (2015). http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  2. 2.
    Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D.: “From tool to agent”: the evolution of (Cockpit) automation and its impact on human-machine coordination. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 79–83. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, October 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Button, K.: Wings Across Europe: Towards an Efficient European Air Transport System. Routledge, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chialastri, A.: Automation in aviation. In: Automation. IntechOpen (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, J.D.: Human factors and ergonomics in automation design. In: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3rd edn, pp. 1570–1580. Wiley. Hoboken (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, J.D.: Human factors and ergonomics in automation design. In: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 1580–1596 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mumaw, R.J., Sarter, N., Wickens, C.D.: Analysis of pilots’ monitoring and performance on an automated flight deck. In: 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.8, May 2001Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parasuraman, R., Manzey, D.H.: Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum. Factors 52(3), 381–410 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wickens, C.D., Clegg, B.A., Vieane, A.Z., Sebok, A.L.: Complacency and automation bias in the use of imperfect automation. Hum. Factors 57(5), 728–739 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berberian, B., Somon, B., Sahaï, A., Gouraud, J.: The out-of-the-loop Brain: a neuroergonomic approach of the human automation interaction. Ann. Rev. Control 44, 303–315 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sumwalt, R., Cross, D., Lessard, D.: Examining how breakdowns in pilot monitoring of the aircraft flight path. Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerospace 2(3), 8 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flight Safety Foundation (FSF). A Practical Guide for Improving Flight Path Monitoring: Final Report of the Active Pilot Monitoring Working Group, November 2014. https://flightsafety.org/toolkits-resources/flight-path-monitoring/
  13. 13.
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 14 CFR Part 121 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; Final Rule; Federal Register: Washington, DC, USA, vol. 78, no. 218 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    British European Airways (BEA). Study on Aeroplane State Awareness during Go-Around (2013). https://www.bea.aero/etudes/asaga/asaga.study.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  15. 15.
    Peysakhovich, V., Lefrançois, O., Dehais, F., Causse, M.: The neuroergonomics of aircraft cockpits: the four stages of eye-tracking integration to enhance flight safety. Safety 4(1), 8 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lounis, C., Peysakhovich, V., Causse, M.: Intelligent cockpit: eye tracking integration to enhance the pilot-aircraft interaction (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russi-Vigoya, M.N., Patterson, P.: Analysis of pilot eye behavior during glass cockpit simulations. Procedia Manuf. 3, 5028–5035 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldberg, J.H., Stimson, M.J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., Wichansky, A.M.: Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, pp. 51–58. ACM, March 2002Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor, R.M.: Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: Situational Awareness, pp. 111–128. Routledge (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tattersall, A.J., Foord, P.S.: An experimental evaluation of instantaneous self-assessment as a measure of workload. Ergonomics 39(5), 740–748 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sommer, D., Golz, M.: Evaluation of PERCLOS based current fatigue monitoring technologies. In: 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, pp. 4456–4459. IEEE, August 2010Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caffier, P.P., Erdmann, U., Ullsperger, P.: Experimental evaluation of eye-blink parameters as a drowsiness measure. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 89(3–4), 319–325 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Lounis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vsevolod Peysakhovich
    • 1
  • Mickaël Causse
    • 1
  1. 1.ISAE-SUPAERO, Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations