Use of traffic displays for general aviation approach spacing : a human factors study
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Use of traffic displays for general aviation approach spacing : a human factors study

Filetype[PDF-1.55 MB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Creators:
  • Corporate Creators:
    John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.)
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    DOT/FAA/AM-07/30
  • Resource Type:
    Research Paper
  • Corporate Publisher:
    United States. Office of Aerospace Medicine
  • Abstract:
    A flight experiment was conducted to assess human factors issues associated with pilot use of traffic displays for approach

    spacing. Sixteen multi-engine rated pilots participated. Eight flew approaches in a twin-engine Piper Aztec originating in

    Sanford, ME, and eight flew approaches in the same aircraft originating in Atlantic City, NJ. The spacing target was a

    Cessna 206. The traffic display was either a Garmin International MX-20™ (the “Basic” Cockpit Display of Traffic

    Information, or CDTI) or an MX-20™ modified with features to help the pilot monitor the closing rate, the range and

    ground speed of the traffic-to-follow, and ownship ground speed (Range Monitor). Two other Equipment conditions were

    Baseline and Autopilot. Pilots successfully used the displays to maintain the assigned spacing on visual and instrument

    approaches. The spacing deviations were significantly lower when using the displays during visual approaches than when

    attempting to maintain spacing without a traffic display. The mean spacing deviation during the IFR approaches was less

    than 0.10 NM for all three equipment conditions (Basic CDTI, Range Monitor, Autopilot), and these mean spacing

    deviations did not differ significantly. Range Monitor features appeared to particularly benefit the low-hour pilots. While

    the traffic display reduced visual reacquisition times, this effect was only found with pilots whose displays showed additional

    traffic (not only the traffic-to-follow). In general, however, the additional traffic was associated with less time between

    fixations on the display and higher workload. Subjects appeared to have had difficulty identifying an optimal display range

    that would simultaneously provide traffic awareness and spacing task performance. The traffic display necessarily requires

    visual attention and reduces the attention available for scanning the instrument panel and on visual approaches, the outside

    world. For this reason, even if pilots assume responsibility for spacing when they temporarily lose visual contact with the

    assigned traffic-to-follow, they should notify ATC of the loss of visual contact so that controllers can assume responsibility

    for separation from other aircraft.

  • Format:
    PDF
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov