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

Details

• Creators:
  Nadler, Eric ; Yost, A. ; Kendra, A. J.
• Corporate Creators:
  John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.)
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  ADS-B Displays Air Traffic Control Applied Psychology CDTI Displays Human Factors Information Display Systems Navigation Displays Psychology
• 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):
  FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Volpe Center
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:0faea9ea6d2277268aa7632f130bc7961a9ed882bc1e3b4e3a023352998ad615
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9018/dot_9018_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.55 MB ]