Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:48:18.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pilot task demand load during RNAV approaches with a Cessna Citation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

M. M. Heiligers,
K. T. P. van Bennekom,
T. J. van Tuinen,
Th. van Holten and
M. Mulder
K. T. P. van Bennekom
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands
T. J. van Tuinen
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands
Th. van Holten
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands
M. Mulder
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This research aims to develop a method which predicts the task demand load as experienced by pilots while flying an area navigation (RNAV) approach. First, this will yield insight in which aspects of an approach actually influence pilot task demand load. And second, during the design of approaches this method can be used to rapidly evaluate a potential approach and to ‘optimise’ an approach with respect to pilot task demand load. During previous research, focusing on approaches flown with a B747, a list of factors that influence pilot task demand load has been obtained, as well as a method to keep pilot task demand load at an acceptable level. The method consists of seven guidelines to be adhered to during approach design. This paper shows that the list of factors and the method do not only apply to a B747 aircraft but are generally applicable to other aircraft as well. This is underpinned by results from both flight simulator tests and real flight tests with TU Delft’s Cessna Citation laboratory aircraft. Additionally, it is shown that there are no discrepancies between the list of factors influencing pilot task demand load resulting from the flight simulator tests and the list of factors resulting from the real flight tests.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 115 , Issue 1169 , July 2011, pp. 421 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011 

References

1. Stassen, H.G., Johannsen, G. and Moray, N. Internal Representation, Internal Model, Human Performance Model and Mental Workload. Automatica, 1990, 26, (4), pp 811–820.Google Scholar
2. Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) Task Force. Killers in Aviation: FSF Task Force Presents Facts about Approach-and-landing and Controlled-flight-into-terrain Accidents, Flight Safety Digest, November 1998 – February 1999.Google Scholar
3. Heiligers, M.M., Holten Th., Van and Mulder, M. Predicting pilot task demand load during final approach, Int J Aviation Psychology, October-December 2009, 19, (4), pp 391–416.Google Scholar
4. Vicente, K.J. Cognitive Work Analysis, Towards Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
5. Baron, S., Zacharias, G., Muralidharan, R. and Lancraft, R. PROCRU: A model for analyzing flight crew procedures in approach to landing, NASA-MIT 16th Annual Manual, 1980, pp 488–520.Google Scholar
6. Baron, S., Kruser, D.S. and Huey, M.B. Quantitative Modeling of Human Performance in Complex, Dynamic Systems, National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA, 1990.Google Scholar
7. Corker, K.M. Human Performance Simulation in the Analysis of Advanced Air Traffic Management, Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference, Farrington, P.A., Nembhard, H.B., Sturrock, D.T. and Evans, G.W. (Eds), 1999.Google Scholar
8. Gore, B.F. and Corker, K.M. A Systems Engineering Approach to Behavioral Predictions of an Advanced Air Traffic Management Concept, 19th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Entering the Second Generation of Powered Flight, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, 2000.Google Scholar
9. Smith, B.R. and Tyler, S.W. The Design and Application of MIDAS: A Constructive Simulation for Human-System Analysis, 2nd Simulation Technology and Training Conference, Canberra, Australia, 1997.Google Scholar
10. Heiligers, M.M., van Holten, Th. and Mulder, M. Feasibility analysis of Achieving a Stabilized Approach, 26th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2008.Google Scholar
11. Heiligers, M.M., van Holten, Th. and Mulder, M. Flight mechanical evaluation of approaches, J Aircraft, 48, (3), May-June 2011, pp 975–994, DOI 10.2514/1.C031188.Google Scholar
12. Heiligers, M.M., van Holten, Th. and Mulder, M. Factors that influence Pilot Task Demand Load during RNAV Approaches, J Aircraft, 48, (3), May-June 2011, pp 975–994, DOI 10.2514/1.C031188.Google Scholar
13. Heiligers, M.M., van Holten, Th. and Mulder, M. Seven guidelines for limiting pilot task demand load area navigation approaches, accepted for publication in J Aircr.Google Scholar
14. Heiligers, M.M. Pilot Task Demand Load during RNAV approaches, PhD thesis, Ipskamp drukkers, The Netherlands, 2010.Google Scholar
15. Hilburn, B. and Jorna, P. Workload and Air Traffic Control. In Hancock, and Desmond, P.A. (Eds) Stress, Workload and Fatigue: Theory, Research and Practice, 2001, Hillsdale, New Jersey, US: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
16. Godley, S.T. Perceived Pilot Workload and Perceived Safety of RNAV (GNSS) Approaches, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, ATSB Transport Safety Investigation Report, Aviation Safety Research and Analysis Report 20050342, 2006.Google Scholar
17. International Civil Aviation Organization, Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations, Volume II Constructions of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures, 5th ed, 2006.Google Scholar
18. Borst, C. Citast: Citation Analysis and Simulation Toolkit, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004.Google Scholar
19. Hanke, R.C. and Nordwall, Donald R. The Simulation of a Jumbo Jet Transport Aircraft Volume II: Modeling Data, NASA report D6-30643, September 1970, Wichita, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
20. Aircraft Operations Manual TU Delft Laboratory Aircraft.Google Scholar
21. Zijlstra, F. and Meijman, Th. Het meten van mentale inspanning met behulp van een subjectieve methode, Mentale belasting en werkstress, een arbeidspsychologische benadering, Meijman, Th. (Ed), Van Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands, 1989.Google Scholar
22. Lodge, M. Magnitude Scaling, Quantitative Measurement of Opinions, Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07-025, Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
23. Meijman, T., Zijlstra, F., Kompier, M., Mulders, H. and Broersen, J. The Measurement of Perceived Effort, Contemporary Ergonomics 1986, Oborne, D.J. (Ed), Taylor & Frances, London, 1986.Google Scholar
24. Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research, Advances in Psychology, 52, pp 139–183, Hancock, P.A., Meskati, N. (Eds), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988.Google Scholar
25. Jamieson, S. Likert Scales: how to (ab)use them, Medical Education 2004, 38, pp 1217–1218, Blackwell Publishing, 2004.Google Scholar
26. Knapp, T.R. Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: an attempt to resolve the controversy, Nursing Research, March/April 1990, 39, (2), pp 121–123.Google Scholar