No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Development of a theoretical model of pilot decision making with conflicting information
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2023
Abstract
The advancement of technology on the modern commercial flight deck has allowed flight crew members to utilise multiple sources of information to maintain the safety of their flight. Having multiple sources of flight deck information, capable of displaying the same type of information, can lead to a situation in which a pilot encounters conflicting information. Understanding how a pilot makes a decision when faced with an information conflict on the flight deck is important to ensure appropriate design of flight-deck information systems and effective pilot training. This effort utilised data collected from 25 airline pilots who experienced information conflicts on a simulated B-737 flight deck, in conjunction with a theoretical review of how information conflicts impact decision making, to develop a theoretical model of pilot decision-making in the presence of an information conflict. This manuscript describes the model, along with the theory-driven and data-driven approaches utilised to develop the model.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Federal Aviation Administration. Flight Standards Service, AC 120-76D, Authorization for Use of Electronic Flight Bags, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-76D.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., Sanchez, P. and Wilt, D. An examination of pilot-reported trust and response to information conflicts experienced on the flight deck, Aviat Psychol Appl Human Factors, 2021, 11, (2), pp 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipshitz, R. and Strauss, O. Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis, Organiz Behav Human Decis Proces, 1997, 69, (2), pp 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M.B. and Sanchez, P.. Decision making with conflicting information: influencing factors and best practice guidelines, Theor Issues Ergonom Sci, 2021, 22, (3), pp 296–316.Google Scholar
Skitka, L.J. Automation: Decision Aid or Decision Maker? NASA Technical Reports Server, 1999. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980048379Google Scholar
Fleming, E.S. and Pritchett, A.R. Training for pilots for collision avoidance with a realistic operating context, J Aerosp Inform Syst, 2015, 12, (7), pp 467–475. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010291Google Scholar
Pritchett, A.R. Pilot situation awareness and alerting system commands, SAE Trans, 1998, 107, (1), pp 28–33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44735718Google Scholar
Bahner, J.E., Huper, A.D. and Manzey, D. Misuse of automated decision aids: complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience, Int J Human-Comput Stud, 2008, 66, (9), pp 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001Google Scholar
Pritchett, A.R., Fleming, E.S., Cleveland, W.P., Zoetrum, J.J., Popescu, V.M. and Thakkar, D.A. Pilot interaction with TCAS and air traffic control, In 2nd International Conference on Application and Theory of Automation in Command and Control Systems, London, 2012.Google Scholar
Mosier, K.L., Sethi, N., Mccauley, S., Khoo, L. and Oransanu, J.M. What you don’t know can hurt you: Factors impacting diagnosis in the automated cockpit, Human Factors: J Human Factors Ergonom Soc, 2007, 49, (2), pp 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X312513CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St John, M., Callan, J.; Holste, S.T. Tactical decision-making under uncertainty: experiments I and II, Defense Technical Information Center, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.D. and See, K.A. Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance, Human Factors, 2004, 46(1), p 50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orasanu, J.M. Flight crew decision-making. In Crew resource management, pp 147–179. Academic Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Chen, K. and Li, Z. How does information congruence influence diagnosis performance?, Ergonomics, 2015, 58, (6), pp 924–934.Google ScholarPubMed
Carroll, M., Rebensky, S., Wilt, D., Pittorie, W., Hunt, L., Chaparro, M. and Sanchez, P. Integrating uncertified information from the electronic flight bag into the aircraft panel: impacts on pilot response, Int J Human-Comput Interact, 2021, 7, p 630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, D., Pittorie, W., Carroll, M. and Sanchez, P. Review of aviation safety databases to identify information discrepancies experienced on the flight deck, Aviat Psychol Appl Human Factors, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach, Manag Sci, 1991, 37, pp 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.7.770Google Scholar
Jensen, R.S. The boundaries of aviation psychology, human factors, aeronautical decision-making, situation awareness, and crew resource management, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1997, 4, p 259.Google Scholar
Schriver, A.T., Morrow, D.G., Wickens, C.D. and Talleur, D.A. Expertise differences in attentional strategies related to pilot decision making, Human Factors, 2008, 50, (6), pp 864–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, M., Hale, K., Stanney, K., Woodman, M., Devore, L., Scquire, P. and Sciarni, L. Framework for training adaptable and stress-resilient decision making, In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference, Orlando, FL, 2012.Google Scholar
Gilson, R.D., Deaton, J.E. and Mouloua, M. Coping with complex alarms: sophisticated aircraft cockpit alarm systems demand a shift in training strategies, Ergonom Des, 1996, 4(4), pp 12–18.Google Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, FAA-H-8083-25B, Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, 2016.Google Scholar