An Examination of Pilot-Reported Trust and Response to Information Conflicts Experienced on the Flight Deck
Abstract
Abstract. The purpose of this study was to examine how pilots respond to conflicting information on the flight deck. In this study, 108 airline, corporate, and general aviation pilots completed an online questionnaire reporting weather, traffic, and navigation information conflicts experienced on the flight deck, including which information sources they trusted and acted on. Results indicated that weather information conflicts are most commonly experienced, and typically between a certified source in the panel and an uncertified electronic flight bag application. Most participants (a) trusted certified systems due to their accuracy, reliability, recency, and knowledge about the source, and (2) acted on the certified system due to trust, being trained and required to use it, and its indicating a more hazardous situation.
References
(2005). Reactions of air transport flight crews to displays of weather during simulated flight (Report ODURF-130971). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20050110297
(2021). Integrating uncertified information from the electronic flight bag into the aircraft panel: Impacts on pilot response. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(7), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1854001
(2020). Decision making with conflicting information: Influencing factors and best practice guidelines. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2020.1764660
(2019). Examining pilot decision making in information-rich cockpits. Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium of Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH, 73–78. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/isap_2019/13
(2020). Review of aviation safety databases to identify information discrepancies experienced on the flight deck: Implications for NextGen. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 10(2), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1027/2192-0923/a000192
(2015). How does information congruence influence diagnosis performance? Ergonomics, 58(6), 924–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1005163
(2001). Designing for situation awareness in complex systems. Paper presented at the Second International Workshop on Symbiosis of Humans, Artifacts and Environment, Kyoto, Japan.
. (2011). Advisory Circular 23.1309-lE: System safety analysis and assessment for Part 23 airplanes. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23_1309-1E.pdf
. (2017). Advisory Circular 91.78: Authorization for use of electronic flight bags. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/1032166
(2015). Training pilots for collision avoidance within a realistic operating context. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 12(7), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010291
(2012). Automation bias and prescribing decision support – rates, mediators and mitigators (Unpublished doctoral thesis). City University.
(2013). The electronic flight bag: Friend or foe? Air Safety Group Report No. 104.
(2005). Searching for cues: An analysis on factors effecting the decision making process of regional airline pilots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 12(7), 578–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900377
(1973). Information seeking with multiple sources of conflicting and unreliable information. Human Factors, 15(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872087301500412
(2007). What you don’t know can hurt you: Factors impacting diagnosis in the automated cockpit. Human Factors, 49(2), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X312513
(1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0801_3
(2004). Identifying the factors that contributed to the Überlingen midair collision. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(1), 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120404800142
(1998). Pilot situation awareness and alerting system commands. SAE Transactions, 107(1), 28–38.
(2012). Pilot interaction with TCAS and air traffic control. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Application and Theory of Automation in Command and Control Systems (pp. 117–126). IRIT Press.
(1999). Automation: Decision aid or decision maker? (No. NASA/CR-1998-207767). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980048379
