Display on Demand Method Increases Time Spent Looking Outside the Cockpit

The objective of the present study was to test a training method to increase the time spent looking outside the cockpit and suggest its integration into future modern cockpit training programs. Specifically, this aimed at determining an application framework dedicated to basic visual flight skills (VFR) for gliders and light aircraft. The Aeronautical Information Manual (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] AIM 8.1.6.C.3, 2020) recommends that “the time a pilot spends on visual tasks inside the cabin should represent no more than 1/4 to 1/3 of the scan time outside.” However, cockpits are becoming more and more digital, either through cockpit-integrated instrumentation or by carrying portable electronic devices. These devices increase distraction and air safety issues (Funk et al., 1999; Kelly & Efthymiou, 2019; National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], 2020) by increasing the amount of time spent in the cabin. For example, Johnson and coworkers (2006) reported that the time spent in the cabin without such instruments (e.g., GPS) increases from 40% to 80% with such instruments. Casner (2005, 2006) showed that the use of GPS for VFR navigation reduces situational awareness because the pilots in his study no longer took their bearings in the outside world. The NTSB reported that the widespread use of these instruments in light aviation has increased the number of fatal accidents compared with aircraft equipped with analog cockpits (NTSB, 2010).

Studies have shown that, in the laboratory, it is possible to modulate the allocation of visual–spatial attention to artificial tasks that mimic aeronautical tasks (e.g., Froger et al., 2018). Froger et al. (2018) tested a training method to improve visual attention sharing as a means to support the implementation of the FAA recommendations. They used a specific virtual environment developed to expose participants to a dual-task situation that mimics aeronautical activity. This dual-task condition consisted of one task located in the upper part of the screen (i.e., visual search representing the see-and-avoid safety task within the visual range) and one task located in the lower part of the screen representing the system management activity. These two tasks, although presented at the same time, cannot be carried out simultaneously and require switching from one to the other. Eye movements were recorded to measure the duration of eye fixation on each task. In the control condition, it was found that participants spent 60% of their time looking at the bottom task and 40% of their time on the top task. In the experimental condition, the bottom task was masked as soon as the participant spent more than 2 s on this task, forcing the participant to take their eyes off the bottom task and make it reappear. Participants were trained in this condition for 12 min. The duration of eye fixation was re-evaluated immediately after the training session and 24 hr later without the bottom task being masked. The results showed that these participants spent 60% of their time looking up and 40% down after training. The authors concluded that it is possible to permanently modify the allocation of visual-attention resources using a method that displays information for a short period.

Although the use of eye monitoring has the potential to improve learning outcomes, its intensive use is limited by several technological barriers (e.g., sensitivity to sunlight). It seems interesting, therefore, to find an alternative to the eye-tracking option to ensure that student pilots acquire basic flying skills, namely, basic flight maneuvers and visual attention to the outside world.

An alternative procedure to eye-tracking is to use a cockpit without information and make information accessible for a short time at the request of the student pilots so as to involve the student more actively in his or her learning. Chen and Singer (1992) demonstrated that strategic input or an adapted method from coaches or instructors was necessary for learning. In this vein, we proposed to test the display on demand (DoD) method. The DoD consists of an explicit act by the pilot to obtain the information he/she needs to perform his or her task. DoD is fully in line with the self-regulated strategies (SRS) theory defined as “actions occurring during the actual performance of a cognitive task that allows an individual to control, or direct his own activity through self-imposed rules or regulations that better adapt his performance to different circumstances or surroundings” (Ferrari et al., 1991, p. 139). SRS contribute to the perception of self-control that has been demonstrated to improve learning through more in-depth information processing (McCombs, 1989). In education and cognitive psychology, studies have indicated that this higher level of information processing is achieved by allowing learners to participate actively and independently in the learning process through the use of SRS. In this context, participants process information associated with their own meaning. Craik and Tulving (1975) argued that meaning is the main factor influencing in-depth information processing, resulting in better memorization

SRS in the form of DoD information allows for the pre-activation of mapping rules for the information that will be processed immediately afterward. This pre-activation of the mapping rules is a priming of the subsequent task, which is likely to improve performance in the realization of the task by allowing faster processing (Maquestiaux, 2012). Thus, the DoD method is expected to produce deeper and faster information processing, which should lead to less time spent overall on visual tasks inside the cabin after training. This method would allow for more time to be spent looking outside the cockpit, which would meet the FAA recommendations.

Method

The goal of the present study was to test a glider flight training method in a simulated environment to develop basic flying skills (i.e., basic flight maneuvers and outside world visual attention). The experiment was designed to compare two ab initio training lessons by including a DoD method and using the cockpit display in a glider simulator. The participants were divided into two groups. In the first group, the participants had three on-board instruments at their disposal during all the training sessions. In the second condition, the instruments were hidden. As soon as the participant asked aloud that the instruments be displayed, the experimenter pressed a button that triggered the display of the instruments for 2 s. For each trial, the participant could only request the instruments a maximum of three times. This condition was meant to allow the participants to look at the outside world. Airspeed deviation was used as the dependent variable; the higher the airspeed deviation, the weaker the performance. The two hypotheses were (1) both groups increased their performance, and (2) more time was spent looking outside by the experimental group in the final test.

Apparatus

The flight simulator was run using the commercially available Xplane 10.42 (32 bits) software. The simulated aircraft was a two-seater modified ASK21 glider (ref Xplane: ASK21-Metric_V2.1). The external view was projected onto a white background to create a view angle of 170° (horizontal) by 60° (vertical) located in front of the participants. The cockpit flight instruments presented basic flight instruments such as the airspeed indicator, heading indicators, and the altimeter. Depending on the experimental condition, each instrument was either presented or not (Figure 1). The glider simulator was connected to a flight stick pro (CH products) and rudder pedals (CH products). Gaze positions data was captured by a Tobii Pro Glasses 2 eye-tracker cadenced at 100 Hz.

Results

An ANOVA was conducted with Group (CG vs. EG) as between subjects factor on airspeed deviation for straight lines, turns, and approach situations in the baseline condition. No group difference was found, F(1,19) < 1; p = .444, meaning that performances were comparable between the two groups at the beginning of the experiment. To test the impact of training on flight performances, an ANOVA was conducted with Group as between-subjects factor on airspeed deviation per condition and Training (baseline vs. final test) as within-subjects factor. For the straight-line condition, a significant main effect of Training was found, F(1,19) = 6,42; η² = 0.25; p = .02. The participants were better at maintaining airspeed in the post-test (M = 3.82; SD = 2.37) than in the baseline condition (M = 7.07; SD = 6.18). The effect of Group condition and the interaction was not significant, F(1,19) < 1; p = .63 and F(1,19) < 1; p = .64, respectively. Regarding the turning condition, a significant main effect of Training was also observed, F(1,19) = 8.09; η² = 0.30; p = .0103). The participants were better at maintaining airspeed in the post-test (M = 7.60; SD = 5.08) than in the baseline condition (M = 17.50; SD = 13.98). The effect of Group condition and the interaction was not significant, F(1,19) = 1.38; p = .25 and F(1,19) < 1; p = .95, respectively. Concerning the final approach, no significant effect was observed.

Eye-tracker recordings revealed that only EG using the DoD method decreased the time spent looking inside the cockpit after training compared with baseline (Figure 2). The ANOVA showed no main effect or interaction. Fisher’s (LSD) post hoc analyses were conducted. The following pairs were significantly different: EG baseline (M = 38.75; SD = 18.75) and EG final test (M = 23 .17; SD = 13.78).

Perceptions of workload were measured with the NASA-TLX scale. No significant differences were found: EG: M = 64.29, SD = 10.91; CG: M = 62.74, SD = 6.28; t(19) = .41; p = .8.

Discussion and Conclusion

The current study aimed to propose a flight training method favoring the time spent looking outside the cockpit. As expected, all participants improved their performance after training. Compared with classic training, the DoD method enabled participants to spend more time looking outside the cockpit without any impact on the subjective workload and significant influence on performance.

Thus, these results, which are in line with SRS theory (Chen & Singer, 1992), offer a possible new instructor–student interaction in the process of learning basic VFR skills. This is a promising way to impede the absorption of attention caused by the elements of glass cockpits.

The DoD method seems to be an effective way to overcome the technical barriers associated with eye-tracking methodology. However, the present experiment was based on only one training session which lasted approximately 45 min; therefore, future research must evaluate the increasing or decreasing effects of the DoD method in multiple-session training. Moreover, the DoD method could be tested during real flights to possibly design a “training function” in the future cockpit system.

The DoD learning method based on a glider flight simulator and numerical displays during the first stage of pilot training (ab initio) contributes to methodological advances in the training, learning, and cognitive engineering fields (Salas et al., 1998). This DoD learning strategy encourages the acquisition of a visual attention pathway. This is an additional reason for promoting the development of specific courses (part-task training) using flight simulators, in a more comprehensive training program, dedicated to specific skills (e.g., visual attention scan pattern, action schemata). However, the positive transfer of the DoD method and the acquisition of more complex skills, such as the articulation of basic skills in a landing circuit, should be validated in future work.

The DoD learning method is part of an overall approach to improving air safety. This method seems compatible with all generations of instruments (analog and digital). Hence, DoD should contribute to the design of flight instruments dedicated to the acquisition of flight-specific knowledge.