Human-Centred Design

[kellykelpie]

Am interested in any thoughts about automation on glass cockpit aircraft Re-Human Factors issues. Have the designers adequately considered the pilots in the design process?
Are non feedback thrust levers and fly-by-wire controls a good or bad thing? What about the advantages and disadvantages of Flight management computers. Examples of experiences/occurances would be appreciated.
It is for Uni assignment and I want good marks.

[IORRA]

Try this one for starters - an interesting CX paper on Airbus technologies etc.

http://users2.ev1.net/~neilkrey/crmdevel/resources/paper/bent.htm

IORRA

[kellykelpie]

Thanks. Coincidently I read this excellent paper today. It is part of the essential reading for our Uni course.
I was very impressed with how CX geared up for the introduction of Airbus.
What do you think of the new technology IORRA

[IORRA]

Kelly, I haven't had any experience on Airbus types at all so I'm really not in a great position to comment.

My take on it, however, is that

a) I've never met an unhappy Airbus pilot - all the criticism of the new generation Airbus philosophy (and I know you're referring to more general FBW technologies, but Airbus is the most accessible as an example) seems to come from people who've never held a type rating on one. This, to me, suggests that, with proper grounding and training in the Airbus modus operandi, there's absolutely no reason why pilots of Airbus aircraft should have any less understanding (and therefore control) of their aeroplane at any stage of flight than pilots of Boeing aircraft. But then again, I certainly haven't met enough Airbus pilots to say this definitively!

b) By taking a greenfields approach to aeroplane design, and specifically cockpit/HMI design, there's bound to be new efficiencies realised in various cockpit processes and, one would assume, a greater degree of flexibility to integrate modern systems and technologies into the flightdeck, rather than simply splicing them in as they become available (a la CRTs/FMSs in the classic 747s). Much like building a low-cost airline from scratch, designers of new technology aeroplanes like the A320/330/340 and, to a lesser extent, the 777 presumably were able to build from the ground up a cockpit that reflects what the pilot actually 'needs' now, as opposed to merely 'cutting back' on what the pilot needed 30 years ago (look at the 744 vs the 747 - apart from the reallocation of the F/E position, to what extent is it revolutionary, and to what extent is it merely 'Version 2' of the classic flight deck, with an FMS, a few CRTs and a de-cluttered overhead panel?). Do we still need the 'classic' flight deck theme at all? Are we ready for an all new, ground-up design philosophy? Is it possible that all this new technology will simply become too much for the 'classically trained', conventional instrument pilot? To what extent do pilots want change anyway?

c) In human factors terms I'm unable to really comment other than to say that new generation Airbus technologies are built around an automation model one or two steps up from that of conventional Boeing type aircraft. There's no doubt that countless pilots and HMI 'experts' were consulted in their design and construction, and that they're based around a very valid interpretation of modern human factors requirements. Other than some isolated incidents, I don't believe there's any anecdotal evidence to suggest that the Airbus philosophy is any more error-prone than its Boeing counterpart - some might say that its envelope protection features etc greatly reduce the chances of handling errors. I really don't know, though, and would be very interested to hear from someone who does!

Sorry I don't have any more information for you, Kelly - an interesting subject!

IORRA

[kellykelpie]

Thanks IORRA for your thoughtful comments.
I think both Boeing and Airbus flight-deck designs are still constrained by past regulations and past designs. I think a ground up approach is a good idea but such a concept would be untried and therefore risky. Computer monitoring is a good idea i.e a "computer pilot" but such a concept is sure to be controversial. I look forward to further responses.