Abstract:
Task prioritization performance was evaluated for pilots who participated in a
concurrent task management (CTM) training course and pilots who did not. CTM is
the process by which pilots selectively attend to high priority tasks and shed non-priority
tasks. Twenty seven pilots enrolled in a university flight technology program
were randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. Pilots flew
pretest and posttest simulated flights on an FAA approved flight training device
(FTD). Twenty potential task prioritization errors were embedded at 14 locations
within the flight scenarios. Pretest CTM performance of the two groups was
comparable. During a two week period between pretest and posttest simulated flights
pilots in the experimental group participated in a CTM training course designed and
taught by an FAA certified flight instructor and pilots in the control group did not.
A Mann-Whitney U test rejected the null hypothesis that there was no
difference in posttest CTM errors between the groups, indicating a positive training
effect for experimental group pilots. Longer term training effects were not evaluated.
Different cognitive processing models described various pilot behaviors; some
behaviors were described by single channel theory, some by single resource theory,
and others by multiple resource theory. Mispriotization due to the interruption of an
aviate task by a communicate task occurred more frequently than interruption of a
navigate task by a communicate task. Fixation on the GPS navigational system caused
more than half the pilots to deviate from primary aviate tasks to attend to the
secondary navigate task.
Additional research with different participants is recommended. A study
comparing training results between pilots who have different training backgrounds is
also recommended. A longer time period between pretest and posttest and/or a
longitudinal study is recommended to test for longer term training effects. Qualitative
studies could also be used to enhance experiments, such as gathering responses from
participants to discern the extent of their learning. Further studies using cockpits with
higher levels of automation and complexity, such as new generation flat panel or 3D
cockpit displays is recommended.
