曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
In the second line interview speed, climb, descent,
open, managed, and idle occupy central positions in
the model. Path and FMA are still far from central,
and idle is far from thrust and mode. The distinction
between selected and managed modes is becoming
clear, and the importance of idle thrust in descents is
beginning to emerge. By the third line interview
managed, speed, descent, idle, thrust, and mode have
been consolidated as a central cluster. This seems to
reflect an emerging understanding of the combination
of features that characterize the most complex of
automated modes, DES. One element of the model
for DES mode is still missing, however: the
computed descent path which when flown at idle
thrust will produce the desired speed profile.
Two pairs of terms merit additional comments. In the
first and second line interviews speed and vertical cooccur
more often than they do in the last line
interview. This is evidence that the vertical speed
mode is more salient in the early line interviews than
it is in the last line interview. This fits the notion that
early in line experience pilots are most interested in
the simple modes and only gain conceptual
understanding of the more complex modes after a
year or more of experience. The other pair of terms
is restriction and constraint. Restriction is an
operational term used by pilots and controllers to
describe elements of the flight path. Constraint is an
engineering term, which subsumes the entities
referred to by pilots as restrictions. In the Airbus
pilot handbook chapter on the Flight Management
System, the word constraint occurs 86 times, and the
word restriction appears only once. Thus, constraint
is the clear choice in Airbus terminology. Between
the 2L and 3L interviews, the rate of use of constraint
increases while the rate of use of restriction falls. For
the pilots, restriction is more central than constraint
at every stage, but even in the last interview set,
neither term has much salience or centrality. Because
constraints are essential to the definition of the path
on which managed descents are flown, this fact
indicates that the pilots’ conceptual understandings of
DES mode is still incomplete after 18 months of
experience on the line.
Discussion
The quantitative analysis provides clear evidence that
a great deal of learning takes place after pilots leave
training. The pilots appear to understand the basic
vertical navigation modes by the time they have
completed a year flying the airplane, but they are
probably still in the process of acquiring an
understanding of the more complex managed modes
even after they have logged 18 months in the
airplane. The quantitative analysis does not reveal
the sources of conceptual troubles, but it does provide
strong evidence that conceptual change continues for
at least 18 months of line flying and it reveals the
order in which conceptual elements are added to the
conceptual model of the most complex modes. The
quantitative analyses reveal patterns that were not
apparent in the qualitative analysis. For example,
while the qualitative analysis revealed that pilots used
relatively simple conceptual models throughout the
learning process, the quantitative date show that
terms associated with the simpler autoflight modes
actually peak and then decline in the first 18 months
of flying experience. The term co-occurrence data
show that over the same period, pilots form a
complex, but still incomplete model of the most
highly automated vertical navigation mode, DES.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Howard Au for transcription and coding
assistance, Robert Liebscher for data analysis, and
Barbara Holder for help with all aspects of the
project. The work was funded by NASA AMES
Research Center NAG 2-1313. Stephen Casner was
the technical monitor. Most of all I thank the pilots
who have so generously contributed their time and
wisdom to this project.
References
FAA Human Factors Team, (1996) The interfaces
between flight crews and modern flight deck
systems. FAA special report.
Funk, K., Lyall, B., Wilson, J., Vint, R., Niemczyk,
M., Sugoteguh, C., and Owen, G. (1999) Flight
Deck Automation Issues. International Journal
of Aviation Psychology 92: 109-124.
Gibbs, R. (2006) Embodiment and Cognitive
Science. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Holder, B. and Hutchins, E. (2000) Conceptual
models for understanding an encounter with a
mountain wave. Proceedings of HCI-Aero 2000,
Toulouse, France.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料6(110)
