An examination of safety reports involving electronic flight bags and portable electronic devices

PDFTech ReportDOT-VNTSC-FAA-14-12FA07C2FAN2C1/C3/C4Air pilotsHuman factorsHuman errorDistractionAeronautical chartsRunway incursionsTakeoffAircraft pilotageFlight decksPerformance measurementUnited StatesCanadaFranceAustraliaUnited States. Federal Aviation AdministrationChase, Stephanie G.Hiltunen, DanielleJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.)Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc.NTL-AVIATION-AVIATIONNTL-AVIATION-Aviation Human FactorsNTL-AVIATION-Aviation Safety/AirworthinessNTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Aviation Safety/AirworthinessNTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Human FactorsNTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-SAFETY AND SECURITYVolpe National Transportation Systems Center, Technical Reference CenterThe purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding of safety considerations with the use of Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) and Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) by examining safety reports from Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), FAA Runway Safety Office (RSO) and Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB), Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), and French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA). A total of 335 human factors concerns were identified from the ASRS and CAA reports; most human factors concerns pertained to the use of electronic charts, and in particular scrolling and zooming. Pilots also noted the presentation of incorrect or out-of-date information, and information presented differently on electronic charts than on paper charts. Additional human factors concerns were related to inexperience/lack of expertise and distraction with the PED/EFB. Four FAA runway incursion and accident/incident reports cited EFB/PED distraction, head-down time and erroneous aircraft performance parameters (e.g., incorrect temperature). The two NTSB accident reports that involved an EFB as a contributory factor both involved pilot misinterpretation of performance calculation data during landing, one due to inadequate training and the other the result of hidden assumptions underlying performance calculations. The reports from ATSB, BEA, and TSB primarily cited take-off performance data errors as a primary factor which led to increased workload (e.g., last-minute change which could lead to errors in calculating take-off speeds)