Predictive Features of a Cockpit Traffic Display: A Workload Assessment

Eighteen pilots flew a series of traffic avoidance maneuvers in an experiment designed to assess the support offered and workload imposed by different levels of traffic display information in a free flight simulation. Three display prototypes were compared which differed in traffic information provided. A BASELINE (BL) display provided current and (2nd order) predicted information regarding ownship and current information of an intruder aircraft, represented on lateral and vertical displays in a coplanar suite. An INTRUDER PREDICTOR (IP) display, augmented the baseline display by providing lateral and vertical prediction of the intruder aircraft. A THREAT VECTOR (TV) display added to the IP display a vector that indicates the direction from ownship to the intruder at the predicted point of closest contact (POCC). The length of the vector corresponds to the radius of the protected zone, and the distance of the intersection of the vector with ownship predictor, corresponds to the time available till POCC or loss of separation. Pilots time shared the traffic avoidance task with a secondary task requiring them to monitor the top of the display for faint targets. This task simulated the visual demands of out-of-cockpit scanning, and hence was used to estimate the head-down time required by the different display formats. The results revealed that both display augmentations improved performance (safety) as assessed by predicted and actual loss of separation (i.e., penetration of the protected zone). Both enhancements also reduced workload, as assessed by the NASA TLX scale. The intruder predictor display produced these benefits with no substantial impact on the qualitative nature of the avoidance maneuvers that were selected. The threat vector produced the safety benefits by inducing a greater degree of (effective) lateral maneuvering, thus partially offsetting the benefits of reduced workload. The three displays did not differ in terms of their effect on performance of the monitoring task, used to infer head-down time, nor in the extent of vertical or airspeed maneuvering. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for 19 cognitive engineering design features