By Jean-Jacques SPEYER, member of the Civil Aeronautics Commission of the AAE
This note recalls the work carried out up to 2009 by the author in the context of reflections on the application to Airbus aircraft and proposes ways of implementation still to be developed, taking into account the results of the latest research on the subject.
A truly ergonomic approach to HMI must necessarily include any type of interactive exchange between man and machine.
It must include consideration of the consequences of the effect of automation, in particular on the alertness, attention and involvement of the crew, ranging from routine operations to the incapacitation of pilot(s).
In this case, it would not only be the breakdowns of the aircraft that matter, but ideally signs – however weak they may be – of inappropriate behaviour with operators subject to hazards as difficult to identify and as diverse as:
- excessive workload in degraded situations,
- incomprehension in the face of certain situations,
- loss of concentration and diffuse attention,
- Decreased focus and lack of discernment
- erratic behaviors affecting involvement,
- decreased cognitive and decision-making abilities,
- the stupefaction effect and the “frozen” condition.
In practice, we have opted for the following hazards:
- inability to perform work on the flight deck,
- decreased alertness, sleep pressure, slackness,
- difficulty making the right decisions, even with suggestions from the situation or an HMI.
The purpose of this note is to recall the path for specifying a system for detecting partial or total loss of capacity.
We will begin by giving a very brief overview of Airbus’ studies on fatigue and alertness, which led to evaluations of dedicated devices designed to develop a system capable of detecting loss of alertness and pilot involvement.
….