Publication Date:
2019-07-17
Description:
A great deal of effort has been invested in attempts to define situational awareness, and subsequently to measure this construct. However, relatively less work has focused on the sensitivity of these measures to manipulations that affect the SA of the pilot. This investigation was designed to manipulate SA and examine the sensitivity of commonly used measures of SA. In this experiment, we tested the most commonly accepted measures of SA: SAGAT, objective performance measures, and SART, against different levels of SA manipulation to determine the sensitivity of such measures in the rotorcraft flight environment. SAGAT is a measure in which the simulation blanks in the middle of a trial and the pilot is asked specific, situation-relevant questions about the state of the aircraft or the objective of a particular maneuver. In this experiment, after the pilot responded verbally to several questions, the trial continued from the point frozen. SART is a post-trial questionnaire that asked for subjective SA ratings from the pilot at certain points in the previous flight. The objective performance measures included: contacts with hazards (power lines and towers) that impeded the flight path, lateral and vertical anticipation of these hazards, response time to detection of other air traffic, and response time until an aberrant fuel gauge was detected. An SA manipulation of the flight environment was chosen that undisputedly affects a pilot's SA-- visibility. Four variations of weather conditions (clear, light rain, haze, and fog) resulted in a different level of visibility for each trial. Pilot SA was measured by either SAGAT or the objective performance measures within each level of visibility. This enabled us to not only determine the sensitivity within a measure, but also between the measures. The SART questionnaire and the NASA-TLX, a measure of workload, were distributed after every trial. Using the newly developed rotorcraft part-task laboratory (RPTL) at NASA Ames Research Center, each pilot flew eight trials, four using SAGAT and four using performance measures. Each set of four trials differed by level of visibility as well. The flight paths were very similar in appearance and hazard number, allowing comparison between flight paths. The pilots were tasked with flying along a road at an assigned altitude and speed while avoiding any hazards that they happened upon. The attempt here was not to find a single best measure of SA, but rather to begin an investigation of the sensitivity of common measures of SA. Upon completion of this study, its results, in combination with future studies, should allow us to develop an empirically based taxonomy of SA measures and the contexts for their appropriate use.
Keywords:
Behavioral Sciences
Type:
14th Triennial HFES/IEA Conference; Jul 30, 2000 - Aug 04, 2000; San Diego, CA; United States
Format:
text
Permalink