This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boehm-Davis, D. A. Articles by Wochinger, K. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Boehm-Davis, D. A. Articles by Wochinger, K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Pilot Performance, Strategy, and Workload While Executing Approaches at Steep Angles and With Lower Landing Minima

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, dbdavis{at}gmu.edu

John G. Casali

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Brian M. Kleiner

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Jeffrey A. Lancaster

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Jason J. Saleem

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Kathryn Wochinger

Noblis, Falls Church, Virginia

Objective: We examined the willingness and ability of general aviation pilots to execute steep approaches in low-visibility conditions into nontowered airports. Background: Executing steep approaches in poor weather is required for a proposed Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) that consists of small aircraft flying direct routes to a network of regional airports. Method: Across two experiments, 17 pilots rated for Instrument Flight Rules at George Mason University or Virginia Tech flew a Cessna 172R simulator into Blacksburg, Virginia. Pilots were familiarized with the simulator and asked to fly approaches with either a 200- or 400-foot ceiling (at approach angles of 3°, 5°, and 7° in the first experiment, 3° and 6° in the second). Pilots rated subjective workload and the simulator recorded flight parameters for each set of approaches. Results: Approaches with a 5° approach angle produced safe landings with minimal deviations from normal descent control configurations and were rated as having a moderate level of workload. Approaches with 6° and 7° approach angles produced safe landings but high workload ratings. Pilots reduced power to control the speed of descent and flew the aircraft slightly above the glide path to gain time to control the landing. Conclusion: Although the 6° and 7° approaches may not be practical for routine approaches, they may be achievable in the event of an emergency. Application: Further work using other aircraft flying under a wider variety of conditions is needed before implementing SATS-type flights into airports intended to supplant or complement commercial operations in larger airports.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 49, No. 5, 759-772 (2007)
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X230145


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. M. Kleiner Macroergonomics: Work System Analysis and Design Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, June 1, 2008; 50(3): 461 - 467. [Abstract] [PDF]