A comparison of cockpit warning systems

LDR 03833cam a2200469Ii 4500
001 102893766
003 MiAaHDL
005 20230928000000.0
006 m d
007 cr bn ---auaua
008 170807s1967 ohua b f000 0 eng c
019 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a41040835
035 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a(MiU)99187625231406381
035 ⊔ ⊔ ‡asdr-miu.99187625231406381
035 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a(OCoLC)999728445
035 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a(GWLA)gwla ocn999728445
040 ⊔ ⊔ ‡aVGM ‡beng ‡erda ‡cVGM ‡dOCLCF ‡dTRAAL
049 ⊔ ⊔ ‡aMAIN
086 0 ⊔ ‡aD 301.45/32-3:66-180
100 1 ⊔ ‡aBate, Almon J., ‡eauthor.
245 1 2 ‡aA comparison of cockpit warning systems / ‡cAlmon J. Bate, Charles Bates, Jr.
264 ⊔ 1 ‡aWright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio : ‡bAerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Aerospace Medical Division, Air Force Systems Command, ‡c1967.
300 ⊔ ⊔ ‡aiii, 21 pages : ‡billustrations ; ‡c28 cm.
336 ⊔ ⊔ ‡atext ‡btxt ‡2rdacontent
337 ⊔ ⊔ ‡aunmediated ‡bn ‡2rdamedia
338 ⊔ ⊔ ‡avolume ‡bnc ‡2rdacarrier
490 0 ⊔ ‡aAMRL-TR ; ‡v66-180
500 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a"This report was prepared in the Human Engineering Division of the Behavioral Sciences Laboratory, 6570th Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The work was performed under Project 7184, "Human Performance in Advanced Systems", ask 718404, "Advanced Systems Human Engineering Design Criteria, " beginning in February and completed in April 1966."--Foreword.
500 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a"April 1967."
504 ⊔ ⊔ ‡aIncludes bibliographical references (page 21).
520 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a"The experiment was designed to compare three types of aircraft cockpit warning systems: (1) Visual: malfunctions simultaneously activated a master warning light and a specific malfunction indicator light. (2) Visual and tone: malfunctions simultaneously activated an intermittent sweeping tone (through earphones), a master warning light, and a specific malfunction indicator light. (3) Visual and voice: malfunctions simultaneously activated a master warning light, a specific malfunction indicator light, and a voice recording which informed the operator through his earphones of the specific malfunction needing attention. Three groups of 11 university students served as subjects. While responding to a visual, visual-tone, or visual-voice warning system, each subject was also required to find and position, under cross hairs, a series of strategic targets on a strip of rear-projected aerial photographic imagery. No statistically significant differences among the three warning systems were found in the speed of reaction to the master warning light, reaction to the specific-indicator panel, total reaction time, or number of strategic targets found or missed. The results of the study suggest that the addition of either a tone or a voice warning to a visual, master plus specific, malfunction warning system is of questionable value in a 'heads-in' cockpit situation where the visual system can be seen. The data from the experiment do not suggest that a voice warning system has any advantage over a simple aural signal for augmenting a visual system."--Abstract.
538 ⊔ ⊔ ‡aMode of access: Internet.
541 1 ⊔ ‡cGift of ‡aRobert B. Sleight, ‡d1979. ‡5ViFGM
650 ⊔ 7 ‡aAirplanes ‡xPiloting ‡xHuman factors. ‡2fast ‡0(OCoLC)fst00803411
650 ⊔ 7 ‡aAirplanes ‡xCockpits ‡xWarning systems. ‡2fast ‡0(OCoLC)fst00803089
650 ⊔ 0 ‡aAirplanes ‡xPiloting ‡xHuman factors.
650 ⊔ 0 ‡aAirplanes ‡xCockpits ‡xWarning systems.
655 ⊔ 7 ‡aTechnical reports. ‡2fast ‡0(OCoLC)fst01941336
655 ⊔ 7 ‡aTechnical reports. ‡2lcgft
700 1 ⊔ ‡aBates, Charles, ‡cJr., ‡eauthor.
710 2 ⊔ ‡aAerospace Medical Research Laboratories (U.S.), ‡esponsor.
710 2 ⊔ ‡aHuman Factors and Ergonomics Collection. ‡5ViFGM
730 0 ⊔ ‡aTechnical Report Archive & Image Library (TRAIL)
899 ⊔ ⊔ ‡a39015095324755
CID ⊔ ⊔ ‡a102893766
DAT 0 ⊔ ‡a20220802101944.0 ‡b20230928000000.0
DAT 1 ⊔ ‡a20230928062550.0 ‡b2024-07-30T17:30:16Z
CAT ⊔ ⊔ ‡aSDR-MIU ‡cmiu ‡dALMA ‡lprepare.pl-004-008
FMT ⊔ ⊔ ‡aBK
HOL ⊔ ⊔ ‡0sdr-miu.99187625231406381 ‡aMiU ‡bSDR ‡cGWLA ‡pmdp.39015095324755 ‡sMIU ‡199187625231406381
974 ⊔ ⊔ ‡bMIU ‡cGWLA ‡d20240730 ‡sgoogle ‡umdp.39015095324755 ‡y1967 ‡rpd ‡qbib ‡tUS fed doc