Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pilot decision making during landing point designation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Predicting astronaut performance when choosing where to land on the Moon, or the landing point designation task, is difficult. Human judgment and decision making for this application is not well-characterized. To address this knowledge deficiency, an experiment was designed to replicate the landing point designation task in both ideal and poor landing conditions. Fifteen helicopter pilots were observed to use one of two strategy types, with both strategies resulting in equatable performance. Regardless of strategy use, terrain contrast conditions were observed to have a significant impact on the selection of safe landing sites. Other aspects of performance, such as task completion time, were unaffected by terrain contrast. Pilots were also observed to be influenced by multiple terrain factors. Researchers noted twenty different types of actions stemming from nine categories of scenario cues. When these cue–action relationships are used in conjunction with pilots’ evaluation criteria and a known strategy, models can be developed to predict decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Terrain contrast is perceived and discussed by pilots as lighting.

References

  • ACT-R (2011) Theory and architecture of cognition. Online. Accessed March 2011

  • Augustine NR (2009) Review of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee. Technical report, U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy

  • Bennett FV (1970) Apollo lunar descent and ascent trajectories. Technical report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Texas. Also presented at AIAA 8th aerospace sciences meeting, January 1970

  • Bisantz A, Roth E (2008) Reviews of human factors, chap 1. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp 1–43

  • Bisantz AM, Pritchett AR (2003) Measuring the fit between human judgments and automated alerting algorithms: a study of collision detection. Hum Factors 45:266–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady T, Epp CD (2008) Challenge of a crewed polar lunar landing. Technical report, NASA exploration technology development program

  • Brady T, II S P, II T P C (2010) GN&C development for future lunar landing missions. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, number AIAA 2010-8444, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. AIAA

  • Brady T, Paschall S (2010) The challenge of safe lunar landing. In: 2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT. IEEE

  • Brunswik E (1952) The conceptual framework of psychology, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch C, Maret PSD, Flynn T, Kellum R, Le S, Meyers B, Saunders M, White R, Palmquist M (2005) Content analysis. Online. Retrieved on 09 April 2012

  • Byrne MD (2007) Human computer interaction handbook, chap 5. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 94–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Card S, Moran T, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua ZK, Braun RD, Feigh KM (2009a) Analysis of human-system interaction for landing point redesignation. Masters AE 8900 project. Georgia Institute of Technology.

  • Chua ZK, Major LM, Feigh KM (2009b) Modeling cockpit interface usage during lunar landing redesignation. In: international symposium of aviation psychology

  • Cohanim B, Collins B (2009) Landing point designation algorithm for lunar landing. J Spacecr Rockets 46(4):858–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis J, Striepe S, Maddock R, Hines G, II S P, Cohanim B, Fill T, Johnson M, Bishop R, DeMars K, Sostaric R, Johnson A (2008) Advances in POST2 end-to-end descent and landing simulation for the ALHAT project. In: AIAA/AAS astrodynamics specialist conference & exhibit, number AIAA 2008-6938

  • Drake AW, Keeney R (1986) Decision analysis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study

  • Einhorn HJ (1971) Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information. Organ Behav Hum Perform 6:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR, Kaber DB (1999) Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(6):462–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigh KM (2010) Incorporating multiple patterns of activity into the design of cognitive work support systems. Cognitive Technol Work 13:259–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC (1970) Utility theory for decision making. Technical report, Research Analysis Corporation

  • Gore BF, Cacciabue P, Hjälmdahl, Luedtke, Riccioli, Costanza (eds) (2011) Man–machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) v5: Augmentations, Motivations, and Directions for Aeronautics Applications. In: Human Modelling in Assisted Transportation. Milan, Springer, pp 43–54. doi:10.1007/978-88-470-1821-1_6

  • Gore BF (2010) Man-machine integration design and analysis system (MIDAS) v5: augmentations, motivations, and directions for aeronautics applications. Hum Model Assis Transp

  • Hammond KR, Hamm RM, Grassia J, Pearson T (1987) Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 17(5):753–770

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis context and control. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson KE, Kuchar JK, Oman CM (2002) Experimental study of automation to support time-critical replanning decisions. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 46th annual meeting, Baltimore, MD. HFES, p 3630

  • Johnson TR (1997) Control in ACT-R and soar. In: Shafto M, Langley P (eds) Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 343–348

  • Klein G (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, MIT

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman JF, Laird J, Rosenbloom P (2006) A gentle introduction to soar, an architecture for human cognition. University of Michigan, 2260 Hayward, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2121 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/soar/sitemaker/docs/misc/GentleIntroduction-2006.pdf.

  • Lewis JL, Wheelwright CD (1965) Lunar landing and site selection study. Technical report NASA TN D-2999, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC

  • Major LM, Brady TM, II S C P (2008) Apollo looking forward: crew task challenges. In: IEEE aerospace conference 2008, number IEEEAC 1149, Big Sky, MT. IEEE

  • Major LM, Duda KR, Hirsh RL (2011) Crew office evaluation of a precision lunar landing system. In: IEEE aerospace conference.

  • Marr D (1982) Vision. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA

  • McGovern A, Lopez N, Patterson W, Ernst C, Reid D (2010) DEMmaker users guide, 1.0 edn. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Baltimore, MD

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1999) Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publishers, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Mindell DA (2008) Digital apollo: human and machine in spaceflight. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • NASA (2004) Take a spin around the inside of Altair. Online

  • Needham J (2008) Human-automation interaction for lunar landing aimpoint redesignation. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Orasanu J, Connolly T (1993) Decision making in action: models and methods, chap 1, pp 1–20. Ablex

  • Orasanu J, Fischer U, McDonnell LJ, Davidson J, Haars KE (1998) How do flight crews detect and prevent errors? findings from a flight simulation study. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting

  • Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39:230–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transac Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 30(3):286–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothrock L, Kirlik A (2003) Inferring rule-based strategies in dynamic judgment tasks: toward a noncompensatory formulation of the lens model. IEEE Transac Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 33(1):58–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CA, Cummings L, Forest LM, Kessler LJ (2006) Utilizing ecological perception to support precision lunar landing. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 50, pp 91–95

  • Soelberg P (1967) Unprogrammed decision making. Indus Manag Rev 8:19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Sostaric RR (2007) Powered descent trajectory guidance and some considerations for human lunar landing. In AAS guidance and control conference, number AAS 07-051, Breckenridge, CO. AAS

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick W, McIlwaine S, Hutton R, McDermott P (2001) Developing computational models of recognition-primed decision making. In 10th conference on computer generated forces and behavioural representation

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jessica DeRenzy and Philip Dewire for their help running and analyzing the experiment, Alexandra E. Coso for her feedback and useful insights, and Robert L. Hirsh for his guidance. This work sponsored by the NASA Graduate Student Researchers Program (GSRP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology, 270 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Zarrin K. Chua & Karen M. Feigh

Authors
  1. Zarrin K. Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen M. Feigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zarrin K. Chua.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chua, Z.K., Feigh, K.M. Pilot decision making during landing point designation. Cogn Tech Work 15, 297–311 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-012-0233-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-012-0233-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation