1. Garmin G1000 Touchscreen Interface Upgrade Joseph T. Ott Elizabeth L. Blickensderfer, Ph.D. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach, FL Human Factors & Systems Engineering Abstract Results A look at the mean scores for the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique shows pilots are in agreement that Time Load (1), Mental Effort Load (2), and Psychological Stress Load (3) are considerably high while using the current Garmin G1000 input using multifaceted dials and numerous soft keys (see table 1). Table 1: Participants responded to each labeled work load type on a 1-3 scale with 1 being least intense, and 3 being most intense. For our custom designed survey portion of the pilot survey we graded each flight deck with seven questions engineered to rate the overall difficulties participants experienced in using first the current G1000 interface, then with the proposed touch screen interface (see table 2). Table 2: Participants responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale with less favorable traits as 1 and most favorable traits as 7. In today’s aviation world there are only few airplanes in any class not coming off the assembly line with glass panels. Aviation glass cockpits such as Garmin’s G1000 are currently a complex visual collage of numerous graphics and symbols with multi-page interface designs entailing many options and sub-options for accessing information needed for flight. This new method of displaying flight information merges all the information that used to be accessed through individually separated radio and control units. In the past, the pilot was responsible for combining all of this information in order to form a visuospatial mental picture of the cockpit, otherwise known as situational awareness. Across the country operating training schools are ordering all-glass panels because by the time their students complete their training they will most likely be required to operate one. More importantly, almost any model aircraft in existence is suitable for retrofit upgrades. These new systems undoubtedly enhance aviation safety, but glass cockpits are useless if the operator is not extremely trained and proficient in using them. The present study assesses general aviation pilots and their required workload output necessary to operate the Garmin G1000, and the benefits of simplifying the G1000 by retrofitting it with touchscreen interface. The touchscreen interface will reduce the number of steps required to perform most tasks pilots must conduct prior to, and during flight procedures. The touchscreen interface will also reduce time needed to complete each task, decreasing the time necessary to input commands and therefore increasing situational awareness for the pilot. With the incorporation of this new touchscreen input method, pilots who are transitioning to advanced avionics systems that integrate numerous functions including engine health, systems status, and fuel management/computation, can now benefit from less training time and increased competence as a result of the intuitive and user-centered design of the proposed Garmin G1000 touchscreen interface. Psychological Stress Load Mental Effort Load Time Load Introduction In addition to the many tasks associated with operating an aircraft, student pilots must also struggle to keep up with technological advances in the cockpit. With the introduction of the Garmin G1000 into the general aviation world, pilots have been forced to learn the ways of the highly sophisticated and overly complex Garmin system. With dozens of hours of training and technical learning required to properly and fully take advantage of all the G1000 has to offer, many pilots, especially the aging and technologically inept pilots, experience difficulty and confusion with using the current control input methods. Performing simple tasks such as entering a flight plan and selecting items on the map require scrutinous knob dialing and page shuffling in order to complete. The current methods of input for the Garmin G1000 are unnecessarily intricate and require far too much time and concentration to complete. This type of distraction can be detrimental to pilots who must maintain a high level of situational awareness at all times. In order to remedy this issue we propose a simple upgrade to the Garmin G1000 allowing it to be controlled though a touchscreen interface. Cognitively speaking, it is much more intuitive and practical to use a touch screen for inputting information rather than a plethora of buttons and dials surrounding the display in a confusing manor. The touchscreen interface we are proposing will decrease the number of steps needed to perform common pilots must conduct prior to, and during flight procedures. Because of this, the touchscreen interface will also allow pilots to complete each task in less time, which will allow the pilot to maintain a higher level of situational awareness whether they are in flight or on the ground. This new touchscreen input method can be implemented cheaply and effectively. The only retrofitting needed will be a simple replacement of the LCD screen currently in place on the G1000, with a new touchscreen LCD interface, as well as an update to the system’s software to allow touchscreen input from the newly upgraded hardware. Utilizing a touchscreen will also allow for a more immersive learning experience that can be more easily understood since the new system will be completely intuitive and will require less time and money spent on training. Discussion Overall, the pilots who served as subject matter experts (SME’s) displayed an overall higher difficulty level in learning and using the current Garmin G1000 input method. SWAT analysis findings proved that using the current design in a flight deck for general aviation aircraft results significantly high in levels of time load, mental effort, physiological stress. Because our intuitive user-centered touchscreen prototype was not a functioning prototype, it would be unfair to rate it using a SWAT analysis. To thoroughly compare the two input systems our custom created questionnaire was used to determine specific important parameters to be considered in the functionality of flight deck design. Sure enough the data supported the fact that our touchscreen prototype design reduces complexity, creates an easier input method, requires less technical support, supports higher levels of task integration, delegates correct inputs more frequently, increases learning speed, and above all increases confidence levels of the operators. In addition to the quantifiable data supporting our touchscreen design, open ended opinions were collected from all SME’s after testing was completed. The new touchscreen interface sparked an incredible amount of interest and support among the pilots. Every touchscreen input method was well favored, and some extra suggestions given were also implemented into the final prototype design. This upgrade proposal is indeed advantageous, however initial reactions were of excitement and relief that the current interface was being examined and redesign with an easier and more instinctive layout. Further information should be collected including the testing of many more parameters and functionality evaluations to produce a functional prototype. This study hopes to raise awareness that the current G1000 input methods are overly technical and desperately needs to be easily and effectively be transferred to an alternate input system such as a touchscreen. Info: RNWYs FREQs GPS To Method Participants The sample consisted of 9 pilots who had an average of 279 flight hours and who have received either complete or partial training with the Garmin G1000 flight deck. Apparatus To assess pilots’ performance with the current Garmin G1000 system, we first created a hierarchical task analysis based off of common tasks that pilots frequently perform with their Garmin G1000 systems each time fly. These tasks were derived from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s standard flight department task checklists. We utilized the Garmin G1000 simulator program in place of the actual system for testing purposes. After surveying several pilot members of the University to agree on a list common tasks, compiled a set of 6 tasks pilots may have to complete when flying. Next, we walked though every step for each task, and noted each individual task creating a hierarchical order of steps needing to be done in order to complete the overall task. After recording necessary data we compiled a hierarchical task analysis (HTA) list with each task represented with a different number, and the corresponding steps for that task represented with progressive numbered coding. After assessing the HTA, we developed theoretical touchscreen methods to complete each of the 6 original tasks using simple and intuitive gestures on the display. The touchscreen tasks were designed with less steps required to complete each task, as well as visual and auditory cues for confirmation of command input. To assess the effectiveness of our proposed touchscreen input methods, first we had the pilots conduct each of the 6 tasks using the current G1000 input system. After completing all tasks, pilots were asked to assess the time load, mental effort load, and psychological stress loads perceived during tasking utilizing the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) analysis. Next, the pilots were then asked to rate the current G1000 system with the Cooper-Harper Scale, which is specifically design to measure the quality of aircraft designs. Then the pilots answered a custom created Likert-rating scale type questions concerning the usability of flight decks. To assess our proposed touchscreen design, the pilots were then instructed on how to complete each of the 6 tasks using the theoretical touchscreen interface. Finally pilots were asked to rate the new touchscreen input methods with the same custom designed Likert-rating scale questionnaire, using the same parameters the used to rate the current G100 system. Results were collected and analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software and results were generated revealing the differences in pilot response between all 7 parameters of assessment. Drag finger from plane to destination to plot course Back Back References 35 gal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CLR 0 ENT FPL FPL Baber, C., Jenkins, D. P., Salmon, P. M., & Walker, G. H. (2006). Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering And Design. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing. Charlton, S. G., & O'Brien, T. G. (2001). Questionnaire Techniques for Test and Evaluation. Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation (2 ed., pp. 225-246). Boca Raton: CRC. Hamblin, C. J., Miller, C., & Naidu, S. (2006). Comparison of Three Avionics Systems Based Upon Information Availability, Priorities and Accessibility. PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 50th ANNUAL MEETING, 53, 1825-1828. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from the IntegraConnect database. Rubio, S., Diaz, E., Martin, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of Subjective Mental Workload: A Comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and Workload Profile Methods. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 53(1), 61-86. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain database. RST FUEL | GAL REM LEAN | SYSTEM ENGINE Multi-function icons for quicker and more direct system navigation. On-screen progressive tap through menu including number pad for rapid entry. Elimination of soft-keys to reduce clutter. “As computer-based avionics become more ubiquitous in general aviation aircraft, systematic usability evaluations will become more critical in order to assure pilot safety and customer satisfaction.”
