Preference and operational acceptability of Flightdeck Interval Management avionics

This study investigated the relative acceptance of different avionics implementations that present Flightdeck Interval Management (FIM) speeds and speed deviations to commercial pilots, and for indications of conditions that require action. Results indicate a clear preference for an Avionics condition where target speed information was provided in the primary flight display, relevant traffic information was provided in the navigational display, IM clearance information and conformance information was provided in the Multi-function Control Display Unit (MCDU), and the engine-indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS) display showed conformance deviation alerts; and a condition in which all this information was presented only in an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB)-like display (with extended functionality) implemented under the side window for both pilots. Other Avionics conditions tested were less desirable. These were conditions in which the EFB was mounted aft of, and below the side window - with and without an auxiliary display that repeated speed target and conformance information in the primary field of view. Results also indicate a preference for aural indications to direct attention to new speed targets, as a reminder to enter these when not done in a timely manner, and to convey when the aircraft has deviated significantly from the calculated FIM speed profile. The aural indications, thresholds for reminders and conformance indications used in this study were found to be appropriate. In general FIM, as implemented in this study, was perceived as having no deleterious effect on workload or crew coordination; and, under some conditions, was reported to have improved situation awareness of arrival speeds and general conditions during approach and descent.