Abstract
A comparative study of a GFP input method and an MCDU for FMS-based flight planning was conducted to assess the impact of the input method on training and usability. Additionally, the effect of English language proficiency was also assessed. The GFP and MCDU systems were compared using 16 ab initio pilots with two levels of English proficiency. No significant differences were found for the majority of objective training measures analyzed, but there was a marginally significant advantage for the GFP system in terms of number of clearances successfully input within a specified time limit. Other significant differences in objective measures showed some advantages for GFP and some advantages for MCDU. The GFP had significantly better performance and significantly lower subjective rating of overall workload, ratings of effort and frustration. Overall the pilots perceived the GFP interface to be more intuitive, easier to use and faster to learn than the conventional FMS. Only minor differences were associated with English proficiency.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
