D.P.

Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014

Performance enhancement of airline pilots
Research Proposal and Project Plan:

By Danil P. Gorter'

TU Delft Aerospace Engineering
Air Transport Operations 4079159

Executive Summary
Aircraft are becoming increasingly automated. Technology advances exponentially. It is inevitable that this trend
continues. For now and maybe forever, pilots are required to bridge the unexpected with the expected [Dekker et al.,
2002]. Loss of control accounts for the largest part of fatal aircraft incidents [EASA IGPT, 2013]. Up until today an
estimate of 70% is attributed to "human error" [Boeing, 2013], either at the sharp end (pilots, mechanics, ATC) or at
the blunt end (design, legislation). When incorporating all factors of "human error" this rate may even be higher.
A case study of five major incidents over the past year identifies incorrect pilot response due to possible startle
and/or automation confusion. Air France Flight AF447, Qantas Flight QF32, Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, Colgan
Air Flight 3407 and US Airways Flight 1549 can be distinguished by disaster and survival but more importantly by
pilot's reaction to unforeseen circumstances.
The research objective is to assess the cognitive state of pilots in time critical situations by measuring pilot's
resilience under pressure and improving it subsequently. The methodology is going to provide the airline industry
with a tool to create Samurai like pilots. We shouldnt only prevent accidents from repeating. Instead of looking at a
case by case problem and solution, a more holistic approach is required. We should fortify the entire scope of actor
performance. Cognitive performance enhancement through mental training programs is one of those solutions.
1. Introduction
Extensive research has been performed in the three fields related to cockpit dynamics. The field of cognitive
engineering [Hollnagel, 2003], the field of aircraft design and engineering [Borst, 2009] and the field of computer
programming and algorithms. All aim for the optimum human machine interaction, approaching it from each
perspective. However, not many researchers are bridging the gap between the three. This research aims at working
from the inside out. With the engineering perspective at its core, immersing into the realm of aviation psychology
through neuroscience and Eastern wisdom, this research aims at bringing the best of both worlds together. Man
versus Machine. Increasing automation in aviation creates new challenges [Amalberti, 1998] and especially with
next generation aircraft, avionics and airspace requirements it is inevitable to examine the requirements for a resilient
environment [Eurocontrol, 2013].
2. State-of-the-art/Literature Review
Not just the last decades but since the start of aviation, human error has been the main contributor of aircraft
accidents [Hobbs, 2004]. Little emphasis can be found in the academic world on perception and cognition [J ensen,
1997]. Since we have crossed the barrier of ultra-safe systems [Amalberti, 2001], we need to investigate new
measures to improve performance in the aviation industry. The predicted growth in air traffic leads to more complex
situation where actors will operate closer together [Amalberti, 2001]. Tractable systems can be modified during their
development, whereas the environment of intractable systems such as the aviation industry change more rapidly than
the design process can sustain [Eurocontrol, 2013]. Papers by renowned institutes, describe the causes of loss of
control [J acobsen, 2010], defining human factors as one of the major contributors.

Some definitions of the most agreed upon flight crew automation issues are: Unanticipated situations requiring to
manually override automation are difficult to understand and manage, create a surprise or startle effect, and can
induce peaks of workload and of stress. and Basic manual and cognitive flying skills tend to decline because of
lack of practice and feel for the aircraft can deteriorate. [EASA, 2013]. In the near future NextGen and SESAR may
introduce new and unforeseen hazards [J acobsen, 2010]. Air traffic is expected to double over the next twenty years,
D.P. Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014
whereas the operating conditions are tighter than ever before. Leaning airlines (Low Cost Carriers) is an ongoing
trend, with the result that pilots are forced into human- and operating envelope boundaries. Less sleep, less fuel,
more working hours, less training (legal minima are much less than standards used by large carriers). The design can
be improved a lot as we can see from certain case studies [Ferris, Sarter, Wickens, 2010]. Improving performance
through technical design is an evident but long term solution [J acobsen, 2010]. We need to look at short term
implementations of performance enhancement. Instead of looking at safety, we should improve overall system
resilience [Hollnagel et al., 2011].

General understanding in the industry is that errors cannot be prevented. The common view is that man, and not
machine, is the problem instead of the solution [Airbus, 2005 2007]. There is emphasis on improving procedures,
training, the design and upset recovery but no focus on mental training for pilots. Benefits of such can be: attention
improvement, cognitive flexibility improvement and similar mental improvements [Li et al, 2013]. Errors are
inevitably made, mostly without serious consequences [Amalberti, 2013]. Approximately 90% of errors are
recovered without serious consequences. Error recovery is the best predictor of operator performance. Poor
understanding of which operation the flight deck automation is commanding the aircraft to perform, has the potential
to increase the stress and fatigue levels of the flight crew. This can have an adverse effect on the decision making
process. [FAST, 2006]. Required pilot performance increases in high workload situations, especially during
emergency situations. The human cognitive operating envelope is exceeded frequently, usually without serious
consequences. How can this be improved? Can we reduce work load or extend the cognitive operating envelope?

Previous research determined pilot workload through brain wave and psychophysiological measures; skin
conductance, heart rate variability and blink rate. A wide variety of novice to experienced pilots show similar
performance when flying identical segments, making it an accurate measure for biofeedback research [Wilson,
2002]. Biofeedback training programs show significant improvement in cognitive performance [Cowings et al,
2001]. Neurofeedback enhances cognitive control [Hanslmayr et al, 2005][Zoefel et al, 2011] and is used as a peak
and optimum performance trainer in several fields [Hammond, 2011]. Using the NASA task load tool and
introducing physiological coherence, experimentation shows that fighter pilots perform better in real-time flight
operations [Li et al, 2013]. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has performed an experiment with their
flight surgeons, yielding similar results.

Currently a hot topic in upset prevention and recovery, biofeedback training may also reduce the startle/surprise
effect. During the Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL) program, students train within the regular flight envelopes
of aircraft. Loss of control accidents occurred with aircraft in states outside normal operating parameters. According
to Boeing/NASA research the time critical window to gain control of an aircraft upset is less than 10 seconds. The
current approach is in-flight training of pilots in order to gain confidence with upsets and thus reduce the
startle/surprise; a time consuming and expensive process of which the benefits are not yet quantified. Biofeedback
training can reduce stress levels and thus increase response time and reduce errors of pilots during critical moments.
3. Research Question, Aim/Objectives and Sub-goals
The current man-machine model is inadequate. Pilots do not always respond as expected [BEA, 2012]. This research
aims at going to the moon, taking the first steps of cognitive enhancement in the ATPL training and selection
process.

Research question
How can biofeedback training benefit airline pilot performance under high mental workload and in time critical
situations?

Sub Goals
Determine which modern ambulant psychophysiological equipment is the most effective
Determine which psychophysiological variables are related to stress amongst pilots
Determine which flight scenarios exceed the human performance envelope, relative to their cognitive profile
Determine which subjects (cognitive profile) are more prone to degraded performance under high workload

The experiment can be conducted by bringing the expertise of several universities in the Netherlands together.
Modern equipment which is sufficient for this research is within university budgets. Simulators can be used from
D.P. Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014
research facilities and/or flight academies. A renowned academy has indicated willingness to support this project.
The results of this research will provide short term training solutions in order to tackle (a part of) loss of control
issues.
4. Theoretical Content/Methodology
Hypothesis
Psychophysiological measures can be determined and influenced in order to provide mental training for airline
pilots, resulting in significant flight performance improvement during normal and abnormal workload situations
(cognitive overload).

Using a variety of cognitive and physical measurement tools, combined with instructor rating, a before and after
measurement will be made. Psychophysical tools are used to determine electroencephalography (EEG), skin
conductance (EDA), heart rate variability (HRV), eye movement and blink rate. Work load performance tools such
as the NASA task load tool (NASA-TLX) and an experimental test battery (tested on hundreds of students and
operational) developed by the University of Amsterdam (UvA) can be used for creating a cognitive fingerprint of
the participants.

The intervention techniques shall consist of physiological coherence training, neurofeedback training and if time and
resources allow, a set of breathing exercises (at the time of writing of this research proposal, several parties are still
debating about their level of participation).
5. Experimental Set-up
The test subjects will be 30 flight academy students or trained and experienced pilots, (discuss with
trainers/experienced pilot/selection personnel). The subjects will be divided into three groups; one group shall
receive training one, the second group training two and the third group serves as a control group. For feasibility and
availability, flight students would be the best option. These students have to be at the same level of expertise,
finished their basic training and all finished their type ratings, preferably on Airbus A320 aircraft due to a high
automation complexity level.

Summary of the experiment:
- Initial measurement with UvA test battery, gives cognitive profile of all participants. Check for individual
differences

- All subjects fly equal scenarios, normal conditions and a cognitive overload condition mimicked by an
unanticipated situation. Data will be extracted concurrently. Participants will have to sign a non-disclosure
agreement in order to prevent contamination between individuals
o What is the relationship between flying performance (rated by instructors) and subjects cognitive
profile? Compare performance during normal conditions with test battery measurements
o What is the relationship between cognitive profiles and behavioural responses to emergency
situations? Deduct flight performance during overload conditions from performance during normal
conditions (normal performance minus overload performance). Compare relative degrading with
subjects cognitive profile
o What is the relationship between cognitive profiles and physiological responses to overload.
Deduct physiological responses during overload conditions during normal operations (normal
physiology minus overload physiology). Compare relative degrading with subjects cognitive
profile
o Compare change in physiology with change in performance

- Training. Neurofeedback and physiological coherence training (amount to be determined from literature and
external expertise)

- Second test battery measurement for all participants
o Determine relative change in cognitive profile by deducting second battery test from the first

- All subjects fly equal second series of scenarios
D.P. Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014
o Which cognitive profiles benefit from biofeedback training? Deduct performance during overload
conditions from normal conditions of second flight series (normal performance 2
nd
flight minus
overload performance 2
nd
flight). Deduct this relative degrading from the initially found degrading.
Compare difference with subjects cognitive profile
o Which cognitive changes explain the improvement of performance? Deduct performance during
overload conditions from performance under normal conditions of second flight series. Deduct this
figure from results extracted from first series of flight (performance difference 2
nd
flight minus
performance difference 1
st
flight) Compare the change in flight performance with the change in
cognitive profile
o Which physiological changes explain the improvement of performance? Deduct physiological
responses during overload conditions from physiological responses under normal conditions.
Deduct this figure from results extracted from first series of flight (physiology 2
nd
flight minus
physiology 1
st
flight). Compare the change in flight performance with the change in cognitive
profile
o Compare change in physiology with change in performance

Equipment
- Portable EEG. Will set up a document and inquire for a 20 band EEG helmet. Preferably portable and
wireless. Low cost and reliable is available on the market. Between 500,- and 1500,- or provided free of
charge by one of the universities.
- Simulators, provided by a flight academy or the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR)
- For physiological coherence, the emWave2 will be used. Costs 200,- per unit.
- Test battery of the UvA, free of charge
- Neurofeedback equipment, provided by external universities including expertise. May need to hire experts
- Budget for equipment and external expertise available within the TU Delft (confirmed)

Manpower
- 30 pilots as test subjects
- 2 instructors for rating
- 1 or 2 instructors to set up scenarios (internal at TU)
- Neurological expert for training and analysis (external from Leiden or Rotterdam)

This experiment can be classified as within subjects (test battery for cognitive profiles) AND between subjects
(different types of training). Psychophysiological data analysis will be by one of the Universities of Psychology
located in Leiden or Rotterdam (to be confirmed). An employer of Flight Simulator Industries is going to help with
the programming of the scenarios (free of charge).
6. Results, Outcome and Relevance
The experiment will give a large set of data from which the following conclusions can be drawn:
Difference of performance within subjects, compared with their unique cognitive profile. These should
hardly vary, since performance per individual is relatively consistent for recreational pilots and thus one can
assume the same accounts for airline pilots [Wilson, 2002].
Difference of performance between subjects, relative to the effectiveness of two distinct mental training
programs
Relationship between degraded performance and psychophysiological values

Mental training is expected to improve flight performance and reduce psychophysiological response significantly.
Pilots will learn faster, are less prone to make errors, experience less stress and will be more resilient towards
unanticipated situations.
D.P. Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014
7. Project Planning and Gantt Chart






D.P. Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014
8. Conclusions
Loss of control is the largest contributor to hull losses in the aviation industry [EASA IGPT, 2013]. On the long run
(10 years) technical design, pilot training and legislation may push accident rates past the mythical 10
-7
barrier of
ultra-safe transportation systems [J acobsen, 2010]. Short term improvements can be achieved by a mental training
program for pilots [Li et al, 2013]. This research aims at providing the industry with more emotionally and stress
resilient pilots, in order to improve their overall flying performance. A sub goal is to open doors between
universities, research facilities and aviation professionals in the Netherlands, sparking an interest on the topic of
cognitive performance enhancement programs for airline pilots.
9. References
Airbus. Flight operations briefing notes, human performance. 2005 - 2007

R.R. Amalberti. Automation in Aviation : A human factors perspective, in D.Garland, J .Wise & D. Hopkin (Eds)
Aviation Human Factors, (pp 173-192, chapter 7), Hillsdale- New J ersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998

R. R. Amalberti. The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Science, 37(2-3):109126,
March 2001.

R. R. Amalberti. Navigating Safety. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2013

BOEING, Statistical Summary of Commercial J et Airplane Accidents 2012, August 2013

Bureau dEnqutes et dAnalyses pour la scurit de laviation civile (BEA). Final report on the accident on 1st june
2009 to the airbus a330-203 registered F-GZCP operated by air france flight AF447 rio de janeiro paris. 2012

C. Borst, Ecological approach to pilot terrain awareness. Delft repository: Borst, 2009

P. S. Cowings et al. Autogenic Feedback Training Exercise and pilot performance: enhanced functioning under
search-and-rescue flying conditions. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 11.3: 303-315. 2001

S. W. A. Dekker and D. D. Woods, MABA-MABA or abracadabra? progress on HumanAutomation co-ordination.
4(4):240244, 2002

Eurocontrol. Safety whitepaper - safety I and safety II, towards a Resilience Engineering perspective. Retrieved from
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/nm/safety/safety_whitepaper_sept_2013-web.pdf,
September 2013

FAST, Summary of the FAST Analysis of the Top Priority Area of Change Increasing Reliance on Flight Deck
Automation. May 2006

T. Ferris, N. Sarter, and C. D. Wickens. Cockpit automation: still struggling to catch up. Human factors in Aviation,
pages 479503. Elsevier, 2010

D. C. Hammond. What is neurofeedback: An update. Journal of Neurotherapy 15.4 : 305-336. 2011

S. Hanslmayr et al. Increasing individual upper alpha power by neurofeedback improves cognitive performance in
human subjects. Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback 30.1: 1-10. 2005

A. Hobbs. Human factors: The last frontier of aviation safety? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology,
14(4):331345, October 2004

E. Hollnagel, Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (Human Factors and Ergonomics). CRC Press, 1 edition, J une
2003

D.P. Gorter - 14079159 February 6, 2014
E. Hollnagel. Epilogue: RAGthe resilience analysis grid. Resilience engineering in practice: A guidebook 275-296,
2011

Internal Group on Personnel Training EASA, EASA automation policy - bridging design and training principles,
May 2013

S.R. Jacobson. Aircraft loss of control causal factors and mitigation challenges. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, August 2010

R.S. Jensen. The boundaries of aviation psychology, human factors, aeronautical decision making, situation
awareness, and crew resource management. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4):259267,
October 1997

W. Li, F. Chiu, Y. Kuo, and K. Wu. The investigation of visual attention and workload by experts and novices in the
cockpit. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Applications and Services, volume 8020 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, pages 167176+. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013

G. F. Wilson. An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological
measures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 12.1 : 3-18. 2002

B. Zoefel, R. J. Huster, and C. S. Herrmann. Neurofeedback training of the upper alpha frequency band in EEG
improves cognitive performance. Neuroimage 54.2 : 1427-1431. 2011