Expertise and responsibility effects on pilots' reactions to flight deck alerts in a simulator.

INTRODUCTION: Flight deck alerts provide system malfunction information designed to lead corresponding pilot reactions aimed at guaranteeing flight safety. This study examined the roles of expertise and flight responsibility and their relationship to pilots' reactions to flight deck alerts.

METHODS: There were 17 pilots composing 12 flight crews that were assigned into pairs according to flight hours and responsibilities. The experiment included 9 flight scenarios and was carried out in a CRJ-200 flight simulator. Pilot performance was recorded by a wide angle video camera, and four kinds of reactions to alerts were defined for analysis.

RESULTS: Pilots tended to have immediate reactions to uninterrupted cautions, with a turning off rate as high as 75%. However, this rate decreased sharply when pilots encountered interrupted cautions and warnings; they also exhibited many wrong reactions to warnings. Pilots with more expertise had more reactions to uninterrupted cautions than those with less expertise, both as pilot flying and pilot monitoring. Meanwhile, the pilot monitoring, regardless of level of expertise, exhibited more reactions than the pilot flying. In addition, more experienced pilots were more likely to have wrong reactions to warnings while acting as the monitoring pilot.

CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that both expertise and flight responsibility influence pilots' reactions to alerts. Considering crew pairing strategy, when a pilot flying is a less experienced pilot, a more experience pilot is suggested to be the monitoring pilot. The results of this study have implications for understanding pilots' behaviors to flight deck alerts, calling for specialized training and design of approach alarms on the flight deck.