Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to A H Roscoe.
Measurements were made of blue light radiance on the flight deck of an aircraft during a flight from London to Spain. Although the levels recorded were below the threshold limit value, pilots were exposed to radiance levels which may be an order of magnitude higher than encountered by people outdoors at ground level.
The need to assess pilot workload during flight has become of increasing importance over the past decade--both in combat aircraft where workload can be excessive, and in civil transport aircraft where underload may occur. Subjective reporting in some form has been the long and well established method for assessing workload in the 'real world'. but because subjective opinions are vulnerable to bias and to preconceived notions, an additional measure can be of considerable value on occasions. Of the available psychophysiological variables, recording pilots' heart rates appears to be the most useful. This paper discusses the choice of this measure and presents examples from several studies in which workload was assessed in flight.
The application of heart rate and respiratory measures to the human factors of flight is discussed. The concept of pilot workload is related to the concept of arousal and distinguished from physical workload. Finds from studies of pilot workload using heart rate measures are reviewed for flight, simulated flight and related real-life challenges. Measurement techniques and transducers are discussed from the perspective of field measurement. Recommended procedures are presented as are directions for future work.
The ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure of airline pilots during flight was measured with ultraviolet-sensitive film badges. The badges were worn by flight crew on the epaulette nearest to the window of either a Boeing 737 or 767 during 18 different flights in 1989. The results showed in every case that the UVR exposure was negligible; a flight lasting several hours resulted in an exposure equivalent to no more than a minute or two outdoors. There is anecdotal evidence that pilots may be at increased risk of developing skin cancer compared with many other occupational groups. The suggestion that this is due to significant exposure to UVR, the main aetiological factor in skin cancer, on the flight deck cannot be sustained.
Several studies have highlighted the increase in physiological activity which occurs in pilots during flight and especially during takeoffs and landings. For example, it has been clearly demonstrated that pilots' heart rates increase during the landing approach to reach a peak at or just before touchdown. These changes have been attributed to workload and to psychological or emotional stress. This paper examines a number of test pilots' heart rate responses recorded during various flight trials involving different types of aircraft. Examples include ramp takeoffs in a VTOL fighter, automatic landings in fog, supersonic flight through monsoon rain, and a sortie in which the pilot developed acute appendicitis. It is concluded that heart rate responses in experienced pilots are influenced almost entirely by workload-related factors and not by emotional stressors, such as risk and anxiety. Because of the emotional overtones of the word "stress," it is suggested that the term workload should be used when referring to the reason for increased cardiovascular activity of pilots.
Experimental test pilots involved in the flight evaluation of handling qualities and systems were monitored for heart rate during an investigation to assess the possible use of this measure to augment their subjective opinions. Reference is made to examples from several different flight trials using a variety of aircraft types. It is concluded that pilot heart rate measurement is a worthwhile technique and can play a useful part in flight evaluation provided that certain limitations are recognised.
As part of a large scale investigation into noise abatement landing approaches, one trial involved the flight evaluation of steep-gradient and two-segment approaches; these were 3 degress, 6 degrees, 7.5 degrees, and 9 degrees single-segment, and 7.5 degrees/3 degrees two-segment approaches. To augment the subjective opinions of the test pilots, their heart rates were monitored during all the experimental runs. The resulting heart rate values for the different approaches correlated reasonably well with the subjective ratings of the relative workload levels. There is some evidence that the pilot workload level for the 7.5 degrees/3 degrees approaches is of the same order as the level for the conventional 3 degrees gradient.