【正文】 ion in pilot workload and increased safety...Although many of these benefits have been realized, serious questions have arisen and incidents/accidents that have occurred which question the underlying assumptions that a maximum available automation is ALWAYS appropriate or that we understand how to design automated systems so that they are fully patible with the capabilities and limitations of the humans in the system. ATA, 1989 The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Flight Systems Integration Committee(1989) made the above statement in response to the proliferation of automation in aviation. They noted that technology improvements, such as the ground proximity warning system, have had dramatic benefits。 1997) of NASA, to assert that automation should be approached from a humancentered design perspective. The period from 1970 to the present was marked by an increase in the use of electronic display units (EDUs)。 alerting and warning systems, such as the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) and ground proximity warning system (GPWS。 TAWS)。 autothrottles) have been acpanied by certain costs, including an increased cognitive burden on pilots, new information requirements that have required additional training, and more plex, tightly coupled, less 中英文資料 observable systems (Billings, 1997). As a result, human factors research in aviation has focused on the effects of information and management automation. The issues of interest include overreliance on automation, clumsy automation (., Wiener, 1989), digital versus analog control, skill degradation, crew coordination, and data overload (., Billings, 1997). Furthermore, research has also been directed toward situational awareness (mode amp。 Endsley, 1994。 Sarter, 1991) associated with plexity, coupling, autonomy, and inadequate feedback. Finally, human factors research has introduced new automation concepts that will need to be integrated into the existing suite of aviation automation. Clearly, the human factors issues of automation have significant implications for safety in aviation. However, what exactly do we mean by automation? The way we choose to define automation has considerable meaning for how we see the human role in modern aerospace systems. The next section considers the concept of automation, followed by an examination of human factors issues of humanautomation interaction in aviation. Next, a potential remedy to the problems raised is described, called adaptive automation. Finally, the humancentered design philosophy is discussed and proposals are made for how the philosophy can be applied to this advanced form of automation. The perspective is considered in terms of the Physiological /Psychological Stressors amp。 or it can be thought of as a state of technological development (Parsons, 1985). However, some people (., Woods, 1996) have questioned whether automation should be viewed as a substitution of one agent for another (see apparent simplicity, real plexity below). Nevertheless, the presence of automation has pervaded almost every aspect of modern lives. From the wheel to the modern jet aircraft, humans have sought to improve the quality of life. We have built machines and systems that not only make work easier, more efficient, and safe, but also give us more leisure time. The advent of automation has further enabled us to achieve this end. With automation, machines can now perform many of the activities that we once had to do. Our automobile 中英文資料 transmission will shift gears for us. Our airplanes will fly themselves for us. All we have to do is turn the machine on and off. It has even been suggested that one day there may not be a need for us to do even that. However, the increase in “cognitive” accidents resulting from faulty humanautomation interaction have led many in the human factors munity to conclude that such a statement may be premature. Automation Accidents. A number of aviation accidents and incidents have been directly attributed to automation. Examples of such in aviation mishaps include (from Billings, 1997): DC10 landing in control wheel steering A330 accident at Toulouse B747 upset over Pacific DC10 overrun at JFK, New York B747 unmandedroll,Nakina,Ont. A320 accident at MulhouseHabsheim A320 accident at Strasbourg A300 accident at Nagoya B757 accident at Cali, Columbia A320 accident at Bangalore A320 landing at Hong Kong B737 wet runway overruns A320 overrun at Warsaw B757 climbout at Manchester A310 approach at Orly DC9 wind shear at Charlotte Billings (1997) notes that each of these accidents has a different etiology, and that human factors investigation of causes show the matter to be plex. However, what is clear is that the percentage of accident causes has fundamentally shifted from machinecaused to humancaused (estimations of 6080% due to human error) etiologies, and the shift is attributable to the change in types of automation that have evolved in aviation. Types of Automation There are a number of different types of automation and the descriptions of them vary considerably. Billings (1997) offers the following types of automation: ? OpenLoop Mechanical or Electronic Control. Automation is controlled by gravity or spring motors driving gears and cams that allow continous and repetitive motion. Positioning, forcing, and timing were dictated by the mechanism and environmental factors (., wind). The automation of factories during the Industrial Revolution would represent this type of automation. ? Classic Linear Feedback Control. Automation is controlled as a function of differences between a reference setting of desired output and the actual output. Changes are made to system parameters to re