poster garmin g1000 touchscreen interface
TRANSCRIPT
printed by
www.postersession.com
Garmin G1000 Touchscreen Interface UpgradeJoseph T. Ott
Elizabeth L. Blickensderfer, Ph.D.Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Daytona Beach, FL
In addition to the many tasks associated with operating an aircraft, student pilots must also struggle to keep up with
technological advances in the cockpit. With the introduction of the Garmin G1000 into the general aviation world, pilots have
been forced to learn the ways of the highly sophisticated and overly complex Garmin system. With dozens of hours of
training and technical learning required to properly and fully take advantage of all the G1000 has to offer, many pilots,
especially the aging and technologically inept pilots, experience difficulty and confusion with using the current control input
methods. Performing simple tasks such as entering a flight plan and selecting items on the map require scrutinous knob
dialing and page shuffling in order to complete. The current methods of input for the Garmin G1000 are unnecessarily
intricate and require far too much time and concentration to complete. This type of distraction can be detrimental to pilots who
must maintain a high level of situational awareness at all times.
In order to remedy this issue we propose a simple upgrade to the Garmin G1000 allowing it to be controlled though a
touchscreen interface. Cognitively speaking, it is much more intuitive and practical to use a touch screen for inputting
information rather than a plethora of buttons and dials surrounding the display in a confusing manor. The touchscreen
interface we are proposing will decrease the number of steps needed to perform common pilots must conduct prior to, and
during flight procedures. Because of this, the touchscreen interface will also allow pilots to complete each task in less time,
which will allow the pilot to maintain a higher level of situational awareness whether they are in flight or on the ground. This
new touchscreen input method can be implemented cheaply and effectively. The only retrofitting needed will be a simple
replacement of the LCD screen currently in place on the G1000, with a new touchscreen LCD interface, as well as an update
to the system’s software to allow touchscreen input from the newly upgraded hardware. Utilizing a touchscreen will also
allow for a more immersive learning experience that can be more easily understood since the new system will be completely
intuitive and will require less time and money spent on training.
In today’s aviation world there are only few airplanes in any class not coming off the assembly line with glass panels.
Aviation glass cockpits such as Garmin’s G1000 are currently a complex visual collage of numerous graphics and symbols
with multi-page interface designs entailing many options and sub-options for accessing information needed for flight. This
new method of displaying flight information merges all the information that used to be accessed through individually
separated radio and control units. In the past, the pilot was responsible for combining all of this information in order to form a
visuospatial mental picture of the cockpit, otherwise known as situational awareness. Across the country operating training
schools are ordering all-glass panels because by the time their students complete their training they will most likely be
required to operate one. More importantly, almost any model aircraft in existence is suitable for retrofit upgrades. These new
systems undoubtedly enhance aviation safety, but glass cockpits are useless if the operator is not extremely trained and
proficient in using them.
The present study assesses general aviation pilots and their required workload output necessary to operate the Garmin
G1000, and the benefits of simplifying the G1000 by retrofitting it with touchscreen interface. The touchscreen interface will
reduce the number of steps required to perform most tasks pilots must conduct prior to, and during flight procedures. The
touchscreen interface will also reduce time needed to complete each task, decreasing the time necessary to input commands
and therefore increasing situational awareness for the pilot. With the incorporation of this new touchscreen input method,
pilots who are transitioning to advanced avionics systems that integrate numerous functions including engine health, systems
status, and fuel management/computation, can now benefit from less training time and increased competence as a result of the
intuitive and user-centered design of the proposed Garmin G1000 touchscreen interface.
Human Factors & Systems Engineering
“As computer-based avionics become more ubiquitous in general aviation aircraft, systematic usability
evaluations will become more critical in order to assure pilot safety and customer satisfaction.”
Which may lead to…
Deviations or Incursions
Loss of situational Awareness
Incidents and/or accidents
May cause…
Input errorsHigh levels of on-
screen concentrationIncreased workload
Current Garmin G1000 Input Methods
Multi-faceted knobs
Cluttering amount of soft
keys
Ambiguous text input
Limited flexibility
Language barriers
Prolonged command entry time
A look at the mean scores for the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique shows pilots are in agreement
that Time Load (1), Mental Effort Load (2), and Psychological Stress Load (3) are considerably high while using the
current Garmin G1000 input using multifaceted dials and numerous soft keys (see table 1).
Table 1: Participants responded to each labeled work load type on a 1-3 scale with 1 being least intense, and 3 being most intense.
For our custom designed survey portion of the pilot survey we graded each flight deck with seven questions
engineered to rate the overall difficulties participants experienced in using first the current G1000 interface, then
with the proposed touch screen interface (see table 2).
Table 2: Participants responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale with less favorable traits as 1 and most favorable traits as 7.
Participants
The sample consisted of 9 pilots who had an average of 279 flight hours and who have received either complete or
partial training with the Garmin G1000 flight deck.
Apparatus
To assess pilots’ performance with the current Garmin G1000 system, we first created a hierarchical task analysis
based off of common tasks that pilots frequently perform with their Garmin G1000 systems each time fly. These tasks were
derived from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s standard flight department task checklists. We utilized the Garmin
G1000 simulator program in place of the actual system for testing purposes. After surveying several pilot members of the
University to agree on a list common tasks, compiled a set of 6 tasks pilots may have to complete when flying. Next, we
walked though every step for each task, and noted each individual task creating a hierarchical order of steps needing to be
done in order to complete the overall task. After recording necessary data we compiled a hierarchical task analysis (HTA) list
with each task represented with a different number, and the corresponding steps for that task represented with progressive
numbered coding. After assessing the HTA, we developed theoretical touchscreen methods to complete each of the 6 original
tasks using simple and intuitive gestures on the display. The touchscreen tasks were designed with less steps required to
complete each task, as well as visual and auditory cues for confirmation of command input.
To assess the effectiveness of our proposed touchscreen input methods, first we had the pilots conduct each of the 6
tasks using the current G1000 input system. After completing all tasks, pilots were asked to assess the time load, mental effort
load, and psychological stress loads perceived during tasking utilizing the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique
(SWAT) analysis. Next, the pilots were then asked to rate the current G1000 system with the Cooper-Harper Scale, which is
specifically design to measure the quality of aircraft designs. Then the pilots answered a custom created Likert-rating scale
type questions concerning the usability of flight decks. To assess our proposed touchscreen design, the pilots were then
instructed on how to complete each of the 6 tasks using the theoretical touchscreen interface. Finally pilots were asked to rate
the new touchscreen input methods with the same custom designed Likert-rating scale questionnaire, using the same
parameters the used to rate the current G100 system. Results were collected and analyzed with the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences software and results were generated revealing the differences in pilot response between all 7 parameters of
assessment.
Abstract
Baber, C., Jenkins, D. P., Salmon, P. M., & Walker, G. H. (2006). Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for
Engineering And Design. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Charlton, S. G., & O'Brien, T. G. (2001). Questionnaire Techniques for Test and Evaluation. Handbook of Human
Factors Testing and Evaluation (2 ed., pp. 225-246). Boca Raton: CRC.
Hamblin, C. J., Miller, C., & Naidu, S. (2006). Comparison of Three Avionics Systems Based Upon Information
Availability, Priorities and Accessibility. PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS
SOCIETY 50th ANNUAL MEETING, 53, 1825-1828. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from the IntegraConnect
database.
Rubio, S., Diaz, E., Martin, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of Subjective Mental Workload: A Comparison of
SWAT, NASA-TLX, and Workload Profile Methods. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL
REVIEW, 53(1), 61-86. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain database.
Overall, the pilots who served as subject matter experts (SME’s) displayed an overall higher difficulty level in
learning and using the current Garmin G1000 input method. SWAT analysis findings proved that using the current
design in a flight deck for general aviation aircraft results significantly high in levels of time load, mental effort,
physiological stress. Because our intuitive user-centered touchscreen prototype was not a functioning prototype, it
would be unfair to rate it using a SWAT analysis. To thoroughly compare the two input systems our custom created
questionnaire was used to determine specific important parameters to be considered in the functionality of flight deck
design. Sure enough the data supported the fact that our touchscreen prototype design reduces complexity, creates an
easier input method, requires less technical support, supports higher levels of task integration, delegates correct inputs
more frequently, increases learning speed, and above all increases confidence levels of the operators.
In addition to the quantifiable data supporting our touchscreen design, open ended opinions were collected from
all SME’s after testing was completed. The new touchscreen interface sparked an incredible amount of interest and
support among the pilots. Every touchscreen input method was well favored, and some extra suggestions given were
also implemented into the final prototype design. This upgrade proposal is indeed advantageous, however initial
reactions were of excitement and relief that the current interface was being examined and redesign with an easier and
more instinctive layout. Further information should be collected including the testing of many more parameters and
functionality evaluations to produce a functional prototype. This study hopes to raise awareness that the current G1000
input methods are overly technical and desperately needs to be easily and effectively be transferred to an alternate input
system such as a touchscreen.
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Table 2: Means & Std. Deviations of User Responses Between
Input System Complexity
Ease of Technical Task Input Learning Confidence
Use Support Integration Consistency Speed Level
G1000 Current Interface Mean (SD) 2.00 (1.06) 2.37(1.19) 3.75 (1.67) 3.75 (1.04) 3.38 (1.51) 2.63 (1.60) 4.25 (1.67)
Proposed Touchscreen Interface Mean (SD) 4.75(.46) 5.12(.64) 5.25(.87) 5.88 (.99) 6.25 (.70) 6.38 (.83) 3.21 (.83)
Time Load
Mental Effort Load
Psychological Stress Load
Drag finger from plane to
destination to plot course
LEAN | SYSTEMRST FUEL | GAL REM
Info:
RNWYs
FREQs
GPS To
FPL
Back
35 gal
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
CLR 0 ENT
FPL
Back
ENGINE
Multi-function
icons for
quicker and
more direct
system
navigation.
Elimination of
soft-keys to
reduce clutter.
On-screen
progressive tap
through menu
including
number pad for
rapid entry.
1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
1
2
3