human factors

16-18 Handbook of Aviation Human Factors
design it means getting formal critiques from experienced peers to learn if the concept aligns with the
context. Fusing the different approaches to analysis–synthesis–evaluation is where the interdisciplinary
value lies. Beith and Jasinski (2006) stated,
The integration and interaction of industrial design and human factors can be challenging.
Because the players are so different, there can be a natural angst associated with the interactions
and ultimate compromises needed to find the best solutions and the best designs. However, when
combined effectively, industrial design and human factors can produce dramatic and very successful
results. (p. 29)
The integration of human factors and industrial design activities has become a topic of discussion
and conference across both the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), and the Industrial
Designers Society of America (IDSA). There is an increasing appreciation of the overlap between the disciplines,
as well as a growing respect for their respective and unique skill contributions as well as their
inherent connectedness and compatibility. A handful of design schools are including formal human
factors content in their curriculums, while somewhat fewer engineering psychology departments are
also integrating industrial design.
In realizing this interdisciplinarity, the implications for a much deeper, much richer product are far
beyond the simple aesthetics focus of this chapter. We have two disciplines with fundamentally different
approaches to analysis–synthesis–evaluation, and the outcome of their integration on the flight deck is
the opportunity for formal and functional integrity.
16.13 Summary and Next Steps
We have broadly assumed for many years that emotion does not belong in the flight deck—humans in
the cockpit are meant to do their jobs rationally and efficiently, serving as an extension of the aircraft
system. In fact, pilots themselves may be the first to claim that accommodation of emotion is bunk, the
rational pilot is meant to have nerves of steel, and to be emotionless. It is not the purpose of this chapter
to suggest that this basic discipline of emotion is misplaced—indeed it is a necessity in aviation. But even
the concept of nerves of steel is conveyed as an emotion, and we can certainly consider the design’s role
in facilitating the generation of appropriate feeling with formal and functional integrity. Moreover, we
are faced with the probability that emotions can easily drive and constrain cognitions.
At its core, electing to fly airplanes is not a terribly rational choice. There are certainly easier ways to
make a living, and the risks and rewards of aviation are not always logically connected. We often hear
of the love or romance of flying, and are well acquainted with the inspiration and wonder that human
flight engenders. Yet, all of these characteristics are predominately emotional in nature, even as the
job of flying is mostly, we think, cognitive and physical in nature. Thus, we have a substantial rift—
the emotionally disciplined individuals who excel at flying an aircraft most likely resonate with the
emotions that flying gives them.
Accounting for the emotional aspects of flight deck design, whether through visual aesthetics as
discussed here, or through feelings of aircraft integrity as suggested by integrated form and function
together, or by some yet unresearched aspect of design, seems an obvious area in which to extend our
knowledge. What feeling does a pilot need to receive from a flight deck A confirmation of control
A feeling of precision An emotion of engagement A validation of power And what are the consequences
when the design adversely affects, puts the pilot out of control, or engenders distrust And what
are the appropriate modalities and interactions of aesthetics and emotional design for flight decks—
visual, auditory, tactile And how do they interact with basic spatial and temporal perception, cognition,
and decision-making
A number of questions like these are yet unanswered. My hope is that by moving beyond the fundamental
block of “I don’t care how it looks, I only care how it works,” we can move on to the larger issues